Vivanco for Attorney General - Curat Lex

[Vivanco]

"Natura non facit saltum ita nec lex"

​

------

New times call upon new blood. The old blood dries quick, and coagulates the living organism that is a healthy legal base. And upon that need, that risk of a legal anneurysm, I present myself to the spot of Attorney General.

Article I. Experience on the matter.​

I've been in The North Pacific for over two years already, and in this time I've had the opportunity to know the community, the region and, of course, everything in relation to law. "But why law, out of all things?" You may ask. Well. I am a third year student of Law and Politics, and I've had experience upon witnessing real court cases, as to practicing on them, winning remarkable grades upon these. Upon this region, I have acted as an ambassador to the Democratic Socialist Assembly, as well as Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs.

Article II. Reason of presentation.​

With such a linking I have with law, I was always tempted to the idea of joining the legal corpse of The North Pacific, but I did not from fear. Not from fear of failure, even it existed for we all are humans, but because of the care that law needs.
Law for me is not simply a bunch of technical words that you slap on a paper (or in this case, a post) and send it off to be complied. Law is a way a human, nay, a society will have to behave. Someone without knowdlege of the society who will be recieving the laws will most likely fail in the very pillars of law: Reason, Order and Cooperation.
I was presented by Dinomium with the idea a few weeks back, and I couldn't help but wonder yet again about this, and as he nominated me, I had to take the risk. Law needs risks as well, because a law given in security is sometimes welcomed, but one taken in risk is always needed. And seeing the status of the entity of Attorney General, and how it bounces on and off from the same people, the risk of petrification of law is near.
Which takes me to my next point.

Article III. For a new light.​

You might wonder the reason of the text above all. It means "nature doesn't give leaps, and neither does the law". Nature is something that is in constant evolution, and so is the law. But if the same people go over and over, all of the experience they gather provokes that law doesn't evolve, for the interpretation will be the same over and over. And to avoid that, we need a new light, a new shade to see this develoap.

Article IV. For justice.​

Justice is blind, impartial, but we are humans, and by thus unable to gain absolute impartiality upon conflict. When one has kept the chair for a long time, it gets to know the issue, but aswell the troublemakers. In order to keep justice to prevail above all, we need this rejuvinization.

Article V. For you.​

History has tought us one thing. Those times in which law was forbidden to those of higher class only oppened the door to chaos. Law should, and must, be for everyone, and that is why I will make myself certain that it is understandable for those who will be subjected by it. A more accessible form for law. That shall be my goal, to make it more accessible. And, if it's necessary, to reform it in the way that shall be needed so everyone will know about.




And now, it is the people's time to talk, to express, and to think. We face a grave problem, and new blood is needed. The fields are becoming dry, and water has to flow for it to become fertile.

​

 

[Dreadton]

@Vivanco , From your tags you obviously have some dedication to the region, however, your public interactions on the forums are practically nonexistent. What are some of your accomplishments within the region?

In the case of TNP v. Whole India, the court assumed that a piece of evidence that was submitted by the defendant was falsified. The defendant was not charged with falsifying the evidence and was not given the chance to defend himself on the issue. The court used this piece of evidence and its self-assumed guilt as an aggravating factor. If you were AG at the time, would you address this topic? Why or Why not?

 

[Vivanco]

@Vivanco , From your tags you obviously have some dedication to the region, however, your public interactions on the forums are practically nonexistent. What are some of your accomplishments within the region?

I've maintained a low profile in the region in my stance here, it's true, but I must proudly say that I was a major part in the reform of the Diplomatic Corps Protocol, being that the latest of my accomplishments. I have also proposed within the Foreign Affairs ministry, ever since my arrival, my full on help on any matter that have risen, and given advice to the Minister at hand.

In the case of TNP v. Whole India, the court assumed that a piece of evidence that was submitted by the defendant was falsified. The defendant was not charged with falsifying the evidence and was not given the chance to defend himself on the issue. The court used this piece of evidence and its self-assumed guilt as an aggravating factor. If you were AG at the time, would you address this topic? Why or Why not?

Upon the issue of the falsification and forge of evidence and the inability of self-defense on the matter, I would fall upon the latin phrases of "in dubio, pro reo", which means that in the case of there being doubt, they shall be given the benefit of the doubt to the one being subject to trial, in this case Whole India. It's a matter in which is a testimony against another testimony. But upon close inspection, there's a technical proof of the forging, and that is being the length of the message. NationStates codifies telegrams in a way in which, depending on the size of your monitor, and the size of the message at large, it shall show a rectangle of a certain size or another. The longer the message, the more space, and the opposite shall work (less words, the less space). Upon close inspection to the evidence shown by the prosecution, such size difference is constant, and in the shortest of messages, there are one flag and half on the side. We shall then compare this to the Defendant's screenshot of the conversation, and upon one single line of message it shows a total of three flags, aswell of the lack of signature that we see in several messages by Red Back.
But we have to have one thing in mind, the trial did not have a "full lifetime", that being, it did not complete the full process, since the Defendant ended up giving up the stance of innocence and pleaded guilty, and by that he couldn't defend himself on the issue, having to be done in the argumentation phase of the trial.
The use of falsified evidence in a trial should be punished harshly, since it's practically an insult to those who provide factual evidence, but since the very fact that the trial didn't determine the faulty nature of the evidence, the source, the dolo upon the act (malevolent intention), I wouldn't use such aggravation.

I would address the topic because it's one way to ensure the very principle of innocence untill proven guilty. There was no time, no process, no argumentation or justification for the forging, and since it was never clarified the existence of it, it shouldn't be used but to ensure that the original crime was done truly, and no more.

 

[Darcania]

but I must proudly say that I was a major part in the reform of the Diplomatic Corps Protocol, being that the latest of my accomplishments.

Really? In that case... could you go into detail about the changes you've made and why you felt they were needed? What shortcomings did you address? Were there some ideas you had for the protocol that didn't make it in the final draft, and if so, why?

I should note that the protocol are technically in the private FA area, so please take the time to ask your Minister before answering the above questions if you wish - I don't want you to get into trouble because of my questions, but this is an excellent opportunity to see how you think about law that I couldn't turn down probing into.

 

[Oracle]

In your opinion, what are the current issues facing the office of the Attorney General and the judicial system within TNP as a whole? As Attorney General how will you work to address these issues?

 

[Vivanco]

In your opinion, what are the current issues facing the office of the Attorney General and the judicial system within TNP as a whole?

While the system done is adequate, I'm afraid to inform that a major problem I see within the legal system is the accesibility. Of course, the access to the legal texts can't be missed: it's always looming over our heads, in the top tab of the forum with the ominous title "Laws". But, still, some people may miss it, since most of the content of the forum is contained within the main folders of the main page. And, if I recall and my eyes don't decieve me, there isn't only mere "Laws" there. The proper entire legality of the region is packed there! That's the first issue: Accessibility.
The second issue I see is integral to the system itself of justice, the lack of clarity, specially within the Legal Code. While law is general, there is an absolute need of certainty, of independence. Instead of having every code in one Corpus Iuris Civilis...

As Attorney General how will you work to address these issues?

About the first issue, I would adress such by pressing the matter upon creating a new folder or threat upon Magicality City, where the laws, treaties and everything that is ruled upon the region can be easily accessed like any other part of the forum. Publicity is the main goal, for when it's public, it allows those under the law to both behave under it and use it as defense in case of need, as the XII Tables of Rome were in ancient times.

About the second issue, with the help of those who came before and other members of the legal corps of the region if possible, I aim to create specific "jurisdictions" sort to say, specialiced rooms or courtrooms for the different cases, that way the resolves can be more clear and less ambiguous. And to follow such speciality, we would need a new rejuvinization of the legal code, a reform to give it a wash of face to face newer times.

 

[Praetor]

Do you believe the AG has need for a separate Discord server?

 

[Pallaith]

I’m curious what you make of the discussion that took place for much of last year about abolishing the office of Attorney General. I assume you believe the office should continue to exist since you are running for it, but do we really need it? Proposed alternatives to have prosecutors appointed as needed may actually be more infrequent than the periodic elections we have for this office given how little there is to do. What’s your take on that?

Perhaps this will be covered by the answer to the previous question, but what is it you’ll do with the office when you don’t have pending cases or inquiries from citizens or the Delegate? Anything?

 

[Dinoium]

Do you support Greitbert’s fight against false information?

 

[Vivanco]

Do you believe the AG has need for a separate Discord server?

I don't think that would be neccesary. Although, if the reforms that I intend to do begin, there may need some form of coordinated comunication, and a way we should be able to exchange information, so perhaps in that case there would be a need. But I wouldn't put it only for the Attorney General's office, but for the whole Justice system of the region. As a way to compile the jurisprudence and give some form of guidelines about the unity of the legal bases.

 

[Vivanco]

I’m curious what you make of the discussion that took place for much of last year about abolishing the office of Attorney General. I assume you believe the office should continue to exist since you are running for it, but do we really need it? Proposed alternatives to have prosecutors appointed as needed may actually be more infrequent than the periodic elections we have for this office given how little there is to do. What’s your take on that?

Perhaps this will be covered by the answer to the previous question, but what is it you’ll do with the office when you don’t have pending cases or inquiries from citizens or the Delegate? Anything?

That is something I've seen and I've been told before taking upon the nomination. It's a sad view to see such a rank as it is to be Attorney General to be so inactive. I don't doubt at any moment the need for this role to exist, for my very own beliefs of the speciality of law. Each part, each role has got to have some form of knowdlege of what they talk about. In fact, that's why I think the stablishment of certain specific jurisdictions and appointments of certain people to certain jurisdictions should improve not only the work of the system, but aswell as it may improve its efficence.

The office, as I've been told, is usually inactive when no case or inquiries are shown, but I want to take this office as a way to improve the system, to work in collaboration with other members of the government of the region as to make it more interactive, more accesible. Not to do just the inquiries and sit and wait untill more gives. To always keep on doing stuff.

 

[Vivanco]

Do you support Greitbert’s fight against false information?

Absolutely. The matter of "Fake News" and alike although could get in conflict with the liberty of expression, but it must be obvious that liberty of expression shall never mean freedom to decieve.
Truth must be like law, certain.

 

[Praetor]

From my understanding there is currently an AG Discord server. The TNP admins have asked for ownership (much like they own all other TNP Discord servers). If you are elected, will you give them ownership?

If TNP admins are willing to make a place for the purposes that the AG's office requires on the main Discord, would you use that in lieu of a separate Discord server?

 

[Vivanco]

From my understanding there is currently an AG Discord server. The TNP admins have asked for ownership (much like they own all other TNP Discord servers). If you are elected, will you give them ownership?

Since they are effectively the administrators of the region and by such have the last words upon the region itself, they would be given said ownership if it's within my hands. Although, equal power should be given to the head of this part of the government, since the juditial side of government must be (At best) independent.

If TNP admins are willing to make a place for the purposes that the AG's office requires on the main Discord, would you use that in lieu of a separate Discord server?

I would use both of them. There are matters which require a certain privacy due to the facts of each case. Perhaps within the main discord the matters discussed could be of general interest, and in the specific discord about more delicate matters, somewhat like how the European Court of Justice acts sometimes in an open room or within closed doors.

 

[Praetor]

I'm rather concerned by the lack of trust you have in our administrators. Is there any reason for this?

 

[Vivanco]

I'm rather concerned by the lack of trust you have in our administrators. Is there any reason for this?

There is no lack of trust! See it as an "honorary equal power", more or less, to ensure that the independence of justice and the office is maintained. After all, independence is a big pillar in justice.

 

[Praetor]

There is no lack of trust! See it as an "honorary equal power", more or less, to ensure that the independence of justice and the office is maintained. After all, independence is a big pillar in justice.

Administration is OOC. Not IC.

 

[Vivanco]

Administration is OOC. Not IC.

In that case, they will have the authority.

 

[Syrixia]

In that case, they will have the authority.

In all cases. The fact that you did not already know this concerns me.

 

[Praetor]

In all cases. The fact that you did not already know this concerns me.

I mean technically they didn't since previously, AGs haven't given the server over to the admins.

But yes, that is/was concerning. The administration being OOC is quite important in TNP.

 

[Syrixia]

That is/was concerning. The administration being OOC is quite important in TNP.

Not only is it important, it's honestly quite intuitive; not hard to figure out, really...

 

[Zyvetskistaahn]

When do you consider it may be appropriate to use the Attorney General's inherent standing in relation to requests for review?

What is your view of the Attorney General's First Stop programme and would you continue it if elected?

Are there circumstances where a prosecution should not be brought despite evidence being sufficient to achieve a conviction?

Where the Attorney General provides legal advice to an executive official, as they may be obliged to do, could that legal advice be used in evidence in a criminal prosecution of the official?

What role do you consider the Attorney General has in relation to requests for review in which they are not the petitioner?

 

[Vivanco]

When do you consider it may be appropriate to use the Attorney General's inherent standing in relation to requests for review?

The standing of the AG is of high value, and with such it should be given with care and with precaution. If a case rises up and it needs for immediate attention and review, and it's of high value, it should be of use, but it should also be a responsable use, not always, but when needed and of absolute need.

What is your view of the Attorney General's First Stop programme and would you continue it if elected?

The First Stop programme, as I see it, is a great step foward for the accessibility and improvement of quality of the justice of the region, all good qualities. Of course, there are bad parts, like everything in life, but nonetheless I would definitely continue it.

Are there circumstances where a prosecution should not be brought despite evidence being sufficient to achieve a conviction?

Of course. We can't strictly apply the law and get as many convictions as we possibly can or are able to, because the law isn't white and black. In case of, for example, confussion, lack of responsability or simple misunderstanding, even if the actions are punitible and could obtain a conviction, the rest of the circunstances surrounding the case would be enough for prossecution to not go. There should be no piece of doubt, not in the slightest, before convicting someone.

Where the Attorney General provides legal advice to an executive official, as they may be obliged to do, could that legal advice be used in evidence in a criminal prosecution of the official?

As any other evidence. If such advice could lead and either save the official or doom them, it should be bought up upon the case to leave away any doubts on the case.

What role do you consider the Attorney General has in relation to requests for review in which they are not the petitioner?

An additional source or even an auxiliary part for such review.

 

[BluieGamer]

Consider this hypothetical situation.

Two people are running for Delegacy. Both are quite well-renowned, and the race is close. A third person is a citizen, and he/she doesn't like the person currently leading. As such, that third person does a private campaign, wherein he/she tries to "expose the dark scheming mind" of the leading candidate, by using vague words that don't really have any factual basis. It works, and the second candidate wins. A few days after the election, the private campaign was exposed. The losing candidate decides to sue the campaigner under the current laws of TNP. The campaigner defends themself, claiming that all they did was express their character opinion of that candidate.

Does the losing candidate have any right to sue? What laws, if any, were broken? What do you think would be the appropriate punishment, if any?

 

[Vivanco]

Consider this hypothetical situation.

Two people are running for Delegacy. Both are quite well-renowned, and the race is close. A third person is a citizen, and he/she doesn't like the person currently leading. As such, that third person does a private campaign, wherein he/she tries to "expose the dark scheming mind" of the leading candidate, by using vague words that don't really have any factual basis. It works, and the second candidate wins. A few days after the election, the private campaign was exposed. The losing candidate decides to sue the campaigner under the current laws of TNP. The campaigner defends themself, claiming that all they did was express their character opinion of that candidate.

Does the losing candidate have any right to sue? What laws, if any, were broken? What do you think would be the appropriate punishment, if any?

We find within the current Legal Code of The North Pacific the following crime:

Section 1.3: Fraud
11. "Election fraud" is defined as the willful deception of residents with regards to the candidates running, the time and venue of the elections, or the requirements and methods by which one may be eligible to vote or run for office.

Due to the enviroment in which the act is done is within an election, and, without ani kind of case in order to cause conmotion and doubt within the citizens with punitive intent (making the other person lose the campaign), we find ourselves in an election fraud.
The candidate would have every right to sue, since the reason for the loss is such a harsh and toxic campaign, a campaign that may be the crime quoted above. When someone has been a victim of injustice with the source of this being a crime, they have the right since they have been punished without any kind of justice or real reason.

The punishment I would ask for would be inhabilitation for running for 4 months in any public office for The North Pacific, aswell as a temporal limit to their voting rights
The Legal Code doesn't clear up upon the crime of Fraud, so we follow the general ideas.

Chapter 2: Penal Code
1. Criminal acts may be punished by restrictions on basic rights, in a manner proportionate to the crime at the discretion of the Court unless specified in this chapter.