[Inactive][Accepted]Application for Admission to the Bar: Vivanco

[Vivanco]

Application for Admission to the Bar

Applicant name: Vivanco

Part One: Experience as a Justice or counsel

1. Have you served as a Justice (including as a Temporary Hearing Officer)? <Yes>

2. Between what dates did you serve as a Justice (including as a Temporary Hearing Officer)?
September 2020 - March 2021

3. Were you the Moderating Justice in any criminal trials or requests for review? (If so, please identify which criminal trials or requests for review)
Yes, TNP v. St George

4. Were you the author or a co-author of any Official Opinions, Verdicts or Sentencing Orders of the Court? (If so, please identify the Official Opinions, Verdicts or Sentencing Orders)
Yes, TNP v. St George

5. Have you served as a Prosecutor? <Yes> (if No, move to question 8)

6. Which criminal trials did you prosecute?
TNP v. Ihese
TNP v. Slatos
TNP v. Artemizistan

7. Did you participate in any requests for review related to those trials? (If so, please identify the requests for review)

8. Have you served as counsel to a defendant in a criminal trial? <No> (if No, move to question 11)

Part Two: Legal Writing

11. Have you authored any substantial legal work? (Examples include: briefs in requests for review; analysis or explanations of the law; arguments in criminal trials; bills that have been made law. However, it does not include any Official Opinion, Verdict or Sentencing Order of the Court or any decision or argument made in a trial or request for review identified in Part One) <Yes> (if No, move to question 14)

12. Have you authored any briefs in requests for review? (If so, please identify the requests for review)

Yes: https://forum.thenorthpacific.org/topic/9191613/#post-10300000

13. Have you authored any other substantial legal work? (If so, identify no more than two)

Yes, the E.T.A. and the C.S.P.R. Act.

Part Three: Other Relevant Experience

14. Have you served in a Constitutionally-mandated Elected Office? (This does not include the office of Justice) <Yes> (if No, move to question 17)

15. Which offices have you served in and between what dates?
Attorney General, January 11th, 2020 - AGORA Act.

16. Were you required to make a decision which required you to analyse and apply the law? (If so, please identify no more than two examples of this and explain why they show substantial knowledge of the law)
Yes, when inspecting the decision of indicting or not the case of potential coup from the CCD as per TNP v. Artemizstan. The mere act of analysis of this strange and yet curious example of how the law and its exceptions works when people who would have properly wronged the region, when remorse is shown and it is helped for the region, needs to have a flexible mind when it comes to the law.

17. Have you served as a government official in any other office in the previous two years? (This does not include any office identified in Part One)<Yes> (if No, move to question 20)

18. Which offices have you served in and between what dates?

Deputy Minister of Radio, Deputy Minister of Media, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, Deputy Minister of Home Affairs, Deputy Minister of Culture and Election Comissionner and Bar Comissionner. Dates unknown at this moment for most.

19. Were you required to make a decision which required you to analyse and apply the law? (If so, please identify an example of this and explain why it shows substantial knowledge of the law)

Part Four: Acceptability Disclosure

20. Have you previously been convicted of any crime in The North Pacific? <No> (if No, move to question 22)

21. What crime/crimes were you convicted of? (Please identify the date of each conviction)

22. Have you previously been recalled from office as Justice or Prosecutor? <No> (if No, move to question 24)

23. On what date/dates were you recalled from office?

24. Have you previously been found by the Court to be in contempt of court or to have submitted an appeal or review that was frivolous or solely for the purpose of delaying proceedings? <No> (if No, move to question 26)

25. In which trials or requests for review did the Court make those findings?

26. Have you previously had your membership of the Bar revoked for any reason other than ceasing to be a citizen? <No> (if No, move to question 28)

27. On what date/dates was your membership revoked?

28. If you answered Yes to any of questions 20, 22, 24, or 26, why do you consider that you would be an acceptable member of the bar, despite any prior conviction, recall, adverse finding by the Court, or revocation of Bar membership?

Part Six: Request for Admission and Declaration

I apply to the Bar Commissioners for admission to the Bar.

I declare that the information I have provided in this application is true and that I have not failed to provide any information required by this application.

 

[Vivanco]

I have been made aware of a mistake in my application, I have edited it.

 

[Vivanco]

The Bar Commission have reviewed the application, and we have decided to accept the application to the Bar.

Spoiler: Discussions about Vivanco's Application

I have applied to the Bar Commission in this thread.

To avoid conlifct of interest, I will abstain in this discussion and not vote.
@Lord Dominator @Zyvetskistaahn , opinions? You two have the leading voice in this.

My inclination would be to admit Vivanco. They have adequate experience as Justice and Prosecutor/AG in relation to criminal trials and some additional legal writing in the brief and bills. One question I might want to ask is whether the answer to question 18 is complete because they obviously also hold office as Bar Commissioner(!), clearly we know that but it is strictly an omission from the application.

Apologies, forgot to post - I also see no reason not to admit Vivanco, especially in light of their fixing the error about their service as a Commissioner.

Since there's a new application to the bar, I will proceed to move the current one being discussed to a vote.

According to the Rules of the Bar Commission, the vote will last (at maximum) three days.

I vote "Abstain" to Vivanco joining the Bar Association

Once this application is processed, we shall move to discuss Pallaith. Due to my abstention, both @Lord Dominator and @Zyvetskistaahn will need to vote.

Aye

Missed the vote on this but I would have voted Aye. It seems to me that Vivanco is admitted (either because 1 Aye - 1 Abstain - 1 missing is a majority for Aye or because I would say that we can decide by consensus to treat it as one), unless one of you think my delay means we need to revote?

I would take your late vote as consensus regardless, and even if we don’t I agree that it’s still an Aye majorit.

I take it as consensus as well. Then, I have been accepted in the Regional Bar.