@Vivanco I am glad to see you are still pursuing work with the region's legal system. I admire your tenacity and your courage in continuing to open yourself up to new challenges. I hope you continue to learn a lot and develop that.
I have a series of questions:
In light of the recently passed AGORA Act, is it your opinion that the Court no longer can resolve matters of ambiguity or clarify legal questions through the normal Court process? If not, what is the best way for the Court to do that? Is that something the Court should be doing?
What is your opinion on setting up a civil procedure for the Court? Is it necessary? Would it work? If you attempted to pursue it, how would you do it?
Is there any criteria you feel would render a legal complaint frivolous or illegitimate? If so, what circumstances do you imagine would meet this criteria?
There have been a series of cases within the last year which featured guilty pleas and advocacy for reduced sentences, and yet the Court rendered what many felt were overly harsh judgments. Looking back at these recent cases, can you identify any which you feel had overly harsh sentences, and if so, how would you have ruled differently?
Is there any other case previously heard by the Court that you feel was decided incorrectly or inappropriately, and if so, how would you have ruled differently?
Judicial restraint is something many would consider to be worthy of pursuit. Explain your vision and personal philosophy as it comes to restraint and how this principle would be embodied, or tempered, by your own actions on the Court.
Related to the above, given that the number of cases the Court hears each term may be few and far between and the region's Court precedent slow to develop, do you believe that it is desirable to use the Court to right wrongs or address problems in existing law if given the chance with a relevant case? For the purposes of this question, I am taking it for granted that the Court will not rule on something or expand an opinion beyond what is germane to a case they are hearing.
Considering that Justices are elected in TNP just as officials in the others branches are, do you believe there is an imperative for the Court to defer entirely to the other branches when faced with situations where laws or decisions may be at risk of being overturned or deemed inconsistent with the constitution? Where is the bar for you when it comes to using your judgment to possibly reverse or undo the efforts of the other branches? Are there clear situations where this should or should not be done?
The penal code contemplates sentences that are mostly finite in nature, but in a few situations may be indefinite or permanent. In your view is there a functional difference between an indefinite sentence versus a permanent one in our laws as written? If so, what situations may one form of sentence be preferable over the other?
It has been remarked at various times that the Court does not provide an opportunity for interested citizens to learn the ropes or get acquainted with the region's legal system outside of reading legal documents and case law. Do you believe there is a way to provide such opportunities to citizens, such as a clerk or staff position working under the justices? Is this even something that is desirable or worthy or pursuit? If so, how would you propose going about doing that?
As you were most recently Attorney General, I would like to ask you:
How do you feel your experience as a prosecutor will inform or enhance your position as a Justice?
1) About the AGORA Act.
I don't have the doubts that the court will be able to handle the proce3ssing of the cases without the figure of the Attorney General, but it would be more difficult due to the lack of a formal shade or statuary point of the AG. A figure of prossecution ought to be manifested, and from what the AGORA Act has processed, it is up currently to the RA to choose the next procedure, due to the abolishment of the office without a proper replacement done in the moment.
2) About civil procedures
Since we are in a social platform / game, it would be a good way to resolve conflicts that may surge between the people of The North Pacific. I would be in favour on that node, as a way to set up a brand new light of law, the Common Law, and in that way the legal culure of the region would not just increase, but be somewhat more active and more civil in their discourses.
To ensure the rule of law, I would deem it necessary, and it would work as long as the court system has the means in collaboration with the administration to ensure the rulings are done.
I would imagine in this cases, as many other and common civil cases, as to be of an individual against another. For example, badmouthing, attempts against the other's honour, difamation...
3) About the possible frivolity of the cases.
I would suggest the addition of the criteria of legitimation, the reasoning as to why they are legitimate to effectuate their action. If no certain reason or legitimation of the act is given, the case would be in my oppinion, be turned down. As an example to this case I would explain it as a pragmatic approach. A person has been difamating against me (in a civil sense). I am the one who's being the subject of the actions, and thus that is my reason and legitimation to the appeal. In other case, if I know one person is doing something, and the claim I make is proven false on purpose, said action would be frivolous as it was not only a lie against court (obstruction of justice), but also lacking justification.
4) About the harsher sentences.
I wouldn't have to look too far to find one: The Whole India trial. The way the evidence was treated, without a proper confirmation or process of proof, and the asumption of its figure, was a mistake that lead to a much harsher sentence and a R4R that I myself handled in the office of Attorney General. If proof isn't proven, things should not be taken as they are. Perhaps they could have given said process of authentication before the ruling, just to make sure and leave the case "knotted" and ended.
5) About Judicial Restraint
The justices' figure ought to be independent. But there seems to be a problem with the control of said power. Every power has their control, the legislative branch, the executive branch, and even the juditial branch. But this power is currently lacking said organization of self control. I would, in order to ensure the avoidance of the control and extralimit the powers of the justices, the creation of some form of superior court to unify the sentences in order to give the security law and rulings give. There's the topic of constitutional acts. In my oppinion, the stablishment of some form of Constitutional Court who's purpose is to intepretate the superior laws in case of not only doubt of the justices, but in case of in a case said rights have been extralimited of the justices, the control ought to be mantained.
6) About the current branch's involvement with the rest of power branches
It is practically impossible a real independence, but when the court is in session, all independence
must be upheld, no matter the personal believes. A justice not only has to be independent, but has to seem like it was independent at the time of them being justices (I shall not add personal situations). But of course, the court has to have some form of saying as to control other branches, such as the other branches control the juditial system. Perhaps via a mechanism where before an act or legislation is put to vote, the court ougth to annalice it and give their evaluation on the legislation, and then put it to vote.
7) About "indefinite" and "permanent" rulings
The difference is simple. The indefinite, at a certain point in time, can lead to an end, while the permanent shall not have that possibility. I am personally against these kinds of rulings, for they won't leave a room for the resartive funtion of the rulings, but if one must be chosen, I would prefer indefinite, for this allows room for the restauration of the person rehabilited back in TNP society
8) About accesibility.
With the most recent reforms that are happening within TNP's legal community, there are forms that would allow the accesibility and easier access to the legal system of TNP in the form of bar associations. A thing that could be given by justices would be in the form of juditial secretaries, or advisors, who would assist in the process of the trial.
9) About my experience as Attorney General.
It was my first look within TNP's legal system, and I think in the time I was in office I've gotten enough experience to know at the very least the basics, with all their pros and their contras.
