The AGORA Act

[Siwale]

The Attorney General has Outlived Rational Applications (AGORA) Act

1. Article 4 of the Constitution shall be struck null and void.

2. The remaining Articles of the Constitution shall be renumbered in numeric order.

3. Article 4 (formerly Article 5) of the Constitution of The North Pacific is hereby amended to read as follows:

Article 4. The Court

1. The Court will try all criminal cases and review the constitutionality of laws or legality of government policies and actions.
2. Reviews of laws or government policies and actions must be made by request of an affected party unless there is a compelling regional interest in resolving it.
3. The Court will consist of at least three Justices, who will select a Chief Justice among themselves.
4. The Chief Justice will administer the rules of the Court. Where no rules exist, the Chief Justice may use their discretion.
5. The official opinion of the Court in any trial or review will be binding on all Government bodies and officials.
6. Justices will be elected by the Regional Assembly by a plurality vote every four months.

4. Article 6 (formerly Article 7) of the Constitution of The North Pacific is hereby amended to read as follows:

Article 6. General Provisions

1. Constitutionally-mandated officials are the Delegate, Vice Delegate, Speaker, members of the Security Council, and Justices.
2. Government officials are the constitutionally-mandated officials and any officials appointed by them as permitted by law.
3. The executive category consists of the Delegate, Vice Delegate, and government officials appointed by the Delegate or Vice Delegate.
4. The legislative category consists of the Speaker, and government officials appointed by the Speaker.
5. The judicial category consists of the Justices, and government officials appointed by Justices.
6. Any temporary replacement for a government official in the case of an absence or vacancy will be considered a government official in the branch of the official being replaced, regardless of the method of their selection.
7. All government officials, with the exception of members of the Security Council, must maintain citizenship while in office.
8. All government officials will swear an oath of office. The content of these oaths will be determined by law and be legally binding.
9. No person may simultaneously serve in more than one elected office.
10. No constitutionally-mandated official may simultaneously serve in government official positions in more than one of the executive, legislative, or judicial categories. Exceptions to this provision may be established by law.
11. Candidates in any election must maintain citizenship for the fifteen days before the opening of candidacy declarations and throughout the election.
12. Government bodies may create rules for their own governance subordinate to this constitution and the laws.
13. Procedures to fill vacancies and absences in constitutionally-mandated offices may be established by law.
14. No law or government policy may contradict this constitution.

5. Chapter 3 of the Legal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

Chapter 3: Judicial Law

1. These procedures will govern the Judiciary.

Section 3.1: Chief Justice Selection
2. Whenever the position is vacant, the Justices shall elect a Chief Justice from among themselves by a majority vote.
3. In the event that a Chief Justice has not been elected by seven days after the conclusion of a Judicial election, including the conclusion of any required run-off votes, the Chief Justice shall be the Justice who received the highest number of votes in said election. In the event of a tie for highest number of votes, the Chief Justice shall be the one among those tied with the longest period of citizenship.

Section 3.2: Appointment of Hearing Officers
4. A conflict of interest occurs when a Justice or Hearing Officer has a vested interest in a matter before the Court, or when they are otherwise unable to rule in a fair and unbiased manner.
5. Justices and Hearing Officers are required to recuse themselves from matters where they have a certain or potential conflict of interest.
6. If one or more Justice positions are vacant, or any Justice is absent or has recused themselves, the remaining Justices will promptly appoint replacements from among available citizens to participate as temporary Hearing Officers.
7. If all Justices are vacant, absent, or have recused themselves, the Delegate will promptly appoint the needed Hearing Officers from among available citizens with the agreement of the Speaker.
8. Any recusal or absence of a Hearing Officer will be treated as a vacancy.
9. The Court may recuse any Justice or Hearing Officer by majority vote.
10. The Court must hold a vote on whether to recuse a Justice or Hearing Officer when publicly requested by the prosecution, defense, or petitioner in any matter before the Court.

Section 3.3: Criminal Trial Procedure
11. A standard procedure for all criminal trials will be established by majority agreement of the Court.
12. Any person may present criminal charges to the Court. If the charges are accepted, the Delegate will be tasked with designating a willing citizen to manage the prosecution. If the Delegate is the accused or unavailable, the next available person in the Line of Succession will be tasked with designating a willing citizen to manage the prosecution.
13. No one may prosecute or appoint prosecutors to a case in which they are the defendant or part of the defense.
14. If the original prosecutor is unable to see a case to completion, another prosecutor will be selected by the same procedure as the original prosecutor.

Section 3.4: Pre-Sentencing Ejections and Bans
15. The Delegate may eject and/or ban a particular nation from the region pending criminal charges against them, or prior to the conclusion of an ongoing criminal trial in which they are the defendant, only when that nation poses a clear security threat and their removal is necessary for the protection of the region.
16. The Delegate must seek the approval of the Court for any such ejection or ban. Where possible, this approval must be sought prior to the nation's removal from the region. Otherwise, it must be sought within one day of the action.
17. If the ejection or ban is performed during a criminal trial against that nation, approval will be at the discretion of the justice moderating the trial. Otherwise, any single justice may approve or deny the Delegate's request.
18. Any nation ejected or banned under this section may file an appeal of the decision. These appeals may not be denied, and must be decided by the full court.
19. The Delegate must immediately provide any nation ejected or banned under this section with a link to the Courtroom and inform them of their right to file an appeal.
20. If criminal charges are not brought against a nation ejected or banned under this section, or if the criminal charges are rejected by the Court, or if the nation is not found Guilty at the conclusion of the trial, any ban against that nation which was imposed under this section must be revoked.

6. Section 4.5 of the Legal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

Section 4.5: General Elections
29. The election of the Delegate, the Vice Delegate, and the Speaker will begin on the first day of the months of January, May, and September.
30. If no candidate for a given office gains a majority, a runoff vote for that office will begin within one day of the first vote ending and it will last for five days.
31. Candidates will be added to the runoff ballot in descending order of how many votes they received. Candidates who received equal numbers of votes will be added the ballot simultaneously. Once the cumulative number of votes received by the candidates on the runoff ballot reaches a majority of votes cast in the previous round of voting, excluding abstentions, no more candidates will be added to the ballot.
32. If no one gains a majority of votes in the runoff vote, the runoff process will be repeated until a candidate receives a majority.

7. Section 7.4 of The Legal Code shall be struck null and void.

8. The remaining Sections of Chapter 7 of The Legal Code shall be renumbered in numeric order.

9. Any cases currently being prosecuted when this bill is enacted will continue under the same prosecutor.

10. When this bill is enacted, ownership of all government records from the Attorney General's office will be transferred to the Delegate.

11. No portion of this bill will take effect unless/until all portions take effect.

---

Spoiler: Annotation of Changes

Constitution of The North Pacific​

​

In order to guide The North Pacific in its practice of democratic governance we, the nations of The North Pacific, establish this constitution.

Article 1. Bill of Rights

1. All nations are guaranteed the rights defined by the Bill of Rights.


Article 2. The Regional Assembly

1. Resident means any person with a nation in the region of The North Pacific.
2. The Regional Assembly will consist of all citizens.
3. Requirements for citizenship will be determined by law.
4. The Regional Assembly may enact, amend or repeal laws by a majority vote.
5. The Regional Assembly may remove a government official from office by a two-thirds majority vote.
6. The number of votes required to achieve quorum for any vote of the Regional Assembly except elections will be determined by law.
7. The Regional Assembly will elect a Speaker every four months by a majority vote.
8. The Speaker will administer the rules of the Regional Assembly. Where no rules exist, the Speaker may use their discretion.
9. Abstentions cast in the Regional Assembly will not be used to determine the result of any vote, but may be used for quorum and all other purposes.
10. The Speaker may appoint deputies to assist them in the execution of any of their powers and duties. Appointment of deputies may be regulated by law and the rules of the Regional Assembly.


Article 3. The Delegate and Vice Delegate

1. The Delegate will be the head of state and government of The North Pacific and hold the in-game position of delegate.
2. The Delegate may eject and ban nations from the region as permitted by law, and will eject or ban nations from the region when required by law.
3. The Delegate may negotiate treaties with foreign powers. No treaty will come into effect unless approved by a two-thirds majority vote of the Regional Assembly.
4. When a proposal of the Regional Assembly to enact, amend or repeal a law is passed, the Speaker shall promptly present it to the Delegate, and it shall take effect immediately upon their signature.
5. The Delegate may veto a proposal of the Regional Assembly to enact, amend or repeal a law within one week of its passage.
6. The Regional Assembly may override such a veto by a two-thirds majority vote, which shall cause a proposal to take immediate effect.
7. If a proposal of the Regional Assembly to enact, amend or repeal a law has not been signed or vetoed by the Delegate, it shall take effect seven days after being passed.
8. The Delegate may appoint executive officers to assist them and may dismiss these officers freely. Executive officers may be regulated by law.
9. The Vice Delegate will chair the Security Council and enforce the continued eligibility of its members as determined by law.
10.. The Vice Delegate will hold the second most endorsements in the region. The Delegate may eject or ban any nation which exceeds any legally mandated endorsement limit.
11. In the case of a vacancy or absence in the office of Delegate or Vice Delegate, the first available person in the line of succession will assume the duties of the vacated position. If a member of the line of succession assumes the duties of either position while serving in, or having assumed the duties of, any other constitutionally-mandated elected office, they will be considered absent from that office.
12. The Delegate and Vice Delegate will be elected by the Regional Assembly by a majority vote every four months. No person shall be elected Delegate to a full or partial term in three consecutive election cycles.


Article 4. Attorney General

1. The Regional Assembly will elect an Attorney General by majority vote every four months.
2. The Attorney General will have discretion to manage the prosecution of all criminal cases brought before the Court, save those outlined below, and will also act as a legal advisor to the Delegate, and the Executive, of The North Pacific upon request.
3. The Attorney General shall not be involved in the prosecution of any criminal case in which they are a defendant, a defense attorney, or a witness.
4. The Attorney General may appoint deputies to assist them in the execution of any of their powers and duties. Appointment of deputies may be regulated by law.


Article 45. The Court

1. The Court will try all criminal cases, resolve conflicts or ambiguities in the law, and review the constitutionality of laws or legality of government policies and actions.
2. Reviews of laws or government policies and actions must be made by request of an affected party unless there is a compelling regional interest in resolving it.
3. The Court will consist of at least three Justices, who will select a Chief Justice among themselves.
4. The Chief Justice will administer the rules of the Court. Where no rules exist, the Chief Justice may use their discretion.
5. The official opinion of the Court in any trial or review will be binding on all Government bodies and officials.
6. Justices will be elected by the Regional Assembly by a plurality vote every four months.


Article 56. The Security Council

1. Any person who meets any endorsement and influence requirements determined by law may apply to become a member of the Security Council.
2. Once an application has been submitted, the Security Council may nominate that applicant by a majority vote. The Regional Assembly may confirm a nominated applicant by a majority vote. If the Security Council does not nominate an applicant or does not act on them within thirty days, the Regional Assembly may appoint the applicant by a two-thirds majority vote.
3. Nominations remain in effect until revoked by majority vote of the Security Council.
4. The Security Council will monitor the region’s security and report on it to the public, and enforce decisions of the Regional Assembly to remove the Delegate.
5. The Regional Assembly may establish a line of succession by a majority vote. The line of succession must always include the Vice Delegate and all current Security Council members, and must always place the Vice Delegate first. If a new member is admitted to the Security Council, they will be automatically added at the end of the current line of succession. If a member is removed from the Security Council, they will be automatically removed from the line of succession.

Article 67. General Provisions

1. Constitutionally-mandated elected officials are the Delegate, Vice Delegate, Speaker, members of the Security Council, and Justices, and Attorney General.
2.Government officials are the constitutionally-mandated elected officials, and any officials appointed by them as permitted by law, and members of the Security Council.
3. The executive category consists of the Delegate, Vice Delegate, Attorney General, and government officials appointed by the Delegate or Vice Delegategovernment officials in the executive category.

4. The legislative category consists of the Speaker, and government officials appointed by the Speakergovernment officials in the legislative category.
5. The judicial category consists of the Justices, and government officials appointed by Justicesgovernment officials in the judicial category.
6. Any temporary replacement for a government official in the case of an absence or vacancy will be considered a government official in the branch of the official being replaced, regardless of the method of their selection.
7. All government officials, with the exception of members of the Security Council, must maintain citizenship while in office.
8. All government officials will swear an oath of office. The content of these oaths will be determined by law and be legally binding.
9. No person may simultaneously serve in more than one elected officeconstitutionally-mandated elected official positions.
10. No personconstitutionally-mandated official may simultaneously serve in government official positions in more than one of the executive, legislative, or judicial categories. Exceptions to this provision may be established by law.
11. Candidates in any election must maintain citizenship for the fifteen days before the opening of candidacy declarations and throughout the election.
12. Government bodies may create rules for their own governance subordinate to this constitution and the laws.
13. Procedures to fill vacancies and absences in constitutionally-mandated elected offices may be established by law.
14. No law or government policy may contradict this constitution.


Article 78. The Regional Forum

1. The Regional Forum will be the XenForo forum located at forum.thenorthpacific.org, formerly http://s13.zetaboards.com/TNP/ .
2. Enforcement of forum Terms Of Service and moderation policies will be the responsibility of forum administration.


Article 89. Amendments

1. The Regional Assembly may amend this Constitution by a two-thirds majority vote.
2. The Regional Assembly may amend the Bill of Rights by a three-quarters majority vote.

Chapter 3: Judicial Law

1. These procedures will govern the Judiciary.

Section 3.1: Chief Justice Selection
2. Whenever the position is vacant, the Justices shall elect a Chief Justice from among themselves by a majority vote.
3. In the event that a Chief Justice has not been elected by seven days after the conclusion of a Judicial election, including the conclusion of any required run-off votes, the Chief Justice shall be the Justice who received the highest number of votes in said election. In the event of a tie for highest number of votes, the Chief Justice shall be the one among those tied with the longest period of citizenship.

Section 3.2: Appointment of Hearing Officers
4. A conflict of interest occurs when a Justice or Hearing Officer has a vested interest in a matter before the Court, or when they are otherwise unable to rule in a fair and unbiased manner.
5. Justices and Hearing Officers are required to recuse themselves from matters where they have a certain or potential conflict of interest.
6. If one or more Justice positions are vacant, or any Justice is absent or has recused themselves, the remaining Justices will promptly appoint replacements from among available citizens to participate as temporary Hearing Officers.
7. If all Justices are vacant, absent, or have recused themselves, the Delegate will promptly appoint the needed Hearing Officers from among available citizens with the agreement of the Speaker.
8. Any recusal or absence of a Hearing Officer will be treated as a vacancy.
9. The Court may recuse any Justice or Hearing Officer by majority vote.
10. The Court must hold a vote on whether to recuse a Justice or Hearing Officer when publicly requested by the prosecution, defense, or petitioner in any matter before the Court.

Section 3.3: Criminal Trial Procedure
11. A standard procedure for all criminal trials will be established by majority agreement of the Court.
12. Any person may present criminal charges to the Court. If the charges are accepted, the Delegate will be tasked with designating a willing citizen to manage the prosecution. If the Delegate is the accused or unavailable, the next available person in the Line of Succession will be tasked with designating a willing citizen to manage the prosecution.
13. No one may prosecute or appoint prosecutors to a case in which they are the defendant or part of the defense.
14. If the original prosecutor is unable to see a case to completion, another prosecutor will be selected by the same procedure as the original prosecutor.

Section 3.4: Pre-Sentencing Ejections and Bans
1215. The Delegate may eject and/or ban a particular nation from the region pending criminal charges against them, or prior to the conclusion of an ongoing criminal trial in which they are the defendant, only when that nation poses a clear security threat and their removal is necessary for the protection of the region.
1316. The Delegate must seek the approval of the Court for any such ejection or ban. Where possible, this approval must be sought prior to the nation's removal from the region. Otherwise, it must be sought within one day of the action.
1417. If the ejection or ban is performed during a criminal trial against that nation, approval will be at the discretion of the justice moderating the trial. Otherwise, any single justice may approve or deny the Delegate's request.
1518. Any nation ejected or banned under this section may file an appeal of the decision. These appeals may not be denied, and must be decided by the full court.
1619. The Delegate must immediately provide any nation ejected or banned under this section with a link to the Courtroom and inform them of their right to file an appeal.
1720. If criminal charges are not brought against a nation ejected or banned under this section, or if the criminal charges are rejected by the Court, or if the nation is not found Guilty at the conclusion of the trial, any ban against that nation which was imposed under this section must be revoked.

Section 4.5: General Elections
29. The election of the Delegate, the Vice Delegate, the Attorney General, and the Speaker will begin on the first day of the months of January, May, and September.
30. If no candidate for a given office gains a majority, a runoff vote for that office will begin within one day of the first vote ending and it will last for five days.
31. Candidates will be added to the runoff ballot in descending order of how many votes they received. Candidates who received equal numbers of votes will be added the ballot simultaneously. Once the cumulative number of votes received by the candidates on the runoff ballot reaches a majority of votes cast in the previous round of voting, excluding abstentions, no more candidates will be added to the ballot.
32. If no one gains a majority of votes in the runoff vote, the runoff process will be repeated until a candidate receives a majority.[/

Chapter 7: Executive Government

1. Any Law regulating the executive government officials of The North Pacific may be listed in this chapter.

Section 7.1: Definitions
2. Executive Officers are government officials appointed by the Delegate to assist in the execution of their duties.
3. Advisors to the Delegate are government officials appointed by the Delegate who serve only to advise the Delegate, and are exempt from constitutional restrictions on holding multiple government offices for purposes of their appointment.
4. The Serving Delegate is the person holding the constitutionally-mandated elected office of the Delegate or, in the case of a vacancy in that office, the person that has assumed the duties of that office.
5. The WA Delegate is the nation holding the WA Delegacy of the region The North Pacific.

Section 7.2: Regional Officers
6. Regional Officers may only be appointed and granted powers as explicitly allowed under this section.
7. The Serving Delegate may assign any Regional Power, with the exception of Border Control, to any government official or nation created for the purpose of performing government functions.
8. The Serving Delegate may assign Border Control powers to any of the three members of the Security Council earliest in the Order of Succession.
9. In the event of a Delegate Emergency, or with the permission of a majority vote of the Regional Assembly, the Serving Delegate may assign Border Control powers to any member of the Security Council.
10. The WA Delegate will promptly grant all Regional Powers to the Serving Delegate and assign additional powers to other government officials or regional nations as instructed.

Section 7.3: Onsite Authority
11. Violators of NationStates rules may be subject to summary ejection or banning.
12. Nations recruiting for other regions may be subject to summary ejection or banning.
13. Nations for which the Court has issued an indictment permitting it may be ejected or banned.
14. Nations that have been so sentenced by the Court will be ejected or banned.
15. The official performing an ejection or ban will promptly inform the region and Government.
16. The Serving Delegate may regulate the Regional Message Board as they see fit.
17. Such regulations may not prohibit speech which is in the context of TNP politics.
18. All actions of the WA Delegate, the Serving Delegate, or of their appointed Regional Officers related to this section will be subject to judicial review.

Section 7.4: The Attorney General
19. Any deputy appointed by the Attorney General may not serve concurrently as either a Justice or a Temporary Hearing Officer.
20. The Attorney General will have standing in all cases of judicial review brought before the Court.
21. Any person ("the complainant") may submit a criminal complaint to the office of the Attorney General, requesting that a criminal case be brought before the Court.
22. The Attorney General may, at their discretion, manage the prosecution of any criminal case requested.
23. Any relevant person who is a defendant, the defense attorney, or a witness in a criminal case will be unavailable to manage the prosecution of the case.
24. In the event that the Attorney General is unavailable, the Serving Delegate will appoint an existing and available deputy Attorney General. The appointed deputy Attorney General may, at their discretion, manage the prosecution of the case.
25. Failing the existence of an available deputy Attorney General, the first available person from the following list may act as such a deputy Attorney General for the duration of the case:
The Serving Delegate
The Serving Vice Delegate
Any resident (consensually) chosen by the complainant.
26. It is the duty of the Attorney General, and their deputies, to see to completion any case the management of which they have undertaken.
27. If the original Attorney General, and their deputies, are unable to see to completion a pending case after the end of their term, the successor Attorney General will take over the managing of the prosecution.
28. If the Attorney General, and their deputies, decline to manage the prosecution of a requested criminal case, then the complainant may, at their discretion, manage themselves the prosecution of the criminal case. Otherwise, they may withdraw the complaint.
29. If the complainant has not stated their intent to either manage the prosecution of the case or withdraw the complaint within 30 days of the Attorney General and their deputies declining the case, the complaint will be considered withdrawn.
30. For the purposes of this section, "managing the prosecution of a case" includes but is not limited to:
submitting an indictment to the Court for the relevant charges;
arguing on the acceptance or rejection of the indictment;
acting as the prosecutor for the duration of all stages of the criminal trial heard for the case;
representing the prosecution in any separate judicial review hearings arising from the criminal trial;
and appointing, directing, and removing an attorney to act in the above capacity in their place.
Section 7.47.5: Freedom of Information Act
31. For the purposes of this section "the government" refers to the Delegate and the Executive Officers, including the departments which they oversee.
32. For the purposes of this section, classified information is that which fits any of the below definitions:
Real life information about any NationStates player from which there is a risk of inferring that player's real life identity and which has not willingly been disclosed to the public, including, but not limited to, an individual's name, IP address, physical address or location, phone number, place of employment or education, appearance, social media accounts, and other knowledge about a player, unless the player in question provides explicit consent for this information not to be considered private.
Real life information about any NationStates player for which there exists a reasonable real life expectation of privacy or discretion, including, but not limited to, health status, both mental and physical; financial status; personal tragedies; changes in personal status such as marriage, divorce, pregnancy, birth, or death; and other similar information, unless the player in question provides explicit consent for this information not to be considered private.
Information that, upon being made public, would jeopardize any ongoing military or intelligence operations; or jeopardize the security of units and agents participating in them, or be harmful to the diplomatic interests, military interests, or security of The North Pacific.
33. Notwithstanding any process for publication, any information which meets the criteria to be classified will not be released.
34. Private government records which reach one year of age will be relocated to the appropriate Declassified Archive visible to residents.
35. At any time a resident may request the release of any private record from the Government through the Delegate and the designated officers of the Executive.
36. The Delegate and the designated officers of the Executive will retrieve information requested from the different departments of the government.
37. Residents who do not receive this information for any reason not specifically designated in appropriate laws or regulations may file a request for the information to the court, where the Delegate and the designated officers of the Executive may present evidence that addresses any claim that release of the information meets one or more of the acceptable acceptable criteria for classification.
38. Information appropriately not disclosed will be accepted as classified by a majority vote of the Court sitting as a three-member panel.

Section 7.57.6: Mandatory Ministries
39. There will be an Executive Officer charged with the North Pacific's foreign affairs. They will ensure the continued operation of any embassies of the North Pacific and will report on events in the region.
40. There will be an Executive Officer charged with military affairs. They will carry out such legal missions as are authorized by the Delegate, expressly or categorically.
41. There will be at least one Executive Officer charged with focusing primarily on matters of internal interest to The North Pacific.

---

@Crushing Our Enemies and I are presenting a bill to abolish the office of the Attorney General through a collection of edits to the Constitution and Legal Code. We have decided to move forward with this bill after thoroughly discussing our observations over the years surrounding the office of the Attorney General, both as members of the office and as citizens of TNP. What we have found is an office in which there is rarely anything that needs to be done. The Court of The North Pacific has not heard a criminal trial in nearly two and a half years. All recent court activity has been focused around requests for reviews; in which, the AG’s office has played little role besides providing their legal interpretations for The Court. Both of these responsibilities could be handled by the citizenry rather than electing a representative every four months who may see little or no action.

It is also worth noting the knowledge requirements of the office are difficult to meet. An individual who serves as Attorney General is expected to be a legal expert and well-versed on all rules, statutory laws, and case laws that encompass TNP. Due to these high knowledge demands, it is often difficult to find enough qualified candidates to form a competitive election for Attorney General. The limited activity of the office also plays a role in driving away qualified candidates. It is difficult to get individuals to commit to serve as Attorney General for four months when it usually ends up being a waste of their time. A gig system of prosecutors makes it more likely that the best person for the job will be available and willing when the time comes.

The changes to the Constitution and Legal Code highlighted above in the annotated version:

1. Abolish the office of Attorney General and all references to it in our laws
2. Allow the Court to accept requests for reviews from any individual if the Court deems that there is a compelling regional interest to resolve the review of a law or government policy/action
3. Allow any individual to file an indictment with the Court and any citizen (selected by the Delegate or next available in the Line of Succession) to manage the prosecution. In order to make this process of prosecutor appointment legally sound:
   1. Restrictions on holding appointed positions in multiple branches have been removed (so, for instance, a deputy speaker would be able to serve as a cabinet minister, or, say, a prosecutor)
   2. The Security Council is now able to appoint officials (to allow for situations when the Delegate and Vice Delegate are both unable to make a prosecutor appointment)

As these are no small changes to our current government structure, we are anticipating an extensive discussion on both the proposed legal modifications and the changes that these would bring to TNP. We will take the time to listen to, and incorporate in, all feedback we receive to ensure the bill that goes to vote is as structurally sound as possible.

 

[Pallaith]

Given the timing of this proposal, it appears we will have one more AG election. Does this mean you would let that term expire before this takes effect, or will the office be abolished mid-term? It seems that if nothing happens that would be less of an issue than other offices. What is the timing you have in mind, outside of this discussion taking as long as it needs?

 

[Syrixia]

No. Just no. What the hell?

 

[Oracle]

Why no?

 

[Syrixia]

@Artemis, are we seriously considering abolishing an entire office just because "oh, we haven't had a case in such a long time"? I don't consider that an indicator of the failure of our system, nor should anyone else- it is indicative of our success that people have not been violating our laws. Furthermore, I should add that the Office of the Attorney General serves as one of the many ways through which people in our region aspiring to participate in its legal practice can use to learn, via Deputy Attorneys General, some of which can go on to become Attorney General later on themselves.

I would also say- and I hope I'm not alone in saying this- that it is also quite important for the chief prosecutor in a court case to be someone with a robust understanding of the law, rather than just any "willing citizen". The way I see it, this can easily be a tool for any Delegate, who would appoint such a citizen, or the regional bureaucracy as a whole to appoint someone sympathetic to one side or the other, depending on who they want to win; and it could just as easily be a tool for any citizen wishing to sabotage the case to do so.

Not to mention, this is a big region- it is inevitable that not every citizen would have a strong grasp on the law, which means that this law would essentially create an informal "class of lawyers" made up of those who do. I find that quite exclusive, especially considering that the Attorney General is a popularly elected office. The public, in order to choose an AG candidate to vote for, has to weigh who has a better grasp of the law, which makes them more familiar with it.

All that being said, the way I see it, not only are Siwale and COE's excuses for overturning all this and abolishing an office that has served us well for many years terribly insufficient, but the bill they have proposed resting upon this flimsy basis empowers TNP's bureaucracy, not its citizens; and increases the chances of corruption. They are essentially channeling Bane, saying "and we give it back to you...the people." I would go so far as to say that this bill is borderline machiavellian in nature, nor am I afraid to say so.

 

[Oracle]

Instead of simply getting rid of the AG’s office, why not have it appointed on an as needed basis? Similar in manner to the Delegate and Speaker appointing THOs in certain cases.

 

[Syrixia]

That changes absolutely nothing. See the third paragraph of my response- it is much more desirable for the AG or an analogous figure to be popularly elected.

 

[mcmasterdonia]

I support this proposal. I believe it has been a long time coming. The days of requiring a constantly active court and attorney general are long behind us.

In fact more often than not, an incompetent attorney general has made prosecuting cases more difficult than if one could have been appointed as required.

 

[Wonderess]

Currently, the AG is the closest thing the Delegate's government has to an ethical voice even though it is limited to the cooperation with the letter of the law. I must oppose this removal of legal expertise in the government for this reason. The Attorney General should play the role of an advisory voice. Just because the court is not very active does not mean that this voice is no longer of use or important to the integrity of TNP governance.

 

[Far Easter Republic]

Instead of simply getting rid of the AG’s office, why not have it appointed on an as needed basis? Similar in manner to the Delegate and Speaker appointing THOs in certain cases.

That sounds better than imploding the whole thing.

 

[Far Easter Republic]

Also, Siawle would lose his post as deputy AG.

 

[Praetor]

Also, Siawle would lose his post as deputy AG.

In that case, full support. Anything to get the lazy sloth out of ruining TNP.

(I have some thoughts on this and will post later after I reread the text).

 

[mcmasterdonia]

Currently, the AG is the closest thing the Delegate's government has to an ethical voice even though it is limited to the cooperation with the letter of the law. I must oppose this removal of legal expertise in the government for this reason. The Attorney General should play the role of an advisory voice. Just because the court is not very active does not mean that this voice is no longer of use or important to the integrity of TNP governance.

For as long as I’ve been in government, the AG has never played the role that you described. The one exception is occasional legal advice which in my experience was extremely rare.

 

[Wonderess]

For as long as I’ve been in government, the AG has never played the role that you described. The one exception is occasional legal advice which in my experience was extremely rare.

I have asked for legal advice from the AG before. Such a person to have is always helpful for both people in the Delegate government and the RA.

 

[Syrixia]

Currently, the AG is the closest thing the Delegate's government has to an ethical voice even though it is limited to the cooperation with the letter of the law. I must oppose this removal of legal expertise in the government for this reason. The Attorney General should play the role of an advisory voice. Just because the court is not very active does not mean that this voice is no longer of use or important to the integrity of TNP governance.

Good point, and yet another reason why the AG's Office should be kept. There is potential in it outside its usual purpose as well.

Also, Siawle would lose his post as deputy AG.

How ironic.

 

[mcmasterdonia]

I have asked for legal advice from the AG before. Such a person to have is always helpful for both people in the Delegate government and the RA.

That’s not the same as what you described. If the AG chose to offer you informal advice that’s up to them, but I wouldn’t have said that was a key part of their role - the AG offering such informal advice could actually be a bad thing if your actions based upon that advice were subject to legal action against you.

 

[Dinoium]

Nope. I think it's clear we should have an independent official prosecutor's office. I have been in this office and I have admit we weren't able to push much indictments out. However, Siwale is mislead as thr Attorney General's office has had some activity behind the scenes. Under this term and the previous, we have dealt with some Coat of Arms situations and made action. Siwale, however, has never replied to those discussions and only office discussions relating to R4Rs and other related subjects. The whole point of making our AG elected and not appointed was to make it an independent governmental prosecution office. To prevent obstructions of justice and gross misconduct.

What if the case was against the Delegate? Sure the Delegate should hire someone unbiased but there's still a large potential that they can abuse their powers and appoint someone to hurt the prosecution and could help get the Delegate proven innocent. I think all citizens should be allowed to present requests of indictments to the Court but when it comes to hiring the prosecution, it should be the independent AG Office. Not some Delegate from Magicality City.

I'm frankly disturbed that the Attorney General hadn't let me chime in with these discussions. I would of course be against abolishing the office but it's still disgusting that only them and one of two of their Deputies were involved.

[Redacted]

So to put it simply, I am against this act.

 

[Darcania]

What if the case was against the Delegate?

Read Legal Code, Section 3.3, clause 12 of this proposal.

 

[Dinoium]

Read Legal Code, Section 3.3, clause 12 of this proposal.

Well I still do think it is a bit disturbing that a bunch of executive and security bureaucrats are hiring the prosecution for a court case. I believe in an independent judiciary and while yes the AG is apart of the Executive, I define judiciary as relating to judicial and court matters.


And a Delegate, even not being involved in such request of indictment, can hire prosecutors that share thier opinion on the indictment. It's just possible.

 

[Oracle]

I'm frankly disturbed that the Attorney General hadn't let me chime in with these discussions. I would of course be against abolishing the office but it's still disgusting that only them and one of two of their Deputies were involved.

The AG, or any official, is not required to appraise their subordinates of anything. To say it’s disgusting is a tad dramatic. A deputy is not entitled to know everything.

I would go so far to say that this bill was drafted by two private citizens who just so happen to serve in the Attorney Generals office. Two individuals who have quite a lot of experience with said office and have a firm grasp on the workings and failings of this office. Perhaps they didn’t include you in this discussion because they felt you didn’t have that experience.

If all the AG’s office is currently doing is handling CoA issues and the occasional R4R, then that is something that can be handled by an appointed AG as the need arises.

 

[SillyString]

I am not yet sold on this bill. The role of the AG is to defend the people of TNP, and to represent the region as a whole in judicial matters. Their status as an elected office is important in imparting the legitimacy to do so.

However, I do understand the concerns that led to this bill being proposed. The AG frequently has little to do in a term, and the role ties up an individual who could otherwise be serving the region in another capacity.

Instead of simply getting rid of the AG’s office, why not have it appointed on an as needed basis? Similar in manner to the Delegate and Speaker appointing THOs in certain cases.

How is this suggestion functionally different from what has been laid out by Siwale and COE?

Currently, the AG is the closest thing the Delegate's government has to an ethical voice even though it is limited to the cooperation with the letter of the law. I must oppose this removal of legal expertise in the government for this reason. The Attorney General should play the role of an advisory voice. Just because the court is not very active does not mean that this voice is no longer of use or important to the integrity of TNP governance.

I think the point folks are raising is that there is no guarantee that the AG will have any legal expertise. That is, indeed, a flaw in relying upon their guidance. I personally would not want to be the guinea pig in a criminal trial around whether I committed grosse misconduct when I took an AG's flawed legal advice.

Restrictions on holding appointed positions in multiple branches have been removed (so, for instance, a deputy speaker would be able to serve as a cabinet minister, or, say, a prosecutor)

This part I wholeheartedly object to. Deputy speakers wield legislative powers; it is as inappropriate for them to serve as ministers as it is for the speaker to do so.

I can probably support granting appointed prosecutors an exemption from the multiple offices prohibition, in the same way that we exemption ECs and such now.

 

[Dinoium]

The AG, or any official, is not required to appraise their subordinates of anything. To say it’s disgusting is a tad dramatic. A deputy is not entitled to know everything.

I would go so far to say that this bill was drafted by two private citizens who just so happen to serve in the Attorney Generals office. Two individuals who have quite a lot of experience with said office and have a firm grasp on the workings and failings of this office. Perhaps they didn’t include you in this discussion because they felt you didn’t have that experience.

If all the AG’s office is currently doing is handling CoA issues and the occasional R4R, then that is something that can be handled by an appointed AG as the need arises.

Well perhaps I am not entitled to all information. But it does disturb me that the Attorney General and one of the other Deputies discuss the future of the office without my commentary.

And perhaps it was drafted by two private citizens. But it disturbs me that they were in the AG office and yet refuse to invite me to the future of the office.

And I heavily object your statement. I have been in this office for 2 and a half terms along holding many more judicial positions outside of TNP. Siwale only came this term. So saying they were individuals with quite alot of "experience" in this office, probably more than me (I'm aware you never stated more than me but if you're going to refer them as individuals with quite of alot of "experience" and if I'm not included for not having a quite alot of experience in this office is wrong), is fraudulent and absoluetly wrong. As I've stated before, I have more experience in this office than Siwale and everyone knows that.

And the Legal Code now defines it as "prosecutor". So are you proposing that the Delegate should appoint a Prosecutor to look into this? No one's being prosecuted. All it is that people accidentially forgot or don't know the law regarding the CoA. And again for R4Rs, there is no prosecution. No one is bringing charges against someone. The AG can both lead prosecutions, provide advice for R4Rs, and lead special investigations. And it's independent. That's what we need. Independent prosecutor office.

 

[Xentherida]

I don’t even get involved in TNP politics but that acronym and bill name was so utterly awful I’m voting against it purely because of that.

 

[Crushing Our Enemies]

Allow me to address some of the questions that have been raised about this bill so far:

Given the timing of this proposal, it appears we will have one more AG election. Does this mean you would let that term expire before this takes effect, or will the office be abolished mid-term? It seems that if nothing happens that would be less of an issue than other offices. What is the timing you have in mind, outside of this discussion taking as long as it needs?

As the bill currently stands, enactment would not be delayed to the end of the term, but there is an implementation clause that essentially says if there are any ongoing prosecutions, they will continue under the same prosecutor until their conclusion. There is no specific timeframe. Siwale and I are committed to continue debate long enough to address all concerns, and modify the bill based on the useful feedback of the citizenry. I would imagine this will take at least a couple weeks.

I'm gonna have to break @Syrixia's response down a bit, since there's a lot to unpack here.

@Artemis, are we seriously considering abolishing an entire office just because "oh, we haven't had a case in such a long time"? I don't consider that an indicator of the failure of our system, nor should anyone else- it is indicative of our success that people have not been violating our laws.

No, in fact, there are several reasons for this bill that Siwale laid out in the opening post that have nothing to do with how long it's been since the last criminal trial. In particular, that the knowledge and experience requirements of the office are a very high bar, and it's rare for enough qualified people to be interested in it to have a competitive election. This is especially true since the work of the office is sparse, so a lot of the most qualified individuals are not interested in seeking it, since their time and expertise would be put to better use elsewhere in the government. So the elected AG may or may not be the best person for the job - I think that if a prosecutor is selected on a per-trial basis, instead of per-four-month-period, we're more likely to get someone suited to prosecute that trial - simply because it's a shorter commitment, and there would not be any restriction based on other offices they hold.

Furthermore, I should add that the Office of the Attorney General serves as one of the many ways through which people in our region aspiring to participate in its legal practice can use to learn, via Deputy Attorneys General, some of which can go on to become Attorney General later on themselves.

I don't agree. On paper, yes, it would seem that serving in a low-level role in the judicial system would result in a higher level of education about the law over time. However, when there is little work for the office to do, it doesn't always play out that way, especially if the AG is not themselves a legal expert. The way you learn about the law is by 1) reading it carefully, 2) asking questions to people who know the answers, and 3) Experiencing situations in which your knowledge of the law is put to the test - in other words, using the knowledge you gained through steps 1 and 2. All of this you can do without holding any particular office. If your particular concern is about gaining legal experience through serving on prosecution teams, there is nothing stopping a Prosecutor appointed under this bill from recruiting assistants.

I would also say- and I hope I'm not alone in saying this- that it is also quite important for the chief prosecutor in a court case to be someone with a robust understanding of the law, rather than just any "willing citizen". The way I see it, this can easily be a tool for any Delegate, who would appoint such a citizen, or the regional bureaucracy as a whole to appoint someone sympathetic to one side or the other, depending on who they want to win; and it could just as easily be a tool for any citizen wishing to sabotage the case to do so.

I do intend to modify the language there a bit to make it clear that a Prosecutor will be a government official. As such, if they perform misfeasance in office as you are concerned about, they could be charged with Gross Misconduct for breaking their oath of office. They may also be subject to recall if their performance is poor, or if the citizenry is not confident in their ability. These are the same protections that would prevent a biased Attorney General from intentionally sabotaging their own case. And before anyone fallaciously claims that the citizenry wouldn't elect such a person - we have no idea who will be on trial in a given term when we elect the AG. A criminal complaint could be filed against their own mother, and they would have first right of refusal to prosecute. Your complaint in this paragraph could be just as appropriately applied to the law as it currently stands.

Not to mention, this is a big region- it is inevitable that not every citizen would have a strong grasp on the law, which means that this law would essentially create an informal "class of lawyers" made up of those who do. I find that quite exclusive, especially considering that the Attorney General is a popularly elected office. The public, in order to choose an AG candidate to vote for, has to weigh who has a better grasp of the law, which makes them more familiar with it.

I'm not sure I'm taking your point here. Just last paragraph, you were complaining that this bill would allow people without a robust understanding of the law to become prosecutors, and now you are saying that it would unfairly restrict those same unqualified people from becoming prosecutors?!

All that being said, the way I see it, not only are Siwale and COE's excuses for overturning all this and abolishing an office that has served us well for many years terribly insufficient, but the bill they have proposed resting upon this flimsy basis empowers TNP's bureaucracy, not its citizens; and increases the chances of corruption. They are essentially channeling Bane, saying "and we give it back to you...the people." I would go so far as to say that this bill is borderline machiavellian in nature, nor am I afraid to say so.

I strongly considered ignoring this paragraph, but I have made it a personal policy never to let accusations of ill faith slide. We are not making excuses for this bill, nor is the basis for it flimsy. I am not seeking to empower an oligarchy (which I assume is what you are incorrectly using the word bureaucracy to mean), nor am I Machiavelli. You disagree with our policy proposal. Fine. But after seven years in this region, I will not brook accusations that I am seeking only to empower myself or corrupt our institutions through authoring legislation. I have never said a word in ill faith in this assembly, and I am not starting with this bill. Oppose it if you disagree with it, but do not make accusations of me that you cannot defend. Retract this paragraph.

Instead of simply getting rid of the AG’s office, why not have it appointed on an as needed basis? Similar in manner to the Delegate and Speaker appointing THOs in certain cases.

That is essentially what this bill seeks to do.

I have asked for legal advice from the AG before. Such a person to have is always helpful for both people in the Delegate government and the RA.

I don't think a person needs to be in elected office for you to seek legal advice from them. Personally, I am frequently contacted by TNPers who want clarification on minor points of law, and I am always happy to help. Others who I would consider experts in the region are generally happy to share their knowledge as well. Word tends to get around about who the best people to ask are, and if the matter isn't sensitive, there's nothing stopping anyone from just throwing the question out on discord and usually someone will have a good answer.

Nope. I think it's clear we should have an independent official prosecutor's office. I have been in this office and I have admit we weren't able to push much indictments out. However, Siwale is mislead as thr Attorney General's office has had some activity behind the scenes. Under this term and the previous, we have dealt with some Coat of Arms situations and made action. Siwale, however, has never replied to those discussions and only office discussions relating to R4Rs and other related subjects. The whole point of making our AG elected and not appointed was to make it an independent governmental prosecution office. To prevent obstructions of justice and gross misconduct.

While I won't comment on the classified work of the AG's office this term, I do agree that prosecutors should generally be free of influence from the rest of the government, and I should add something to this bill to clarify that once a prosecutor is appointed, they cannot be dismissed by the appointing official. Would that allay concerns about the independence of the prosecutor?

What if the case was against the Delegate? Sure the Delegate should hire someone unbiased but there's still a large potential that they can abuse their powers and appoint someone to hurt the prosecution and could help get the Delegate proven innocent.

As Darcania made reference to, this bill prohibits the accused, or anyone involved in the defense, from making prosecutor appointments. If the delegate was unable to make the appointment for that reason, it would pass down the line of succession.

I'm frankly disturbed that the Attorney General hadn't let me chime in with these discussions. I would of course be against abolishing the office but it's still disgusting that only them and one of two of their Deputies were involved.

Allow me to clarify. It is a coincidence that I am the AG at the time this bill is being proposed. I had the idea for this literally years ago, ask anyone. It even came up in my first campaign for AG. Siwale is involved in this because he came to me, interested in turning the idea into reality. I figured it's an idea whose time has come, so I took him up on it and helped draft it.

This is misleading. Correct, the Court hasn't heard a case in so ling but in between that, the AG Office did infact send a request of indictment. Of course we are not proud of the Bill Kennedy stuff we did but I think it goes to show that we actually do stuff and that Deputy Siwale is misinformed. Which, of course, makes me question the reasoning behind appointing them to Deputy. I question COE's move to do this now. Siwale has been a good Deputy but it makes me wonder that COE mainly did this to further discussions of dissolving the office. I won't wish to promote any fraud in any shape or form but this is what makes me wonder.

You are suggesting that in January, I appointed Siwale Deputy AG for the sole reason that it would increase his authoritativeness on this issue and give this bill a better chance of passing. I am infuriated by this insinuation. I would never abuse the powers I am granted under the Constitution to advance my legislative agenda, and I demand you retract the suggestion that I did. You may disagree strongly with my policy proposal, but do not confuse our wide difference on this matter for corruption or lack of integrity on my part. You are the second person to accuse me of ill faith in proposing this, and I demand a retraction.

This part I wholeheartedly object to. Deputy speakers wield legislative powers; it is as inappropriate for them to serve as ministers as it is for the speaker to do so.

I can probably support granting appointed prosecutors an exemption from the multiple offices prohibition, in the same way that we exemption ECs and such now.

You may be right about that part. I'll think more on the subject and perhaps modify that in the next draft. Thank you for your constructive feedback, the first I've seen of this bill.

I don’t even get involved in TNP politics but that acronym and bill name was so utterly awful I’m voting against it purely because of that.

If that's your only reservation in voting for it, how would you like to choose the name of the bill in the next draft?

 

[St George]

I think some people in favour of an appointed system may be forgetting the issues we've had with the activity of THOs and temporary prosecutors and advocates in the past.

No system is perfect, of course, but I think on balance I would rather have someone who has stood on a promise of being around if needed, rather than risk a prosecution going awry because someone gets appointed and then goes AWOL.

 

[Siwale]

I think some people in favour of an appointed system may be forgetting the issues we've had with the activity of THOs and temporary prosecutors and advocates in the past.

No system is perfect, of course, but I think on balance I would rather have someone who has stood on a promise of being around if needed, rather than risk a prosecution going awry because someone gets appointed and then goes AWOL.

A standing office system suffers the same potential for activity concerns and at a greater risk. TNP has dealt with a number of removals over the years surrounding elected officials due to failure to meet activity requirements. With the ever-changing real life commitments of individuals, it's a lot easier to commit to be around for one trial (typically lasting a few weeks) rather than however many trials occur over a 4 month period. And same as with having a standing official: if the appointed individual fails to keep up with the demands of their position, they are replaced and the trial continues. A criminal trial presented to the court is not just going to be forgotten about.

 

[Funkadelia]

I actually don't think I'd mind getting rid of the Attorney General, if we do decide to go down that route.

Firstly, however, I have one perhaps minor quibble with this bill, which is the removal of the following from Article 4 ss 1: "resolve conflicts or ambiguities in the law." Why remove that language? I have always thought that that was an important function of the Court, as well as the other functions that would remain in the Constitution. I guess it's ultimately just a small bit of language, but I'm just wondering why it was removed in the first place.

The second and more important of my concerns is why we are basically going to basically have an ad-hoc prosecutor for criminal cases. I understand the argument that we rarely have criminal cases, but I think it is also really important to have an infrastructure in place for when we may need a dedicate prosecutor or prosecutorial system. Perhaps we ought to examine the utility of an entirely new system? Something that I have personally experimented with in the past is a system of Greek-style ostracism, which would find people guilty essentially by a vote, which both discourages bringing people up on frivolous charges and also ensures that all of us generally agree on who should be punished and who should not be.

I have also had some experience in an inquisitorial judicial system, which is something that works well and quite fairly, but it also depends on the Court essentially being able to do double the work that they would do in a criminal case now. Both of these methods could be interesting if inserted into TNP's legal system, and I think either would work better than just essentially saying "We'll just hope we can get someone to volunteer if we need it." It's better to have something in place.

 

[St George]

A standing office system suffers the same potential for activity concerns and at a greater risk. TNP has dealt with a number of removals over the years surrounding elected officials due to failure to meet activity requirements. With the ever-changing real life commitments of individuals, it's a lot easier to commit to be around for one trial (typically lasting a few weeks) rather than however many trials occur over a 4 month period. And same as with having a standing official: if the appointed individual fails to keep up with i the demands of their position, they are replaced and the trial continues. A criminal trial presented to the court is not just going to be forgotten about.

A standing office system brings with it a number of deputy's able to step in if needed - this new proposed system is more at risk of trials going awry - and unhappy courts throwing the trials out once they get fed up with the inactivity of one side or another - by taking away an in-built protection and requiring whoever is responsible for appointing an official at that time - which could be a member of the Security Council, a body that it would be fair to say has had their activity issues.

The system as proposed makes our system less robust and more prone to activity issues. Maybe the brain trust can come up with a way to fix that, perhaps by mandating (or even recommending) an assistant or reserve prosecutor be appointed at the same time as the prosecutor?

 

[Siwale]

I actually don't think I'd mind getting rid of the Attorney General, if we do decide to go down that route.

Firstly, however, I have one perhaps minor quibble with this bill, which is the removal of the following from Article 4 ss 1: "resolve conflicts or ambiguities in the law." Why remove that language? I have always thought that that was an important function of the Court, as well as the other functions that would remain in the Constitution. I guess it's ultimately just a small bit of language, but I'm just wondering why it was removed in the first place.

There is currently no procedure in place for these types of requests and the Court has generally held that it will not hear cases dealing in hypotheticals. The Court's two major functions are to try all criminal cases and review the constitutionality of laws or legality of government policies by request of an affected party in the form of R4Rs.

The second and more important of my concerns is why we are basically going to basically have an ad-hoc prosecutor for criminal cases. I understand the argument that we rarely have criminal cases, but I think it is also really important to have an infrastructure in place for when we may need a dedicate prosecutor or prosecutorial system.

The system we are proposing aims to allow the most qualified and able individuals at the time of the trial to serve as prosecutors. A standing prosecutorial system can definitely be convenient, but ultimately ties individuals up in an position which often has little to no role to play and thus deters our most qualified prosecutors.

Perhaps we ought to examine the utility of an entirely new system? Something that I have personally experimented with in the past is a system of Greek-style ostracism, which would find people guilty essentially by a vote, which both discourages bringing people up on frivolous charges and also ensures that all of us generally agree on who should be punished and who should not be.

I have also had some experience in an inquisitorial judicial system, which is something that works well and quite fairly, but it also depends on the Court essentially being able to do double the work that they would do in a criminal case now. Both of these methods could be interesting if inserted into TNP's legal system, and I think either would work better than just essentially saying "We'll just hope we can get someone to volunteer if we need it." It's better to have something in place.

It is certainly worth discussing, but a complete restructuring of our judicial system is likely too large of a change to occur all at once.

A standing office system brings with it a number of deputy's able to step in if needed - this new proposed system is more at risk of trials going awry - and unhappy courts throwing the trials out once they get fed up with the inactivity of one side or another - by taking away an in-built protection and requiring whoever is responsible for appointing an official at that time - which could be a member of the Security Council, a body that it would be fair to say has had their activity issues.

The system as proposed makes our system less robust and more prone to activity issues. Maybe the brain trust can come up with a way to fix that, perhaps by mandating (or even recommending) an assistant or reserve prosecutor be appointed at the same time as the prosecutor?

Even under our current laws, we don't mandate that the AG must appoint deputies. The AG is allowed to (but not required) to appoint individuals to assist them in their duties and we preserved this autonomy in our bill. There is nothing stopping the appointed prosecutor from having assistants.

 

[Funkadelia]

Thank you for answering my questions so quickly!

There is currently no procedure in place for these types of requests and the Court has generally held that it will not hear cases dealing in hypotheticals. The Court's two major functions are to try all criminal cases and review the constitutionality of laws or legality of government policies by request of an affected party in the form of R4Rs.

I mean, fair enough. Although, I think that the R4R's do both things. They both review the constitutionality of laws and clear up ambiguities. I think an argument that can be made that a large part of R4Rs are made on the basis of certain ambiguities within the law that enable decisions to be made or policies to be enacted that are then changed or upheld by the Court.

The system we are proposing aims to allow the most qualified and able individuals at the time of the trial to serve as prosecutors. A standing prosecutorial system can definitely be convenient, but ultimately ties individuals up in an position which often has little to no role to play and thus deters our most qualified prosecutors.

It is certainly worth discussing, but a complete restructuring of our judicial system is likely too large of a change to occur all at once.

Well, I suppose what we have in front of us is a pretty big change already. The system you've proposed might do well as a temporary system, but I think that we should really look into moving into something new if we are just going to do away with the Attorney General altogether. I could see some issues coming up with the Delegate appointing the prosecutor depending on the circumstances.

 

[Gracius Maximus]

A standing office system brings with it a number of deputy's able to step in if needed - this new proposed system is more at risk of trials going awry - and unhappy courts throwing the trials out once they get fed up with the inactivity of one side or another - by taking away an in-built protection and requiring whoever is responsible for appointing an official at that time - which could be a member of the Security Council, a body that it would be fair to say has had their activity issues.

The system as proposed makes our system less robust and more prone to activity issues. Maybe the brain trust can come up with a way to fix that, perhaps by mandating (or even recommending) an assistant or reserve prosecutor be appointed at the same time as the prosecutor?

A way to fix it would be to have a periodically elected person to serve in this capacity...oh wait.

 

[Xentherida]

“If that's your only reservation in voting for it, how would you like to choose the name of the bill in the next draft? ”
Hey now, I never said I was any good at naming things either lmao

 

[gvh]

I am strongly against this proposal.
The office of an independent prosecutor is highly important in a small community, and although we are a large community by NS standards, by the legal definition we would be considered small, as would any regional community or ns as a whole. A ready stream of legally-minded individuals simply do not exist in this or any region, especially when we must account for inactivity, recusals or a simple wish not to prosecute the case. Having this position be independent and elected by the citizenry comes with some great advantages: it ensures that the prosecutor actually wants to prosecute, that they have an understanding of legal matters which a random appointed citizen may not, and that they have committed to being called upon to serve as a prosecutor in future criminal trials. In addition, it allows the holder of the office of attorney general to appoint deputies, creating a clear line of succession should for whatever reason the attorney general be unavailable to prosecute the case in question. Furthermore, an appointed prosecutor especially one appointed by the delegate, the most public face of the TNP government, is likely to be one friendly to him or at least on good terms. It restricts the post of attorney general to those nations favoured by the delegate at the time; compare this proposed state of affairs to an individual elected based on their knowledge of law, interest in law in general and activity levels and it should be clear to all which system is preferable.
I will be voting against this bill should it come to a vote.

 

[SillyString]

I have an idea for the authors of this bill to consider: How about adding RA confirmation to prosecutors' appointments?

The downside to this is that it would add a delay before the person could begin overseeing the criminal case they were appointed to manage.

However, criminal cases tend to take a fair amount of time anyway, so I doubt a delay for confirmation would be a serious problem. And requiring RA confirmation might assuage some of the concerns about the prosecutor being a) not legally talented or b) in the pocket of the delegate or appointing official. It would also restore a sort of public confidence and approval that the AG currently gets from being elected. And, it would maintain the clear benefits in your bill of not needing to tie someone up for 4 months doing mostly nothing.

 

[Funkadelia]

I strongly agree with the above. It allows for more oversight for the regional assembly over what’s going on with court prosecutors. However, at that rate, why not just elect someone by a regional vote to do the job? You’re essentially just continuing to do the same thing. Perhaps a paradigm shift is necessary.

 

[Darcania]

I would agree with an RA confirmation - it would give the prosecutor time to prepare a case anyway. I'd also appreciate clear language that a prosecutor is
A) a government official;
B) exempt from the multiple offices restriction; and
C) incapable of being removed from office by the Delegate.

A bill with all these would be one I would support. The current bill I likely would not support due to reasons that have already been listed by others.

I think the clause regarding government officials working multiple branches would best be debated in a separate proposal as well.

 

[mcmasterdonia]

I think a better suggestion would be to require the Court to approve the prosecutor. If the court is not convinced that the prosecutor has the required competence, or that they otherwise won’t do the job well, they could simply order that another appointment be made. Submissions I assume could be made by relevant parties if need be.

 

[Crushing Our Enemies]

All of these suggestions are being taken into account. I will endeavor sometime next week to summarize the debate thus far and present options for how to move forward with a second draft.

Thank you to everyone for your feedback and ideas.

 

[Dinoium]

I wanted to do this before (got a bit busy with my campaign and others and I also forgot) but I formally redact that message as requested.

 

[Crushing Our Enemies]

Actually, what I asked you to do was to retract your insinuations against me - as in, take them back and admit you were wrong. What you did was redact them, as in remove them from your post. Two different things.