Confirmation of Dreadton as Prosecutor in The North Pacific v. Pigeonstan

[Bobberino]

The Delegate of The North Pacific has appointed @Dreadton to prosecute @Pigeonstan in The North Pacific vs. Pigeonstan. I now open the floor for discussion and debate regarding the appointment. I also welcome a statement from Delegate @Prydania regarding his choice in appointing Dreadton as prosecutor.

 

[Praetor]

Is there a particular reason this discussion is occurring in the Private Halls?

 

[Bobberino]

Is there a particular reason this discussion is occurring in the Private Halls?

There is. I put this together on mobile and I misclicked. This has been rectified.

 

[Praetor]

Haha. Thanks.

For the nominee, the Delegate has proposed dropping the case, what are your thoughts on this? Do you intend to drop the case should you be confirmed?

 

[Sil Dorsett]

Here's what is going to happen...

1. Prosecutor appointed.
2. Prosecutor discontinues prosecution, putting the case back in Prydania's hand (as the complainant).
3. Prydania withdraws charges (as he tried to do already in the case thread), and we're done.

Basically, this whole thing is totally unnecessary. I'm sure we'll be seeing a bill to amend the Legal Code to correct this flaw.

I motion for a vote, and hopefully one as short as the law allows. Let's get this over with.

 

[Gorundu]

I second the motion for a vote.

I would also like to request for the Speaker's Office to open this vote immediately and make it last for the shortest duration possible, as this prosecution is clearly not intended to be followed through.

 

[St George]

Here's what is going to happen...

1. Prosecutor appointed.
2. Prosecutor discontinues prosecution, putting the case back in Prydania's hand (as the complainant).
3. Prydania withdraws charges (as he tried to do already in the case thread), and we're done.

Basically, this whole thing is totally unnecessary. I'm sure we'll be seeing a bill to amend the Legal Code to correct this flaw.

I motion for a vote, and hopefully one as short as the law allows. Let's get this over with.

I second the motion for a vote.

I would also like to request for the Speaker's Office to open this vote immediately and make it last for the shortest duration possible, as this prosecution is clearly not intended to be followed through.

An oversight means this was not linked here after it began - but following a motion and a second, a vote was scheduled and begun.

 

[Dreadton]

I beg the RA’s indulgence I am engaged in a family matter and will respond to questions tomorrow evening

 

[Praetor]

Is votes can be retroactively scheduled, can I retroactively object to the scheduling of the vote?

 

[St George]

Is votes can be retroactively scheduled, can I retroactively object to the scheduling of the vote?

Once a vote has begun the only objection that may happen is an objection of the length of the vote.

 

[Dreadton]

Haha. Thanks.

For the nominee, the Delegate has proposed dropping the case, what are your thoughts on this? Do you intend to drop the case should you be confirmed?

We have heard that Prydiana Would like to withdraw the charges however we have not heard from the other victim of the crimes listed, Syrixa.

I would like to hear from them on if the charges should be dropped before making a decision

 

[Praetor]

I'd urge @Syrixia to offer his thoughts.

 

[Syrixia]

I'm satisfied, due to his public written apology, that Pigeonstan has at the very least somewhat learned the error of his ways. Plus, it's not like dropping charges forces me to let him back into my ministry or anything - something I would definitely not be interested in doing. No qualms or objections to the Delegate's decision here.

 

[lilith]

its fair

 

[St George]

Note: The vote was mistakenly listed to end a day before the length of vote given was indicated - this has been rectified.

 

[Dreadton]

Haha. Thanks.

For the nominee, the Delegate has proposed dropping the case, what are your thoughts on this? Do you intend to drop the case should you be confirmed?

Here's what is going to happen...

1. Prosecutor appointed.
2. Prosecutor discontinues prosecution, putting the case back in Prydania's hand (as the complainant).
3. Prydania withdraws charges (as he tried to do already in the case thread), and we're done.

Basically, this whole thing is totally unnecessary. I'm sure we'll be seeing a bill to amend the Legal Code to correct this flaw.

I motion for a vote, and hopefully one as short as the law allows. Let's get this over with.

The remaining issue is whats best for Pigeonstan. If I do decline to prosecute, then the charges go to Pry for continuation or withdraw. However, Pigeonstan does not enjoy the benefit of double jeopardy. The court has ruled that double jeopardy only applies once a verdict is reached (FLemingovia vs Grosse https://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/7137083/ ). Someone would be well within their rights to refile the charges. Which means Prydaina withdrawing the charges does not end this. Just delays it.

 

[Praetor]

Any ideas on how to proceed?

Thoughts on coming to a plea deal?

I have certainly considered what would happen if someone were to refile charges whether that be out of believing Pigeon is escaping Justice or wanting to show a flaw in how we select prosecutors.

(As a note, I voted against your confirmation due to the motion moving to vote so soon; I have no issues with your legal acumen, I have not had time to get a full understanding of how you intend to go about this and that is compounded by this being the first confirmation)

 

[Dreadton]

Any ideas on how to proceed?

Thoughts on coming to a plea deal?

I have certainly considered what would happen if someone were to refile charges whether that be out of believing Pigeon is escaping Justice or wanting to show a flaw in how we select prosecutors.

(As a note, I voted against your confirmation due to the motion moving to vote so soon; I have no issues with your legal acumen, I have not had time to get a full understanding of how you intend to go about this and that is compounded by this being the first confirmation)

Well, should I be confirmed and the confirmation not turned over via the open r4r, I am bound to prosecute all charges presented. In fact, I would argue that refusal to prosecute could be considered Gross Misconduct. If we look at the courts advisory opinion here https://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/7020342/ we see that they admonished the AG for refusal to prosecute a case. At the time the AG was the chief prosecutor for the region. By appointment and confirmation, I will be the chief prosecutor for this case. Thus the opinion here can reasonably be applied to me. So I am bound to prosecute these charges.

I believe some of the charges can be dropped as part of a plea deal, however I am still looking into this option.

 

[Pallaith]

It’s one thing to refuse to prosecute a case that is intended to go forward, and quite another to decline to prosecute when it is clear the government does not intend to pursue charges. It would be ridiculous to suggest that a prosecutor has absolutely no leeway to drop a case.

The government may no longer wish to pursue charges, that doesn’t mean someone else automatically will. Of course the possibility still exists, but I think it’s wrong for Dreadton to state definitively that this wouldn’t be over with the delegate dropping charges.

I do think, however, that a plea deal would be a good way to deal with both concerns, and I am glad Dreadton is continuing to think about how best to approach the matter.

 

[Dreadton]

It’s one thing to refuse to prosecute a case that is intended to go forward, and quite another to decline to prosecute when it is clear the government does not intend to pursue charges. It would be ridiculous to suggest that a prosecutor has absolutely no leeway to drop a case.

The government may no longer wish to pursue charges, that doesn’t mean someone else automatically will. Of course the possibility still exists, but I think it’s wrong for Dreadton to state definitively that this wouldn’t be over with the delegate dropping charges.

I do think, however, that a plea deal would be a good way to deal with both concerns, and I am glad Dreadton is continuing to think about how best to approach the matter.

Im not just thinking about this case. This case is also a test case of our new legal setup. How we address and handle this case is affecting how we handle criminal cases as a whole.

As for rediculous, the courts ruling is pretty clear on the subject. The only way to really test it is for me to risk being charged with a crime.

 

[Praetor]

Did you receive any directions on how to proceed in this case from the Executive whether that is the Delegate or the Chief of Staff at any time, whether that is prior to the nomination or after?

Do you think that the previous Court decision is not relevant given the following part of the Legal Code:

If the prosecutor discontinues management of the prosecution of a criminal case, then the complainant may, at their discretion, manage themselves the prosecution of the criminal case. Otherwise, they may withdraw the complaint.

 

[Dreadton]

Did you receive any directions on how to proceed in this case from the Executive whether that is the Delegate or the Chief of Staff?

I have been included in this course of action since the charges were first contemplated. Pry has briefied me on his thought process and why he would like the charges dropped. Nether have directed me to act or sought to control my decision.

Do you think that the previous Court decision is not relevant given the following part of the Legal Code:

If the prosecutor discontinues management of the prosecution of a criminal case, then the complainant may, at their discretion, manage themselves the prosecution of the criminal case. Otherwise, they may withdraw the complaint.

It goes on to list two ways the prosecutor could discontinue management in section 20. It also states "Including but not limited to." Since this particular course of action is not specifically mentioned in the law nor does it exclude it , I am not willing to assume that the intent of the Regional Assembly was to overturn that court case. Looking at the debate for the AGORA act lends itself more to my reading. If you look at this post by COE https://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/9190382/#post-10236121 . By making the Prosecutor a government official, they intended to prevent the prosecutor from sabotaging a case or acting for one side or the other. Refusing to prosecute solely because it is what the government wants would fit that bill.

From here https://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/9190382/3#post-10302321 the section you were quoting was added. Palliath clearly thought of this situation. However, I am not convinced that the case I cited previously has been overturned by the regional assembly. I think there is ambiguity there that needs to be cleared up.

 

[Praetor]

Would it perhaps be beneficial for you to file an R4R prior to beginning actual prosecution?

 

[Dreadton]

Would it perhaps be beneficial for you to file an R4R prior to beginning actual prosecution?

It would once the R4R on the appointment vote and what ever resulting action of that has taken place and I have proper established standing.

 

[saintpeter]

If the decision is made to prosecute without consent of the defence, I will be filing charges, as we have been promised by members of the government that charges were to be withdrawn.

 

[Dreadton]

If the decision is made to prosecute without consent of the defence, I will be filing charges, as we have been promised by members of the government that charges were to be withdrawn.

The decision to prosecute does not require the consent of the government nor the defense. After the case has been open, as I have stated previously, the prosecutor must pursue the charges. Threatening to bring charges against the government for prosecuting your client in accordance with the law is a bit childish.

 

[saintpeter]

The decision to prosecute does not require the consent of the government nor the defense. After the case has been open, as I have stated previously, the prosecutor must pursue the charges. Threatening to bring charges against the government for prosecuting your client in accordance with the law is a bit childish.

I am not threatening, I am informing others that the defence was promised that the charges were to be dropped and that as such, a prosecution will lead to criminal charges. I am not doing that " for prosecuting [my] client in accordance with the law", but for a failure to abide by a clear agreement.

 

[Dreadton]

I am not threatening, I am informing others that the defence was promised that the charges were to be dropped and that as such, a prosecution will lead to criminal charges. I am not doing that " for prosecuting [my] client in accordance with the law", but for a failure to abide by a clear agreement.

You clearly stated that you intend to file charges if I, as the prosecutor, perform my duties in accordance with the law because of an agreement you may have had with the government.
As far as I am aware the agreement between your client and the government was not finalized. Your client acted before it was accepted, regardless of the validity of such an agreement in the first place. However, even if such an agreement exsit, was completed, and other such factors, it cannot be binding on the prosecutor of the case; once the case is open, the charges must proceed. Your clients rash actions and your intent to file charges cannot stop that. Furthermore, I have stated earlier that there is a question on if I can even decline to prosecute all the charges.

 

[saintpeter]

You clearly stated that you intend to file charges if I, as the prosecutor, perform my duties in accordance with the law because of an agreement you may have had with the government.
As far as I am aware the agreement between your client and the government was not finalized. Your client acted before it was accepted, regardless of the validity of such an agreement in the first place. However, even if such an agreement exsit, was completed, and other such factors, it cannot be binding on the prosecutor of the case; once the case is open, the charges must proceed. Your clients rash actions and your intent to file charges cannot stop that. Furthermore, I have stated earlier that there is a question on if I can even decline to prosecute all the charges.

There was a finalised agreement between myself and a member of the government. I am not stating as to whether you are able/required to file charges, I am simply stating that a prosecution would mean a break of agreement by a member of the government.

 

[Dreadton]

There was a finalised agreement between myself and a member of the government. I am not stating as to whether you are able/required to file charges, I am simply stating that a prosecution would mean a break of agreement by a member of the government.

That would be an issue between you and the government and has no bearing on the discussion on my confirmation as prosecutor.

 

[Vivanco]

There's a lot of blood in the waters, that is for certain.

 

[Dreadton]

Would it perhaps be beneficial for you to file an R4R prior to beginning actual prosecution?

The great thing about legal research in the modern world is that overriding and modifying court cases are directly linked by whatever legal research system you are using. However, we do not have that benefit. There is a court ruling that limited my prior cited case. After researching some more I found this.

Ruling of the Court of the North Pacific
On the Physical Representation of Outdated Rulings on Requests for Review

Court Decision Archive

Ruling of the Court of the North PacificOn the Attorney General Refusing to bring Criminal Complaints to Trial Opinion drafted by Hileville, joined by Blue Wolf II and Funkadelia The Court took into consideration the Relevant Section of the Legal Code of the North Pacific: Section 3.1: The...

forum.thenorthpacific.org

Which allowed for the AG to refuse to prosecute cases. So my prior statement is null on that point. Under this ruling, I could decline to prosecute the case.

 

[Dreadton]

Looking at the circumstances surrounding this case, its response, and what I would expect to happen if I declined to prosecute, I do not believe that it is in the best interest of the defendant and the region to not go to trial. I did decline to prosecute, I do think someone else will file charges and we will have to go through this process again. With a trial here and now on some or all of the charges lets us put this matter to rest, attaches double jeopardy, and lets us move on to fixing problems we have identified in this process.