Attorney General Amendment Act

Grosseschnauzer:
You are overlooking that a foriegn nation might be a defendant in a civil or a criminal case.
Click to expand...
But this is irrelevant to the clause we are discussing. The clause is about who can be a complainant. It has absolutely no effect on who can be a defendant. In fact, this entire bill has no effect on who can be a defendant.

Accordingly, what I raise is a potential issue. I am troubled by the jurisdictional problem the use of the word "person" is going to create, and this bill would be on stronger legal footing with the use of "nation" or "citizen," especially if the word "citizen" is defined in the Legal Code.
Click to expand...
I disagree for the reasons I stated in my previous post: 1) I do not think allowing foreigners to be complainants poses a serious jurisdictional problem; 2) It is already the current situation; and 3) It is preferable to the alternative of leaving foreigners with accounts on the forum defenseless against offenses that can very well affect them.
 
I do not see why we should be affording the glorious benefits of our speedy, efficient and utterly brilliant forensic legal system to people who cannot even be arsed to post an oath.

We have the lowest entry standards in NS (as a glance around the forum will display). If folks have a principled objection to joining, then I have a principled objection to giving them access to our courts.
 
flemingovia:
If folks have a principled objection to joining, then I have a principled objection to giving them access to our courts.
Click to expand...
You would prefer to encourage people with no interest in or loyalty to TNP to sign up for citizenship or RA membership, intending to do absolutely nothing to contribute to the region, just to be able to file a complaint about a breach of our laws?

That seems sort of backwards, to me... :unsure:
 
SillyString:
flemingovia:
If folks have a principled objection to joining, then I have a principled objection to giving them access to our courts.
Click to expand...
You would prefer to encourage people with no interest in or loyalty to TNP to sign up for citizenship or RA membership, intending to do absolutely nothing to contribute to the region, just to be able to file a complaint about a breach of our laws?

That seems sort of backwards, to me... :unsure:
Click to expand...
You mean folks who might join the RA then never post again, only to be removed from the RA a few weeks later for inactivity?

That pretty much describes a large proportion of our RA membership already, if you ask me.

EVERYBODY starts out with little loyalty or interest. You never know, this requirement could be a recruiting tool. Folks may join for the litigation but stay for the rum.

In reality what I would prefer is entrance requirements to the RA to be more stringent - but the region prefers a slacker approach.
 
flemingovia:
You mean folks who might join the RA then never post again, only to be removed from the RA a few weeks later for inactivity?

That pretty much describes a large proportion of our RA membership already, if you ask me.
Click to expand...
Yes, and it's something you've complained about in the past. Our entry requirements are minimal - some people like that, some people don't. But let's not outright force people to join a region they don't intend to contribute to simply to get redress for wrongs.
 
I am saying no more than every jurisdiction says - they are our courts, and to access them you need to be part of our community.

Not very cosmopolitan of me, I agree.
 
Er, that's simply not true. Some are restrictive, and others are not - TNP has historically been one of the latter.
 
I announce my full approval of this legislation. I especially would like to highlight the change from prosecutor shall not prosecute a case in which he is a defendent ect to the "prosecutor shall not take part." Some may argue this clause unneccessary but this would have been a loophole and I am glad that this bill fills it.
 
Who should be able to act as complainant and defendant is a non-trivial question that is well outside the scope of this bill. Therefore, it is best left to be addressed by a separate bill, if members believe that the current situation needs to be changed.

For the same reason, it is best that this bill preserve the current legal situation with regards to these two issues, and focus instead on the objectives I described in my second post in this thread. Likewise, members should vote on this bill based on how they feel about the effects described there, and not on what they think about two jurisdictional issues outside the scope of and unaffected by the bill.
 
This is an excellent piece of legislation that will cure a lot of ills concerning TNP legal procedure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top