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?
Thanks for the questions. Sorry, it took a while to reply. I still have family over from Thanksgiving so I didn't have time to sit down and focus long enough to answer these until now.
There are two general circumstances where it would be appropriate to use my standing. The first is when there is nobody that can establish standing for a case yet a case should be brought forward to the court. The second is when standing is difficult for a complainant to establish and the matter requires expediency for optimal results. So instead of going through the many legal hoops to try and establish standing for the complainant, the AG instead brings the case to the court for consideration. I don't imagine either scenarios are likely to happen however, and I am, in general, loathe to use sweeping powers like that unless absolutely necessary.
In what circumstances would it be appropriate to exercise the discretion of the Attorney General to refuse to prosecute a criminal complaint?
It is my belief that the purpose of regional governments in NS is to foster a healthy community wherein many players can play the game, get along, have a great time. During my time in Capitalist Paradise, I saw several times, players trying to maliciously use the courts to ruin/damage the reputation and/or the enjoyment from another player(s). Ultimately, the courts and the AG should only be used to better the region and community. If the case is obviously spurious and the intent is only to do harm and not to correct an injustice, either the AG or the Courts should refuse to take the case. I'll give an example:
In Spring 2016, a Court Justice in Capitalist Paradise flamed another player on the RMB. This was not this guy's first or even fifth time flaming people during his time in the region. The Vocals, an organization consisting of former Delegates who's main duty is to regularly evaluate and help guide government officials, received multiple complaints and told him to stop with the flaming. He was not happy, and so instead filed a petition in the court. (You can find it
here, but it's long and not a very enjoyable read.) The whole case was to try and get back at us and eventually did nothing but create a schism in the community which ended with several prominent members (including a former delegate and a former minister) leaving.
One of the justices in private told one of us Vocals that they had already made up their mind about the complaint before accepting it (siding with the Vocals) and that in retrospect, they should never have taken that case.
I don't want that sort of thing ever happening again in a community I'm a part of. For all involved, it was a hellish thing and I'd do everything I legally and ethically could to try and stop it before it could begin.
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?
Quite simply: I would compile the relevant evidence and the laws I believed were broken and petition the court.
Would your response differ if the officer was the Vice Delegate, a Minister, or an Election Commissioner?
No. No government official should ever be above the law. That is how tyranny starts. I do have faith in government officials, however, that they wouldn't willfully disregard and break laws lightly.
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?
No, not really. It doesn't seem like there's been much of a problem with it. Allowing the court a bit of flexibility with evidence - especially in a game where there are so many methods of communication (telegrams, IRC, Skype, Discord, etc.) - codifying such things can potentially restrict the court enough that the optimal ruling cannot be legally reached.
Is the current law on sentencing sufficient? Whether or not it is, could it be improved in any particular way?
I don't see anything wrong with the current law on sentencing. Generally, I advocate for giving government flexibility to better judge and punish more fairly on an individual, case-by-case basis, but the current law looks to give more than ample flexibility based on the severity of the crimes committed.
(<3 u Goy)
