Urquhart For Attorney General

James Urquhart

James Urquhart

TNPer
2e0sfts.jpg

A summary of my experience can be found under "Attorney Urquhart" in this dispatch:

https://www.nationstates.net/page=dispatch/id=869448
 
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?

In what circumstances would it be appropriate to exercise the discretion of the Attorney General to refuse to prosecute a criminal complaint?

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?

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?

Is the current law on sentencing sufficient? Whether or not it is, could it be improved in any particular way?
 
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?

In what circumstances would it be appropriate to exercise the discretion of the Attorney General to refuse to prosecute a criminal complaint?

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?

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?

Is the current law on sentencing sufficient? Whether or not it is, could it be improved in any particular way?
Click to expand...
Thank you for your questions.

1.When talking about using a government action that could be cause for review its difficult to pin down going into specifics and hypotheticals. I think we should keep somewhat strictly to people who were directly affected under the government action etc. Of course what the government action was or it's broadness depends widely on the situation. I wouldn't go into classes of Residents if I could keep from it. Often times it's individual Residents or citizens that are in a review, at least thats my overall NS experience.

2. The only time I would refuse to go after someone who has had a Criminal complaint filed against them is if the evidence clearly not enough to meet a burden of proof OR if I found overwhelming expultory evidence showing that they couldn't have committed the offense.

3. If I gave Legal advise to an official and they refused to act then that's their call. I would obviously make a an advisement that they shouldnt do something illegal. Depending on what the advise is, for example, if I advise an official that taking x action will be a crime and then they commit such crime then they will be prosecuted. My general response would not differ based on the individual, but possibly the situation.

4.Its probably better to not codify the Court rulings. I feel this would give the court more flexibility. When you codify something almost any court would then try to stick more strictly with what the legislative branch wanted and this might prove inconvenient. For the time being keeping it the way it is is more convenient.

5. I think that the current Penal Code is sufficient. I think it's tough enough on punishment etc. I can't think of any meaningful reforms right off the top of my head. Any changes would need to not sacrifice the current toughness of sentencing punishments.
 
Thank you for your answers, I have some follow-up questions.
James Urquhart:
1.When talking about using a government action that could be cause for review its difficult to pin down going into specifics and hypotheticals. I think we should keep somewhat strictly to people who were directly affected under the government action etc. Of course what the government action was or it's broadness depends widely on the situation. I wouldn't go into classes of Residents if I could keep from it. Often times it's individual Residents or citizens that are in a review, at least thats my overall NS experience.
Click to expand...
What factors might you consider when deciding whether to utilise the Attorney General's inherent standing?

My point in referring to individuals or classes is to say that there are some scenarios where, due to the requirements of standing, there is no one (ie, no individual or class of them) who could bring a review other than the Attorney General and to ask how that would factor in considering whether or not to use the Attorney General's inherent standing.

James Urquhart:
2. The only time I would refuse to go after someone who has had a Criminal complaint filed against them is if the evidence clearly not enough to meet a burden of proof OR if I found overwhelming expultory evidence showing that they couldn't have committed the offense.
Click to expand...
Would it be correct to say, then, that you do not consider there to be any matters of public interest which would overcome a complaint that was sufficiently evidenced? If so, why do you not consider policy to be a factor in determining whether to prosecute?

James Urquhart:
3. If I gave Legal advise to an official and they refused to act then that's their call. I would obviously make a an advisement that they shouldnt do something illegal. Depending on what the advise is, for example, if I advise an official that taking x action will be a crime and then they commit such crime then they will be prosecuted. My general response would not differ based on the individual, but possibly the situation.
Click to expand...
Apologies if I was unclear, in the scenario posited you have advised the official that their proposed action would be illegal and they have taken it despite your advice that it would be illegal. What steps would you take in such a scenario?

Why would your steps not differ as between, say, the Delegate and the Election Commission?

James Urquhart:
4.Its probably better to not codify the Court rulings. I feel this would give the court more flexibility. When you codify something almost any court would then try to stick more strictly with what the legislative branch wanted and this might prove inconvenient. For the time being keeping it the way it is is more convenient.
Click to expand...
Is it necessarily the case that more flexibility for the Court is better?

James Urquhart:
5. I think that the current Penal Code is sufficient. I think it's tough enough on punishment etc. I can't think of any meaningful reforms right off the top of my head. Any changes would need to not sacrifice the current toughness of sentencing punishments.
Click to expand...
In what ways would you say the current Code is "tough"? Are tough sentences necessarily beneficial? Are there any other concerns which may arise in relation to the law on sentencing, other than the toughness of the sentences?
 
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?

Do you plan to appoint any Deputy AG and if so how many?

How will you prepare any DAGs that you might appoint?

Do you see the office of the Attorney General as being a reactive or proactive position?

Being asked of all candidates.
 
The following complaints are made(with credible evidence supporting them):

1."The Speaker violated their Standing Procedures!"
2."The Speaker refused to give me citizenship! I passed both checks! This is outrageous!"
3."The Speaker is biased! I presented my wonderful bill and demanded the speaker to bring it to vote ASAP, but they declined!"
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!"
5."My army application was rejected because I was deemed not trustworthy!"
6."The Delegate is planning a coup!"
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!"

Please elaborate your reactions and possible indictments, in detail.
 
Zyvetskistaahn:
Thank you for your answers, I have some follow-up questions.
James Urquhart:
1.When talking about using a government action that could be cause for review its difficult to pin down going into specifics and hypotheticals. I think we should keep somewhat strictly to people who were directly affected under the government action etc. Of course what the government action was or it's broadness depends widely on the situation. I wouldn't go into classes of Residents if I could keep from it. Often times it's individual Residents or citizens that are in a review, at least thats my overall NS experience.
Click to expand...
What factors might you consider when deciding whether to utilise the Attorney General's inherent standing?

My point in referring to individuals or classes is to say that there are some scenarios where, due to the requirements of standing, there is no one (ie, no individual or class of them) who could bring a review other than the Attorney General and to ask how that would factor in considering whether or not to use the Attorney General's inherent standing.

James Urquhart:
2. The only time I would refuse to go after someone who has had a Criminal complaint filed against them is if the evidence clearly not enough to meet a burden of proof OR if I found overwhelming expultory evidence showing that they couldn't have committed the offense.
Click to expand...
Would it be correct to say, then, that you do not consider there to be any matters of public interest which would overcome a complaint that was sufficiently evidenced? If so, why do you not consider policy to be a factor in determining whether to prosecute?

James Urquhart:
3. If I gave Legal advise to an official and they refused to act then that's their call. I would obviously make a an advisement that they shouldnt do something illegal. Depending on what the advise is, for example, if I advise an official that taking x action will be a crime and then they commit such crime then they will be prosecuted. My general response would not differ based on the individual, but possibly the situation.
Click to expand...
Apologies if I was unclear, in the scenario posited you have advised the official that their proposed action would be illegal and they have taken it despite your advice that it would be illegal. What steps would you take in such a scenario?

Why would your steps not differ as between, say, the Delegate and the Election Commission?

James Urquhart:
4.Its probably better to not codify the Court rulings. I feel this would give the court more flexibility. When you codify something almost any court would then try to stick more strictly with what the legislative branch wanted and this might prove inconvenient. For the time being keeping it the way it is is more convenient.
Click to expand...
Is it necessarily the case that more flexibility for the Court is better?

James Urquhart:
5. I think that the current Penal Code is sufficient. I think it's tough enough on punishment etc. I can't think of any meaningful reforms right off the top of my head. Any changes would need to not sacrifice the current toughness of sentencing punishments.
Click to expand...
In what ways would you say the current Code is "tough"? Are tough sentences necessarily beneficial? Are there any other concerns which may arise in relation to the law on sentencing, other than the toughness of the sentences?
Click to expand...
1.
Well the factors would be based on clear and convincing evidence that some government action violated or affected a party negatively. The law would have to have been clearly breached in such a way as to make any non-reply by me look like nonfeasance- of course not that I would be nonfeasant. It would have to be fairly compelling for me to reply. A case can't be made with out the evidence the government did the wrong thing - or else it's pointless. I don't know how else to illustrate this to you.

2. That is somewhat true but I'm not going to speculate. Political policy would not factor into if I'm going to prosecute an individual for a crime. Attorney Generals should be independent and unbiased. That's the strength of the office.

3. Well if they took any action than what I advised I might exercise my standing if the action has violated others. If they went against my advice and did the opposite, then realistically they probably wouldn't reverse them either. I would consult with the official extensively before forming a final decision if it is in regards to a government action. Whether it's Delegates or Commission depends more on the circumstances of what's going on. I will exercise a level of confidentiality during my conduct.

4.
In some ways yes. The Court will obviously follow precedent to a level like in most jurisdictions but I think fairness and Justice would be better served if it was left in it's current state. I can see the benefit of codification I just don't think it's wholly necessary. I'm not saying I'm fundamentally opposed to it.

5. It's tough just by it's sentencing punishments. Tough sentencing is necessary as a deterrent against crime. It's essential. I wouldn't go as far to the extreme of banning everyone for every offense, that would be to tough to say the least. As far as the law on sentencing I would think that some changes to mandatory minimums and maximums might be in order along with classing crimes more into Felony and Misdemeanor, but I'm not going to go farther into that.
 
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?

Do you plan to appoint any Deputy AG and if so how many?

How will you prepare any DAGs that you might appoint?

Do you see the office of the Attorney General as being a reactive or proactive position?

Being asked of all candidates.
Click to expand...
I will in the interim read more thoroughly past Court rulings and keep up to date on the law. I honestly think I'm very ready. As far as I know I'm the only candidate with actual courtroom experience. I'm not unfamiliar with it.

At least three Deputies. Probably Goyanes, Kasch and a third.

I will see what they already know about the law first and ask what their misunderstandings (if any) are and have an in depth conversation with them and go from there.

Technically legal systems are reactive. Court's can't do anything until there given a case and procesutors can't do anything until they have a case brought to their attention with the means to move forward with it.
I can be proactive by prosecuting individuals zealously, by using my standing whenever a government action etc clearly violates Citizens rights. I can be proactive in the sense that I maintain a effective and efficient AG's Office.
 
Clean Land:
The following complaints are made(with credible evidence supporting them):

1."The Speaker violated their Standing Procedures!"
2."The Speaker refused to give me citizenship! I passed both checks! This is outrageous!"
3."The Speaker is biased! I presented my wonderful bill and demanded the speaker to bring it to vote ASAP, but they declined!"
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!"
5."My army application was rejected because I was deemed not trustworthy!"
6."The Delegate is planning a coup!"
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!"

Please elaborate your reactions and possible indictments, in detail.
Click to expand...
1. I would suggest reviewing all relevant Court Rulings on Speakers actions. How have they specifically violated their Standing Procedures?

2.You need to pass along all required checks to become a citizen. Why did they refuse it specifically?
3.Did your bill have any major errors in it? Did you even motion to vote? Demanding and making a motion are two different things. I fail to see how this would initially be important enough to come to the AG.
4.Bill of Rights violation!:"4. No Nation of The North Pacific holding WA member status in NationStates shall be obligated to endorse any official of a government authority of the region. The right to add an endorsement or withdraw an endorsement is a sovereign right of that Nation as a WA member."
5. Then you must be a security risk. That's valid.
6. Please provide immediate evidence! Screenshots and everything. Possible crime-Treason.
7. Possible Criminal violation:
"Section 1.4. Crashing, Phishing, or Spamming
13. "Crashing" is defined as any unauthorized action which could cause a forum to go out of service or lose information, including the deletion of posts, the deletion of a forum, spamming, or any other act of such kind."
Actual evidence like screenshots etc needed.

I'm sorry if I couldn't go into more detail on some points but it's 1am. Lol
 
Hi James Urquhart, I have a question. If elected, what's going be your first main priority as Attorney General and since you work at a law firm, do you think you're very capable for working as Attorney General? Thanks.
 
So, a proposal is brought before the Regional Assembly. The Bill is super popular, and thus, gets a ton of support. There comes and motion and a second, but the Speaker, who is avidly against the proposal, refuses to schedule it. In what way are they breaking the law?

What charges would you bring before the Court to convict them, and what kind of sentence would you recommend if they were found guilty?
 
Seeing as there is roughly one month left in the term till the next scheduled General Election, if elected do you intend to stand for election then?
 
RKO:
Hi James Urquhart, I have a question. If elected, what's going be your first main priority as Attorney General and since you you work at a law firm, do you think you're very capable for working as Attorney General? Thanks.
Click to expand...
My first priorities would be to catch up on any reading of past Court Rulings and get the Deputies together.

Yes, my law firm experience prepares me very well for this role. I'm the only candidate who has actual courtroom experience. I'm not unfamiliar with facing an opposing counsel. I have won 3 Criminal Defense trials that included Felony level offenses. I have an understanding about the seriousness of charging someone with a crime. I feel I'm very ready for this role.
 
Bootsie:
So, a proposal is brought before the Regional Assembly. The Bill is super popular, and thus, gets a ton of support. There comes and motion and a second, but the Speaker, who is avidly against the proposal, refuses to schedule it. In what way are they breaking the law?

What charges would you bring before the Court to convict them, and what kind of sentence would you recommend if they were found guilty?
Click to expand...
I will go into more detail tonight but I think Gross Misconduct is the problem. Thank you
 
Some would say that literally no one believes you when you say that you've won three RL criminal defense cases. How would you respond?

Additionally, some would say that even if you had done that, it is utterly irrelevant to TNP since you will a) be prosecuting, not defending, b) be dealing with neither a real bench nor a real jury, and c) the AG never does shit around here. How would you respond?
 
Mall:
Some would say that literally no one believes you when you say that you've won three RL criminal defense cases. How would you respond?

Additionally, some would say that even if you had done that, it is utterly irrelevant to TNP since you will a) be prosecuting, not defending, b) be dealing with neither a real bench nor a real jury, and c) the AG never does shit around here. How would you respond?
Click to expand...
No I haven't Defended 3 RL cases. Not Real Life, but Gameplay yes. So I think that significantly changes most of your query.

I have already stated in a prior post what I would proactively do as Attorney General.
 
James Urquhart:
Mall:
Some would say that literally no one believes you when you say that you've won three RL criminal defense cases. How would you respond?

Additionally, some would say that even if you had done that, it is utterly irrelevant to TNP since you will a) be prosecuting, not defending, b) be dealing with neither a real bench nor a real jury, and c) the AG never does shit around here. How would you respond?
Click to expand...
No I haven't Defended 3 RL cases. Not Real Life, but Gameplay yes. So I think that significantly changes most of your query.

I have already stated in a prior post what I would proactively do as Attorney General.
Click to expand...
Can you please cite those cases for us?
 
Mall:
James Urquhart:
Mall:
Some would say that literally no one believes you when you say that you've won three RL criminal defense cases. How would you respond?

Additionally, some would say that even if you had done that, it is utterly irrelevant to TNP since you will a) be prosecuting, not defending, b) be dealing with neither a real bench nor a real jury, and c) the AG never does shit around here. How would you respond?
Click to expand...
No I haven't Defended 3 RL cases. Not Real Life, but Gameplay yes. So I think that significantly changes most of your query.

I have already stated in a prior post what I would proactively do as Attorney General.
Click to expand...
Can you please cite those cases for us?
Click to expand...
The last case was some time back. I can't remember the defendants names but it was in a Roman themed Region with an off site forum. I think it was The Republic of Rome (?) but I'm not sure. There is an element of confidentiality to any Defense Counsel/ Client relationship as well.
 
Bootsie:

4. If a number of citizens equal to or exceeding one third of the number of votes required to achieve quorum for any legislative vote, including the citizen that introduced the proposal to the Regional Assembly, motion that a vote should be held on a proposal before the Regional Assembly, then the Speaker must schedule a vote on that proposal to begin as soon as permitted by law.
Click to expand...

Oath


I, [forum username], do hereby solemnly swear that during my term as [government position], I will uphold the ideals of Democracy, Freedom, and Justice of The Region of The North Pacific. I will use the powers and rights granted to me through The North Pacific Constitution and Legal Code in a legal, responsible, and unbiased manner, not abusing my power, committing misfeasance, malfeasance, or nonfeasance in office, in any gross or excessive manner. I will act only in the best interests of The North Pacific, not influenced by personal gain or any outside force, and within the restraints of my legally granted power. As such, I hereby take up the office of [government position], with all the powers, rights, and responsibilities held therein.
Click to expand...

Section 1.8. Gross Misconduct
23. "Gross Misconduct" is defined as the violation of an individual's legally mandated sworn oath, either willfully or through negligence.
Click to expand...

The Speaker would likely be charged with Gross Misconduct because of the situation that happened.
It would be up to the Court to implement the Penal Code. The punishment is laid out for Gross Misconduct in the Penal Code.
 
Thank you for your answers, I have some further follow-ups.
James Urquhart:
1.
Well the factors would be based on clear and convincing evidence that some government action violated or affected a party negatively. The law would have to have been clearly breached in such a way as to make any non-reply by me look like nonfeasance- of course not that I would be nonfeasant. It would have to be fairly compelling for me to reply. A case can't be made with out the evidence the government did the wrong thing - or else it's pointless. I don't know how else to illustrate this to you.
Click to expand...
Suppose that a you found a rule of a government body that conflicted with the Constitution or the Legal Code but that, due to the standing requirement, there were no or very few individuals with standing to challenge the rule (perhaps only the members of the body or some of them), would that be a case where you might use the inherent standing of the Attorney General, why or why not? Would it make any difference if, say, you spoke with the members of the body and they indicated they would change the rule?

James Urquhart:
2. That is somewhat true but I'm not going to speculate. Political policy would not factor into if I'm going to prosecute an individual for a crime. Attorney Generals should be independent and unbiased. That's the strength of the office.
Click to expand...
Suppose that there were a coup, the incumbent Delegate had declared the government dissolved and their intent to institute their own form of government, and that a nation came to the delegacy that was not authorised to do so (perhaps appearing to be a crony of the Delegate) and returned the region to constitutional order, despite not being any government authority of the region; a criminal complaint is presented to you suggesting that their taking of the delegacy in an unauthorised manner amounted to gross misconduct or treason, would the fact that they have, perhaps, saved the region not weigh against the interest in prosecuting them?

Suppose that a member of the NPA has, in the course of an officially sanctioned mission, committed espionage, but been granted an exemption by the Delegate (and that this exemption was properly granted), that member may have also committed gross misconduct (in that all illegal conduct can be such) and a criminal complaint is made against them on that basis, might it not be contrary to the interests of the region to prosecute them, even if you thought a prosecution would succeed?

James Urquhart:
3. Well if they took any action than what I advised I might exercise my standing if the action has violated others. If they went against my advice and did the opposite, then realistically they probably wouldn't reverse them either. I would consult with the official extensively before forming a final decision if it is in regards to a government action. Whether it's Delegates or Commission depends more on the circumstances of what's going on. I will exercise a level of confidentiality during my conduct.
Click to expand...
Might there be circumstances in which action beyond a request for review would be proper? What might some of these be?

Might there not be particular considerations to bear in mind before taking action against a Delegate that has deliberately taken an apparently illegal action, as compared to against an Election Commissioner who has done so, considering the Delegate's powerful in-game position and the risks involved?
 
Greetings, impressive CV. I can see that the TNP Government will get sound advice, if you are elected. I wont put you through a pop quiz just to see how you react. I want to know about you.
I have a few questions.
Why would I vote for you? Are you a people person or do you hide behind your books?
Are you able to give legal advice to TNP without having any outside influence on any subject?
Are you able to handle criticism on your decisions or advice etc?

Thank you for your time, Good Luck
 
Can you confirm when you joined NationStates? Can you confirm what Feeders you have also successfully authored a law in?
 
Zyvetskistaahn:
Thank you for your answers, I have some further follow-ups.
James Urquhart:
1.
Well the factors would be based on clear and convincing evidence that some government action violated or affected a party negatively. The law would have to have been clearly breached in such a way as to make any non-reply by me look like nonfeasance- of course not that I would be nonfeasant. It would have to be fairly compelling for me to reply. A case can't be made with out the evidence the government did the wrong thing - or else it's pointless. I don't know how else to illustrate this to you.
Click to expand...
Suppose that a you found a rule of a government body that conflicted with the Constitution or the Legal Code but that, due to the standing requirement, there were no or very few individuals with standing to challenge the rule (perhaps only the members of the body or some of them), would that be a case where you might use the inherent standing of the Attorney General, why or why not? Would it make any difference if, say, you spoke with the members of the body and they indicated they would change the rule?

James Urquhart:
2. That is somewhat true but I'm not going to speculate. Political policy would not factor into if I'm going to prosecute an individual for a crime. Attorney Generals should be independent and unbiased. That's the strength of the office.
Click to expand...
Suppose that there were a coup, the incumbent Delegate had declared the government dissolved and their intent to institute their own form of government, and that a nation came to the delegacy that was not authorised to do so (perhaps appearing to be a crony of the Delegate) and returned the region to constitutional order, despite not being any government authority of the region; a criminal complaint is presented to you suggesting that their taking of the delegacy in an unauthorised manner amounted to gross misconduct or treason, would the fact that they have, perhaps, saved the region not weigh against the interest in prosecuting them?

Suppose that a member of the NPA has, in the course of an officially sanctioned mission, committed espionage, but been granted an exemption by the Delegate (and that this exemption was properly granted), that member may have also committed gross misconduct (in that all illegal conduct can be such) and a criminal complaint is made against them on that basis, might it not be contrary to the interests of the region to prosecute them, even if you thought a prosecution would succeed?

James Urquhart:
3. Well if they took any action than what I advised I might exercise my standing if the action has violated others. If they went against my advice and did the opposite, then realistically they probably wouldn't reverse them either. I would consult with the official extensively before forming a final decision if it is in regards to a government action. Whether it's Delegates or Commission depends more on the circumstances of what's going on. I will exercise a level of confidentiality during my conduct.
Click to expand...
Might there be circumstances in which action beyond a request for review would be proper? What might some of these be?

Might there not be particular considerations to bear in mind before taking action against a Delegate that has deliberately taken an apparently illegal action, as compared to against an Election Commissioner who has done so, considering the Delegate's powerful in-game position and the risks involved?
Click to expand...
1. I would still make an attempt to use my inherent standing authority. If the situation is a conflict where individuals Rights are being overridden and directly undermined there is no speaking and waiting. Of course if it's a situation where literally the next day the decision is going to be reversed then that would give me some pause, I would have to have rock solid certainty that they were going to do the reversal. If it's any longer im not going to buy into a politicians possibly false promises.


2. I understand the play on emotions here.

It's rains on the just and unjust. I hope this Region is never in such as a position as speculated. At the same time I can't close my eyes and prosecute one over another when Criminal offenses are committed by more than one person. I should point out that if the individual who saved the region did so when legally no Legal Code or Constitution was valid then it's likely they can't be charged with anything. I won't speculate further on this point.


In a situation where someone was still doing a perceived good thing - inthe case of the NPA member- I would have to honestly say that I would prosecute them regardless. Doing something legally right doesn't get you passed over for prosecution later.


3. There might be. I don't wish to speculate further on the first half of this point. I'm not being impolite.

For the second half of this point: If both officials are simultaneously breaking the law they will both be prosecuted. How much political power one has over the other doesn't matter. It would be political and unprofessional to persue one just because they have more power than another one. I won't fall into any such realistic trap.
 
Lord Ravenclaw:
Can you confirm when you joined NationStates? Can you confirm what Feeders you have also successfully authored a law in?
Click to expand...
As a reminder. These aren't difficult questions.
 
Banana:
Greetings, impressive CV. I can see that the TNP Government will get sound advice, if you are elected. I wont put you through a pop quiz just to see how you react. I want to know about you.
I have a few questions.
Why would I vote for you? Are you a people person or do you hide behind your books?
Are you able to give legal advice to TNP without having any outside influence on any subject?
Are you able to handle criticism on your decisions or advice etc?

Thank you for your time, Good Luck
Click to expand...
You should vote for me because im someone who not only has the experience but because I'm absolutely happy with being here. In the first month I have been here I have already generated about 2000 posts of activity in the Games and Arts section. I think I'm generally a people person. I understand that any decisions I make as Attorney General will affect people's livelihoods in this game and the various forms of emotions that may come with it. I'm not someone who thinks they have a massive intellect so while I love reading and studying I'm not one to really hide behind my books and treat people like they are some throw away item. In understand my limits and I'm not big headed.
I have no outside interests really. My involvement in the region of Wolfram and Hart law firm will not be of concern as far as conflicts of interest. Wolfram and Hart is the only other Region I'm really involved in and I will not be giving legal advice to a TNP Citizen outside of the region while Attorney General.
I believe I can handle any criticism about a decision and this doesn't seem daunting to me. I'm willing to take reasonable advice.
 
Lord Ravenclaw:
Lord Ravenclaw:
Can you confirm when you joined NationStates? Can you confirm what Feeders you have also successfully authored a law in?
Click to expand...
As a reminder. These aren't difficult questions.
Click to expand...
Your question was next.
I came to NS in late 2015. The first year I was in the game I mostly stuck to answering issues until that became boring. I joined a region later that was Roman themed until I had to help my grandfather with his health which caused me to leave the game.

The only Region I have drafted law in was TNP. It was about Diplomatic protection. I don't regard my self as a successful legislator.
 
James Urquhart:
Lord Ravenclaw:
Lord Ravenclaw:
Can you confirm when you joined NationStates? Can you confirm what Feeders you have also successfully authored a law in?
Click to expand...
As a reminder. These aren't difficult questions.
Click to expand...
Your question was next.
I came to NS in late 2015. The first year I was in the game I mostly stuck to answering issues until that became boring. I joined a region later that was Roman themed until I had to help my grandfather with his health which caused me to leave the game.

The only Region I have drafted law in was TNP. It was about Diplomatic protection. I don't regard my self as a successful legislator.
Click to expand...
I see. I was just interested as your CV implies that you have some experience in that regard.

Can you link us to any of your past court cases?
 
Lord Ravenclaw:
James Urquhart:
Lord Ravenclaw:
Lord Ravenclaw:
Can you confirm when you joined NationStates? Can you confirm what Feeders you have also successfully authored a law in?
Click to expand...
As a reminder. These aren't difficult questions.
Click to expand...
Your question was next.
I came to NS in late 2015. The first year I was in the game I mostly stuck to answering issues until that became boring. I joined a region later that was Roman themed until I had to help my grandfather with his health which caused me to leave the game.

The only Region I have drafted law in was TNP. It was about Diplomatic protection. I don't regard my self as a successful legislator.
Click to expand...
I see. I was just interested as your CV implies that you have some experience in that regard.

Can you link us to any of your past court cases?
Click to expand...
Since I left that Region it appears that it has refounded and the link to the forum where the cases were is no longer there. Im sorry if this is inconvenient. The dispatch provided in my opening post is accurate as far as the offenses I defended.
 
James Urquhart:
Lord Ravenclaw:
James Urquhart:
Lord Ravenclaw:
Lord Ravenclaw:
Can you confirm when you joined NationStates? Can you confirm what Feeders you have also successfully authored a law in?
Click to expand...
As a reminder. These aren't difficult questions.
Click to expand...
Your question was next.
I came to NS in late 2015. The first year I was in the game I mostly stuck to answering issues until that became boring. I joined a region later that was Roman themed until I had to help my grandfather with his health which caused me to leave the game.

The only Region I have drafted law in was TNP. It was about Diplomatic protection. I don't regard my self as a successful legislator.
Click to expand...
I see. I was just interested as your CV implies that you have some experience in that regard.

Can you link us to any of your past court cases?
Click to expand...
Since I left that Region it appears that it has refounded and the link to the forum where the cases were is no longer there. Im sorry if this is inconvenient. The dispatch provided in my opening post is accurate as far as the offenses I defended.
Click to expand...
Some would say that this sounds like a complete and utter lie, and your earlier defense of privilege merely shows that you have no idea what that term means. How would you respond?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top