Goyanes For AG

[Goyanes]

GOYANES FOR AG​

Hi, My name is Goy, and I am running for the position of Attorney General of the North Pacific. I have served the past several terms as a deputy attorney general under Ash and Darcania, and now I feel it is my time to step up to the task and serve my region.

Feel free to ask questions about my platform and about myself, and i'll try to respond in a timely manner.

~goy

 

[RKO]

Hi Goyanes I have a question? If elect what are you going do first as Attorney General and since you are Deputy Attorney General, do you see this as an advantage in this election. Thanks.

 

[Oracle]

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.

 

[Goyanes]

Hi Goyanes I have a question? If elect what are you going do first as Attorney General and since you are Deputy Attorney General, do you see this as an advantage in this election. Thanks.

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.

Hey RKO, thanks for your question. My first action as the Attorney General would be to establish a list of priorities which would include assigning my deputies. Being a deputy may or may not assist me in the electoral process, only time can tell.

Hey Artemis, thanks for your question. 1) When the AG is required to act I plan to convene with my deputies to decide on a plan of action to take, as well as to form a consensus among the office.

2) I do plan on appointing deputies, but only a few. They will mostly be former deputies and former attorney generals, but I am open on allowing new players into the office.

3) I see the AG's office as falling into a place between reactive and proactive. The AG can be called upon by the government to act in a case, but the AG can also be proactive in it's abilities to prosecute cases.

~goy

 

[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.

 

[Goyanes]

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.

Hello Clean Land, thank you for your question. First of all, my opinion of these scenarios is that they are quite ridiculous and improbable to happen under nearly all scenarios.

1. If there is clear violation of the standing procedures, there is almost no way to argue against that.
2. The speaker cannot refuse to give you citizenship if you have passed both checks It is clearly stated in 6.1 of the legal code. If the speaker doesn't approve you in 14 days, you automatically receive citizenship.
3. The speaker is not legally obliged to schedule a vote for your proposal unless you have motioned for a vote and somebody has seconded the motion.
4. You have a legally guaranteed right that states that you are not going to be forced to endorse a gov't official. There is no citizenship requirement stating that you are not forced to endorse any government official. Such occurrences would not happen.
5. The NPA is not required to admit anyone to it's ranks, nor are you legally guaranteed a spot in the NPA.
6. The delegate can be recalled by the RA. The AG may also file charges against the Delegate for conspiracy, treason, or gross misconduct should considerable evidence be found of planning a coup.
7. A) The NPA is not a cyberhacking organization.
B) The chain of command of the NPA has procedures that would prevent such instances from ever happening without the Minister's knowledge.
C) In the *extremely* unlikely scenario that the NPA committed a DDOS attack, the case magnifies from a forum legal position to actual legal issues with real life law. This also relates to forum administration which would hand out generous bans and cooperate with the authorities.

 

[Clean Land]

I am not satisfied with (some of) your answers.

First of all, my opinion of these scenarios is that they are quite ridiculous and improbable to happen under nearly all scenarios.

There might be some improbable scenarios, but some of them are definitely not implausible.

1. If there is clear violation of the standing procedures, there is almost no way to argue against that.

Please clarify that statement. Which charges should be filed by an AG, and under which circumstances?

3. The speaker is not legally obliged to schedule a vote for your proposal unless you have motioned for a vote and somebody has seconded the motion.

Please back up your statement that the speaker is legally obliged to schedule a vote for a legislative proposal if someone motions for a vote and somebody has seconded the motion.

 

[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?

 

[Oracle]

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?

 

[Goyanes]

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?

I may or may not run again, depending on real life constraints that may pop up.

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?

I am going to merge your answer with Clean Land's question number 3.

I am not satisfied with (some of) your answers.

First of all, my opinion of these scenarios is that they are quite ridiculous and improbable to happen under nearly all scenarios.

There might be some improbable scenarios, but some of them are definitely not implausible.

1. If there is clear violation of the standing procedures, there is almost no way to argue against that.

Please clarify that statement. Which charges should be filed by an AG, and under which circumstances?

3. The speaker is not legally obliged to schedule a vote for your proposal unless you have motioned for a vote and somebody has seconded the motion.

Please back up your statement that the speaker is legally obliged to schedule a vote for a legislative proposal if someone motions for a vote and somebody has seconded the motion.

Response to 1. Violators of the standing procedures can be charged with gross misconduct and/or conspiracy if there is sufficient evidence to back up the claims.

Response to 3 [Bootsie look here for my answer]. According to the standing procedures of the Regional Assembly, which can be found here, in each of the sections titled "Legislative Proposal Procedure", "Non-Legislative Proposal Procedure", and "Treaty Ratification Procedure", it states that once the prerequisite for scheduling a vote has been made, wether it be making a motion and receiving a second, or having the delegate call for a vote, it states, "The speaker will schedule a vote." Breaking of the standing procedures can be punishable with gross misconduct and/or conspiracy. According to the penal code section within the legal code, "8. Gross Misconduct will be punished by removal from office and the suspension of voting rights for whatever finite duration the Court sees fit." "7. Conspiracy will be punished by a sentence strictly less than what would be appropriate for the original crime." My reccomendation to the court would most likely be a removal from office and a suspension of voting rights for a period of time, which may vary depending on the severity of the case.

 

[Clean Land]

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?

I may or may not run again, depending on real life constraints that may pop up.

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?

I am going to merge your answer with Clean Land's question number 3.

I am not satisfied with (some of) your answers.

First of all, my opinion of these scenarios is that they are quite ridiculous and improbable to happen under nearly all scenarios.

There might be some improbable scenarios, but some of them are definitely not implausible.

1. If there is clear violation of the standing procedures, there is almost no way to argue against that.

Please clarify that statement. Which charges should be filed by an AG, and under which circumstances?

3. The speaker is not legally obliged to schedule a vote for your proposal unless you have motioned for a vote and somebody has seconded the motion.

Please back up your statement that the speaker is legally obliged to schedule a vote for a legislative proposal if someone motions for a vote and somebody has seconded the motion.

Response to 1. Violators of the standing procedures can be charged with gross misconduct and/or conspiracy if there is sufficient evidence to back up the claims.

Response to 3 [Bootsie look here for my answer]. According to the standing procedures of the Regional Assembly, which can be found here, in each of the sections titled "Legislative Proposal Procedure", "Non-Legislative Proposal Procedure", and "Treaty Ratification Procedure", it states that once the prerequisite for scheduling a vote has been made, wether it be making a motion and receiving a second, or having the delegate call for a vote, it states, "The speaker will schedule a vote." Breaking of the standing procedures can be punishable with gross misconduct and/or conspiracy. According to the penal code section within the legal code, "8. Gross Misconduct will be punished by removal from office and the suspension of voting rights for whatever finite duration the Court sees fit." "7. Conspiracy will be punished by a sentence strictly less than what would be appropriate for the original crime." My reccomendation to the court would most likely be a removal from office and a suspension of voting rights for a period of time, which may vary depending on the severity of the case.

Please inform me why you think that this Court ruling is not applicable(or not applicable anymore).
Regardless of your answer, please tell me where you find the equivalent of the following clause from "Non-Legislative Proposal Procedure" in the other sections of the Standing Procedures:

Once the proposal has been moved and seconded, the Speaker will schedule a vote.

 

[Goyanes]

Please inform me why you think that this Court ruling is not applicable(or not applicable anymore).
Regardless of your answer, please tell me where you find the equivalent of the following clause from "Non-Legislative Proposal Procedure" in the other sections of the Standing Procedures:

Once the proposal has been moved and seconded, the Speaker will schedule a vote.

1. I never stated that I think that court ruling is inapplicable or irrelevant. But it must be noted that that court ruling is from 2014. The court now may have a different opinion on the case and may rule differently. The response from the court also states that the court is not the proper place to bring that issue to, and that a recall vote would be better if the RA members felt it was a deliberate and unneccessary overreach of the speaker's powers. The court even states, "we find the Speaker's power broad, but not unlimited. While the Speaker may refuse to tolerate something harmful, it is not a legitimate use of their power to capriciously stifle any and all debate. Two things therefore matter in this instance: the content of the proposal in question, and the severity of the Speaker's crackdown." That essentially boils down to, yes, they have the privilege, but depending on the circumstance and severity, the crackdown could warrant punishment.

2a) Legislative-4 "Once Formal Debate has ended, the proposal may no longer be amended, and the Speaker will schedule a vote to begin no fewer than two days hence."

2b) Treaty Ratification-3 "Once Formal Debate has ended, the treaty may no longer be amended, and the Speaker will schedule a vote to begin no fewer than two days hence."

 

[Mall]

If TNP were experiencing a coup, and a TNP citizen illegally obtained the delegacy and immediately handed over the region to the rightful delegate, would you press charges against the citizen?

 

[Goyanes]

If TNP were experiencing a coup, and a TNP citizen illegally obtained the delegacy and immediately handed over the region to the rightful delegate, would you press charges against the citizen?

Thank you for your question Mall. I have split my answer into two parts below.

A) The average TNP citizen would not be able to obtain the delegacy as the security council and vice delegate are in the way.

B) If a citizen was able to somehow do that, I would not recommend the pressing of charges against them as they would be doing a heroic action for the North Pacific.

 

[Mall]

If TNP were experiencing a coup, and a TNP citizen illegally obtained the delegacy and immediately handed over the region to the rightful delegate, would you press charges against the citizen?

Thank you for your question Mall. I have split my answer into two parts below.

A) The average TNP citizen would not be able to obtain the delegacy as the security council and vice delegate are in the way.

B) If a citizen was able to somehow do that, I would not recommend the pressing of charges against them as they would be doing a heroic action for the North Pacific.

Ignoring your assertion that it is impossible for a non member of the security council to race to the delegacy during a coup (a bizarre assertion, to be sure), you have stated in your answer that if someone in your mind does a "heroic action" for TNP they are above the law. Does it bother you that you are an AG candidate asserting that equal application of the law is inappropriate?

 

[Goyanes]

Law can be circumstantial. For example, if someone comes up to you and starts physically assaulting you, and you assault them back in self defense, will you most likely be punished? No. This is a similar case. The AG is technically not required to press charges, and may reject handling the prosecution of a case according to the legal code.

 

[Mall]

Law can be circumstantial. For example, if someone comes up to you and starts physically assaulting you, and you assault them back in self defense, will you most likely be punished? No. This is a similar case. The AG is technically not required to press charges, and may reject handling the prosecution of a case according to the legal code.

Ignoring for a moment your misconstruction of various terms of art early in your answer, I'm simply inquiring into why you believe that your personal opinion of what "heroic" means should triumph over the rule of law in TNP.

 

[Goyanes]

Law can be circumstantial. For example, if someone comes up to you and starts physically assaulting you, and you assault them back in self defense, will you most likely be punished? No. This is a similar case. The AG is technically not required to press charges, and may reject handling the prosecution of a case according to the legal code.

Ignoring for a moment your misconstruction of various terms of art early in your answer, I'm simply inquiring into why you believe that your personal opinion of what "heroic" means should triumph over the rule of law in TNP.

As I said before, even if I think the actions of this made up citizen are heroic or not, I am not legally obligated to press charges. If I feel he should not be punished, I do not have to place charges, but if someone else files a criminal complaint I would not mind looking into it. That being said I also do not have a legal requirement to take up the prosecuting duty of that case. What I believe is heroic or not will not matter anyways. If someone believes that there should be charges placed they can file a criminal complaint and the court can choose to look into it.

 

[Clean Land]

Please inform me why you think that this Court ruling is not applicable(or not applicable anymore).
Regardless of your answer, please tell me where you find the equivalent of the following clause from "Non-Legislative Proposal Procedure" in the other sections of the Standing Procedures:

Once the proposal has been moved and seconded, the Speaker will schedule a vote.

1. I never stated that I think that court ruling is inapplicable or irrelevant. But it must be noted that that court ruling is from 2014. The court now may have a different opinion on the case and may rule differently. The response from the court also states that the court is not the proper place to bring that issue to, and that a recall vote would be better if the RA members felt it was a deliberate and unneccessary overreach of the speaker's powers. The court even states, "we find the Speaker's power broad, but not unlimited. While the Speaker may refuse to tolerate something harmful, it is not a legitimate use of their power to capriciously stifle any and all debate. Two things therefore matter in this instance: the content of the proposal in question, and the severity of the Speaker's crackdown." That essentially boils down to, yes, they have the privilege, but depending on the circumstance and severity, the crackdown could warrant punishment.

2a) Legislative-4 "Once Formal Debate has ended, the proposal may no longer be amended, and the Speaker will schedule a vote to begin no fewer than two days hence."

2b) Treaty Ratification-3 "Once Formal Debate has ended, the treaty may no longer be amended, and the Speaker will schedule a vote to begin no fewer than two days hence."

This is one of the conclusions of the Court:

1. The Speaker's option to refuse a discretionary vote is entirely legal and can be used at any time. The Speaker may deviate from the Standing Procedures at any point, provided that the deviation is not a violation of any other law or policy and does not infringe on any rights.

As long as the court does not overturn this precedent, it will be binding upon the court.

 

[Goyanes]

Please inform me why you think that this Court ruling is not applicable(or not applicable anymore).
Regardless of your answer, please tell me where you find the equivalent of the following clause from "Non-Legislative Proposal Procedure" in the other sections of the Standing Procedures:

Once the proposal has been moved and seconded, the Speaker will schedule a vote.

1. I never stated that I think that court ruling is inapplicable or irrelevant. But it must be noted that that court ruling is from 2014. The court now may have a different opinion on the case and may rule differently. The response from the court also states that the court is not the proper place to bring that issue to, and that a recall vote would be better if the RA members felt it was a deliberate and unneccessary overreach of the speaker's powers. The court even states, "we find the Speaker's power broad, but not unlimited. While the Speaker may refuse to tolerate something harmful, it is not a legitimate use of their power to capriciously stifle any and all debate. Two things therefore matter in this instance: the content of the proposal in question, and the severity of the Speaker's crackdown." That essentially boils down to, yes, they have the privilege, but depending on the circumstance and severity, the crackdown could warrant punishment.

2a) Legislative-4 "Once Formal Debate has ended, the proposal may no longer be amended, and the Speaker will schedule a vote to begin no fewer than two days hence."

2b) Treaty Ratification-3 "Once Formal Debate has ended, the treaty may no longer be amended, and the Speaker will schedule a vote to begin no fewer than two days hence."

This is one of the conclusions of the Court:

1. The Speaker's option to refuse a discretionary vote is entirely legal and can be used at any time. The Speaker may deviate from the Standing Procedures at any point, provided that the deviation is not a violation of any other law or policy and does not infringe on any rights.

As long as the court does not overturn this precedent, it will be binding upon the court.

I never said that that ruling was not binding, I simply stated that if the case were to be brought to the court nowadays that the court may or may not rule differently. I also states that that ruling is circumstantial. I really don't know why you have restated things I clearly have demonstrated that I understand.

 

[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?

 

[Banana]

Greetings, you have experience under the former Attorney Generals?.
Was there any legislation that have passed that you think, would have been written better?
As you had been a Deputy to the Attorney General, why have you submitted your candency? Why now? And Why would I vote for you?

Thank you for your time, Good Luck

 

[Goyanes]

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?

Thank You for your question Zyvet.

1. I think it's appropriate for the AG to use their general standing when a matter should be brought to court, but no citizen has utilized their standing.

2. I think the AG should only use their right to refuse prosecution when the complaint is visibly malicious or if there is overwhelming evidence showing that the person in question couldn't have committed the crime.

3. I would make sure to advise them that the act was illegal. I would most likely file charges afterwards depending on what would play out afterwards. The situation would not change for other government officials.

4. I think the current system is fine, as it leaves room for flexibility and interpretation on cases which can seem quite vague in nature.

5. I think the current sentencing laws are fine, and as my counterpart Drasnia said, are open to flexibility for punishment depending on the severity of the case.

 

[Goyanes]

Greetings, you have experience under the former Attorney Generals?.
Was there any legislation that have passed that you think, would have been written better?
As you had been a Deputy to the Attorney General, why have you submitted your candency? Why now? And Why would I vote for you?

Thank you for your time, Good Luck

Thank you for your question Banana.

1. I do have experience under the last two AG's, Ash and Darcania, as my OP states.

2. The field of operations of the AG doesn't involve the well-written-ness of legislation passed by the RA.

3. I submitted my candidacy because I felt I am ready to step up to the big chair in the AG's office. I am not going to tell you your average "you should vote for me because I am the most qualified... blah... blah... blah..." type of spiel. I think that you should vote for whichever candidate you feel most comfortable with being the AG.

 

[Drasnia]

Good luck on the election, Goy

 

[RKO]

Hey Goy, want to wish you good luck and hope you do good in the election.

 

[Mall]

Law can be circumstantial. For example, if someone comes up to you and starts physically assaulting you, and you assault them back in self defense, will you most likely be punished? No. This is a similar case. The AG is technically not required to press charges, and may reject handling the prosecution of a case according to the legal code.

Ignoring for a moment your misconstruction of various terms of art early in your answer, I'm simply inquiring into why you believe that your personal opinion of what "heroic" means should triumph over the rule of law in TNP.

As I said before, even if I think the actions of this made up citizen are heroic or not, I am not legally obligated to press charges. If I feel he should not be punished, I do not have to place charges, but if someone else files a criminal complaint I would not mind looking into it. That being said I also do not have a legal requirement to take up the prosecuting duty of that case. What I believe is heroic or not will not matter anyways. If someone believes that there should be charges placed they can file a criminal complaint and the court can choose to look into it.

Some would say that your last sentence there implicates that you view the entire role of the AG as unnecessary, and that your unwillingness to prosecute people who you view as heroic will inevitably spread until you (if elected) refuse to prosecute anyone at all. How would you respond?

 

[James Urquhart]

Good luck Goyanes

 

[Deropia]

Good luck, Goyanes.May the best candidate win.

 

[Goyanes]

Good luck on the election, Goy

Hey Goy, want to wish you good luck and hope you do good in the election.

Good luck Goyanes

Good luck, Goyanes.May the best candidate win.

Thank you guys!

Law can be circumstantial. For example, if someone comes up to you and starts physically assaulting you, and you assault them back in self defense, will you most likely be punished? No. This is a similar case. The AG is technically not required to press charges, and may reject handling the prosecution of a case according to the legal code.

Ignoring for a moment your misconstruction of various terms of art early in your answer, I'm simply inquiring into why you believe that your personal opinion of what "heroic" means should triumph over the rule of law in TNP.

As I said before, even if I think the actions of this made up citizen are heroic or not, I am not legally obligated to press charges. If I feel he should not be punished, I do not have to place charges, but if someone else files a criminal complaint I would not mind looking into it. That being said I also do not have a legal requirement to take up the prosecuting duty of that case. What I believe is heroic or not will not matter anyways. If someone believes that there should be charges placed they can file a criminal complaint and the court can choose to look into it.

Some would say that your last sentence there implicates that you view the entire role of the AG as unnecessary, and that your unwillingness to prosecute people who you view as heroic will inevitably spread until you (if elected) refuse to prosecute anyone at all. How would you respond?

I am not stating that I would be unwilling to prosecute people. I am simply stating that I have the right to refuse, and that I may choose to exercise that right.

 

[Mall]

Law can be circumstantial. For example, if someone comes up to you and starts physically assaulting you, and you assault them back in self defense, will you most likely be punished? No. This is a similar case. The AG is technically not required to press charges, and may reject handling the prosecution of a case according to the legal code.

Ignoring for a moment your misconstruction of various terms of art early in your answer, I'm simply inquiring into why you believe that your personal opinion of what "heroic" means should triumph over the rule of law in TNP.

As I said before, even if I think the actions of this made up citizen are heroic or not, I am not legally obligated to press charges. If I feel he should not be punished, I do not have to place charges, but if someone else files a criminal complaint I would not mind looking into it. That being said I also do not have a legal requirement to take up the prosecuting duty of that case. What I believe is heroic or not will not matter anyways. If someone believes that there should be charges placed they can file a criminal complaint and the court can choose to look into it.

Some would say that your last sentence there implicates that you view the entire role of the AG as unnecessary, and that your unwillingness to prosecute people who you view as heroic will inevitably spread until you (if elected) refuse to prosecute anyone at all. How would you respond?

I am not stating that I would be unwilling to prosecute people. I am simply stating that I have the right to refuse, and that I may choose to exercise that right.

Some would say that there is no point in electing an AG who will exercise an option to not enforce the law based upon arbitrary and capricious notions which they are unwilling to elaborate on. How would you respond?

 

[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?

Thank You for your question Zyvet.

1. I think it's appropriate for the AG to use their general standing when a matter should be brought to court, but no citizen has utilized their standing.

Is this to say that all plausible unlawful actions ought be brought to the Court by the Attorney General, provided that a citizen has not already done so?

2. I think the AG should only use their right to refuse prosecution when the complaint is visibly malicious or if there is overwhelming evidence showing that the person in question couldn't have committed the crime.

You have indicated in answer to other questions that there are circumstances where concerns other than evidential concerns ought to be taken into account in the decision of whether or not to prosecute, why not refer to them here? Are there any particular factors which might indicate a prosecution is not in the public interest?

3. I would make sure to advise them that the act was illegal. I would most likely file charges afterwards depending on what would play out afterwards. The situation would not change for other government officials.

Would you consider avenues other than criminal prosecution? What would they be? Would there be any difference in the avenues depending on the official?

Might there not be particular concerns in relation to the Delegate and Vice Delegate, say, as compared to the Minister and Election Commissioner which could warrant some additional actions or precautions?

In the event of a criminal prosecution, might any difficulties arise as a consequence of your having became involved in giving advice prior to the action? Particularly, might difficulties may arise in relation to conflicts of interest in such a circumstance?

Would it be open to you to use advice given to an official to support a criminal prosecution (for instance to prove that a violation of the law was doing knowing it was a violation)? Might the possibility of using such advice to support a prosecution have a negative effect, if it is permissible?

5. I think the current sentencing laws are fine, and as my counterpart Drasnia said, are open to flexibility for punishment depending on the severity of the case.

Are there any matters outside of the particular punishments prescribed and their breadth that might be worth considering in relation to sentencing and whether it ought to be reformed?

 

[Goyanes]

Sorry for the delay in answering y'alls questions, some stuff at home came up and my time was cut short.

Some would say that there is no point in electing an AG who will exercise an option to not enforce the law based upon arbitrary and capricious notions which they are unwilling to elaborate on. How would you respond?[/quote]

As I said before, My statements above do not state that I am going to refuse to prosecute everyone. They simply state that the AG has a right to refuse. Any other AG could also exercise that right as well, not just me.

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?

Thank You for your question Zyvet.

1. I think it's appropriate for the AG to use their general standing when a matter should be brought to court, but no citizen has utilized their standing.

Is this to say that all plausible unlawful actions ought be brought to the Court by the Attorney General, provided that a citizen has not already done so?

2. I think the AG should only use their right to refuse prosecution when the complaint is visibly malicious or if there is overwhelming evidence showing that the person in question couldn't have committed the crime.

You have indicated in answer to other questions that there are circumstances where concerns other than evidential concerns ought to be taken into account in the decision of whether or not to prosecute, why not refer to them here? Are there any particular factors which might indicate a prosecution is not in the public interest?

3. I would make sure to advise them that the act was illegal. I would most likely file charges afterwards depending on what would play out afterwards. The situation would not change for other government officials.

Would you consider avenues other than criminal prosecution? What would they be? Would there be any difference in the avenues depending on the official?

Might there not be particular concerns in relation to the Delegate and Vice Delegate, say, as compared to the Minister and Election Commissioner which could warrant some additional actions or precautions?

In the event of a criminal prosecution, might any difficulties arise as a consequence of your having became involved in giving advice prior to the action? Particularly, might difficulties may arise in relation to conflicts of interest in such a circumstance?

Would it be open to you to use advice given to an official to support a criminal prosecution (for instance to prove that a violation of the law was doing knowing it was a violation)? Might the possibility of using such advice to support a prosecution have a negative effect, if it is permissible?

5. I think the current sentencing laws are fine, and as my counterpart Drasnia said, are open to flexibility for punishment depending on the severity of the case.

Are there any matters outside of the particular punishments prescribed and their breadth that might be worth considering in relation to sentencing and whether it ought to be reformed?

1. In relation to factors making prosecutions not in the public interest, these include obvious trolling and malicious intent in addition to the aforementioned reasons.

2a. In relation to the different government positions, each government role warrants a different need and a different consequence for breaking the law. The law should apply to all the government members regardldess of case.

2b. I do not think a conflict of interest would arise.

2c. I do not think it would have a negative effect. If they did not take my advice and broke the law, that is clear evidence of intent, as they were warned beforehand of possible consequences.

3. I think there should be an elaboration on punishment for non-citizens committing crimes, as the current sentencing clauses do not elaborate enough on that, in my opinion.

 

[Zyvetskistaahn]

Thank you for your answers, I have some follow-ups, also some of the questions I asked seem to have been missed, they are highlighted in bold.

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?

Thank You for your question Zyvet.

1. I think it's appropriate for the AG to use their general standing when a matter should be brought to court, but no citizen has utilized their standing.

Is this to say that all plausible unlawful actions ought be brought to the Court by the Attorney General, provided that a citizen has not already done so?

2. I think the AG should only use their right to refuse prosecution when the complaint is visibly malicious or if there is overwhelming evidence showing that the person in question couldn't have committed the crime.

You have indicated in answer to other questions that there are circumstances where concerns other than evidential concerns ought to be taken into account in the decision of whether or not to prosecute, why not refer to them here? Are there any particular factors which might indicate a prosecution is not in the public interest?

3. I would make sure to advise them that the act was illegal. I would most likely file charges afterwards depending on what would play out afterwards. The situation would not change for other government officials.

Would you consider avenues other than criminal prosecution? What would they be? Would there be any difference in the avenues depending on the official?

Might there not be particular concerns in relation to the Delegate and Vice Delegate, say, as compared to the Minister and Election Commissioner which could warrant some additional actions or precautions?

In the event of a criminal prosecution, might any difficulties arise as a consequence of your having became involved in giving advice prior to the action? Particularly, might difficulties may arise in relation to conflicts of interest in such a circumstance?

Would it be open to you to use advice given to an official to support a criminal prosecution (for instance to prove that a violation of the law was doing knowing it was a violation)? Might the possibility of using such advice to support a prosecution have a negative effect, if it is permissible?

5. I think the current sentencing laws are fine, and as my counterpart Drasnia said, are open to flexibility for punishment depending on the severity of the case.

Are there any matters outside of the particular punishments prescribed and their breadth that might be worth considering in relation to sentencing and whether it ought to be reformed?

1. In relation to factors making prosecutions not in the public interest, these include obvious trolling and malicious intent in addition to the aforementioned reasons.

2a. In relation to the different government positions, each government role warrants a different need and a different consequence for breaking the law. The law should apply to all the government members regardldess of case.

What particular precautions might be warranted in relation to the officials referred to? Might there be some remedies in relation to some of the officials which are not available in relation to the others, what are these?

2b. I do not think a conflict of interest would arise.

Suppose you privately advised the Delegate of some matter, and wished to use the advice as evidence but the Delegate would not give testimony to verify it (in exercise of their right against self-incrimination), how would that advice be verified?

2c. I do not think it would have a negative effect. If they did not take my advice and broke the law, that is clear evidence of intent, as they were warned beforehand of possible consequences.

Might there not be effects beyond the instant case, in terms of the willingness of officials to seek advice in the future, if it could extend their criminal liability?

3. I think there should be an elaboration on punishment for non-citizens committing crimes, as the current sentencing clauses do not elaborate enough on that, in my opinion.

What elaboration would you think appropriate in respect of that point?