Zyvetskistaahn:
Hello, I have some questions.
In what circumstances is it appropriate for the Attorney General to utilise their general standing in relation to requests for review to bring a matter to the Court? Are there different considerations in relation to matters where individual residents, or classes of them, are likely to be considered to be affected parties as compared to matters where it is likely that no individual or class could be so considered?
This is a great question, I would have to say that when there is no clear individual that has standing to bring a matter before the courts that the Attorney General should utilize their standing. In the case of individuals, I believe that the AG should utilize their standing if said individual is uncomfortable in their ability to properly represent themselves to the court. In the case of groups of individuals, I believe that the AG should make use of their general standing if it would be difficult it determine who among that group would have standing with the court. In the case where no individual or group has standing, I believe that the AG should use their general standing if the matter requiring review needs to be dealt with in an expedient manner and determining who would have standing would delay proceedings to the extent that it would be detrimental to the community.
Zyvetskistaahn:
In what circumstances would it be appropriate to exercise the discretion of the Attorney General to refuse to prosecute a criminal complaint?
There are very few circumstances that I believe the AG should refuse to pursue prosecution. When deciding to prosecute I believe that the AG should ask themselves three questions: Is the complaint valid? By that I mean is what is being alleged in the complaint actually the crime or a misinterpretation of the law. Does the evidence support the complaint? Finally, is the evidence reliable? If the answer is no, I believe it would be proper for the AGs office to decline prosecution.
Zyvetskistaahn:
The Attorney General is constitutionally required to act as legal adviser to officers of the executive on request, if you were requested to so act by the Delegate and advised that a particular act by them would, in your belief, be unlawful and they nonetheless did that act, how would you respond? Would your response differ if the officer was the Vice Delegate, a Minister, or an Election Commissioner?
Well, if I advised a government official that the actions they were about to take are illegal and they went ahead and did at anyway, I would have to remind them of their responsibility as a government official to conduct themselves in accordance with the law and offer them the opportunity to remedy the situation. If they still chose to continue with the illegal action, I would have to request that the Court review their actions and if the illegal action warranted, filing the appropriate criminal charges. I believe that regardless of the position in the government, that we are all equal under the law, so I would like to think that I would treat the Election Commissioner the same way I would treat the Delegate.
Zyvetskistaahn:
At present the law of evidence in TNP is contained almost wholly in the Rules of the Court and in rulings of the Court, should consideration be given to endeavouring to codify at least some of the law of evidence and add it to the Codified Law? Why or why not?
Personally, I believe so. While Rulings of the Court do indeed carry the force of law, having them codified would, in my opinion, ensure that all evidence is treated equally and consistently, as Court Rulings may be overturned at a later date whole codified lay may only be amended by a majority vote in the Regional Assembly.
Zyvetskistaahn:
Is the current law on sentencing sufficient? Whether or not it is, could it be improved in any particular way?
While I believe that the Penal Code sufficiently and appropriately covers matters of sentencing, I believe it could be improved by including maximum sentences instead of simply stating 'a finite amount of time'. Imposing maximum sentences would ensure that the punishment fits the crime by making sure that no one is punished too harshly.
Artemis:
As the Attorney General is often not a very demanding job, except when it is, how will you prepare for the occassions when the AG is needed to act?
Ah, I would have to say that having enough well trained Deputies to designate could help mitigate the demands of the office during those trying times
Artemis:
Do you plan to appoint any Deputy AG and if so how many?
Yes, any government official needs support from time to time. I would like to appoint at least 3, one current Deputy AG, to ensure and that relevant experience is maintained and two fresh faces.
Artemis:
How will you prepare any DAGs that you might appoint?
I would start by having discussions with my appointed Deputies regarding the Constitution and Legal Code, to ensure that they had a proper understanding and interpretation of the law.
Artemis:
Do you see the office of the Attorney General as being a reactive or proactive position?
While I see the Office of the AG as primarily reactionary, I believe that a proactive approach can be taken in most of its' duties. For example, keeping an eye out for any possible criminal activity as opposed to waiting for a criminal complaint to be filed and monitoring the actions of the government for anything that may require legal advice to be given.
Clean Land:
The following complaints are made(with credible evidence supporting them):
2."The Speaker refused to give me citizenship! I passed both checks! This is outrageous!"
I would remind the petitioner that there are actually three checks to obtain citizenship and recommend that they correct the issue raised by the Speaker check, or failing that, petition the Regional Assembly for citizenship.
Clean Land:
3."The Speaker is biased! I presented my wonderful bill and demanded the speaker to bring it to vote ASAP, but they declined!"
I would inform the complainant that the Speaker is operating well withing the bounds of their office by refusing a
demand to bring any proposal to vote. The Court has ruled that the speaker can table any debate or vote that they feel would be detrimental to the region.
Clean Land:
4."The Vice Delegate refused to admit me as Citizen because I didn't endorse the delegate! The Regional Assembly upheld that decision on the same reason! That is a violation of my rights!"
Since Section 4 of the Bill of Rights covers this, I do believe that this would go against the VDs Oath of Office and would consider pursuing Gross Misconduct charges and since the RA has already declined to grant citizenship, I would have to file a review in the Court.
Clean Land:
5."My army application was rejected because I was deemed not trustworthy!"
As the members of the NPA are charged with the security with the region and our allies, if the Executive Officer in charge of the NPA feels that you are a threat to TNPs security I believe they would be right to reject an application.
Clean Land:
6."The Delegate is planning a coup!"
As this is a very serious allegation, if I received strong, compelling evidence that the Delegate was planning to overthrow the government I would have to notify the Security Council so that they could begin to make necessary preparations and since it is currently a planned coup, and not one that was actually attempted, I believe an indictment for Conspiracy to Commit Treason would be warranted.
Clean Land:
7.The Minister of Defense complains:"The Delegate and 20 members of the Army have just performed a DDOS attack against a forum of an enemy we declared war on without my prior knowledge! That is illegal!"
Why yes it is. I guess that means a rather large criminal prosecution would be about to take place since it is covered by Section 1.4. of the Criminal Code, Crashing, Phishing, or Spamming.
