Contempt of Court Bill Proposal

[Romanoffia]

Chapter 1: Criminal Code of The North Pacific shall be amended to include in order make Contempt of Court a Criminal Offence:

Section 1.9. Contempt of Court


25. Contempt of Court shall be defined as:


Willful behavior committed during the sitting of a court and directly tending to interrupt its proceedings.

Willful behavior committed during the sitting of a court in its immediate view and presence and directly tending to impair the respect due its authority.

Willful disobedience of, resistance to, or interference with a court’s lawful process, order, directive, or instruction or its execution.

Willful refusal to be sworn or affirmed as a witness, or, when so sworn or affirmed, willful refusal to answer any legal and proper question when the refusal is not legally justified.

Willful publication of a report of the proceedings in a court that is grossly inaccurate and presents a clear and present danger of imminent and serious threat to the administration of justice, made with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false. No person, however, may be punished for publishing a truthful report of proceedings in a court.

Willful or grossly negligent failure by an officer of the court to perform his duties in an official transaction.

Willful or grossly negligent failure to comply with schedules and practices of the court resulting in substantial interference with the business of the court.

Willful refusal to testify or produce other information upon the order of a judge, Granting of Immunity to Witnesses.

Willful communication with a Justice in an improper attempt to influence his deliberations.

Willful refusal by a defendant to comply with a Court Order or Decision.

Any other act or omission specified elsewhere in TNP Legal Code as grounds for criminal contempt.


26. Presiding Justices may impose an appropriate penalty to deal with Contempt during legal proceedings and/or refer instances of Contempt to the Attorney General for Criminal Prosecution.

Now, if you want to give the Court some real teeth in terms of maintaining order so that it is not just a dog and pony show, this Contempt law proposal will do exactly that. It is simple, concise and extremely specific in its scope.

Amongst other things, it will criminalize any action designed to unlawfully influence Justices in their deliberations or to attempt to deliberately disrupt court proceedings.

 

[Kiwi]

Eluvatar actually proposed a TNP bar at some point too (the legal version not the drinking variety ).

I wonder whether this is an appropriate way to discipline counsel?

I suspect this may interfere with the right to have whoever you want represent you.

 

[falapatorius]

26. Presiding Justices may impose an appropriate penalty to deal with Contempt during legal proceedings and/or refer instances of Contempt to the Attorney General for Criminal Prosecution.

The section I bolded is setting off my spidey sense. What if a member of the AG's office is in contempt? Seems like a whole lot of conflicts. You might consider striking that part. I do like that contempt is being spelled out tho. Criminalization?.. not so sure that'll fly.

 

[PaulWallLibertarian42]

Full support. I also think it would be interresting IC role play and development if there was some kind of bar association of TNP lawyers and maybe even a public defenders corp. The accused has a right to pick their own council but instead of waiting for a volunteer if they dont pick someone the court could appoint a defense council from the PD corps. And the accused could accept or refuse the appointment and again choose their own council, rep themselves, or have the court appoint another PD.

 

[Romanoffia]

Eluvatar actually proposed a TNP bar at some point too (the legal version not the drinking variety ).

I wonder whether this is an appropriate way to discipline counsel?

I suspect this may interfere with the right to have whoever you want represent you.

I knew someone would pull the "may interfere with the right to have whoever you want represent you" thingy.

However, if a defendant has a council who is deliberately trying to disrupt a trial, is not that council interfering with the defendant's right to a fair and impartial trial by essentially and factually trying to deny due process?

So, essentially, taken as an absolute, a defendant could direct his council to deliberate disrupt a trial so that there is in fact no due process. As such, there have to be certain rational and reasonable rules of contempt to prevent such actions by the defence. Criminalising Contempt of Court is the only way to prevent this. Remember, a deliberately and unruly, contemptuous defence council is actually denying a defendant due process and right to a fair trial.

So, the logical conclusion is that we have a conflict of rights according to the BOR. We have the defendant's right to council of his choosing and we have a defendant's right to have due process and a fair trial. However, the defendant's right to a fair trial can be compromised by his right to a council of his choosing should that council deliberately disrupt (or attempt to do so) that due process we call a trial.

See where I am going with this?

Which right has precedent? Which is the superior right? Are these rights equal in an absolute sense? Probably, but if a defendant chooses a council who is intentionally disruptive as a tactic to destroy due process, the defendant is literally abdicating his right to due process by having a council that is bent on destroying due process.

Put in simple terms, one cannot abdicate one's rights in order to assert one's rights. Also, rights are not absolute insofar as they are used to trample on the rights of other. One's rights end where another's rights begin, and vice versa.

Putting it in another light, one has, according to the BOR of this region, an absolute right to 'religious freedom' and the 'free exercise thereof.' Now suppose someone created a religion who's main tenet is, as a form of religious practice, to overthrow the government of The North Pacific and it's entire constitutional machinery and replace it with a dictatorship?

Your argument that a right of a defendant to choose absolutely any coucil, even a troll as council whose main goal is to disrupt the very due process that to which his client is entitled is specious and factitious in its logic and reason.

Returning to the 'religion' that has the religious practice as a form of 'worship' which involves the overthrow of the Government - if religious freedom is absolute under the BOR, then any act of treason on the part of said religious practitioners is exempt from any prosecution. After all, overthrowing the government is one of their religious practices. Would then their treason in fact be exempt from any prosecution by the government because of the BOR?

I would say not, and anyone approaching this issue logically would agree.

The right of a defendant to choose council does not give the defendant nor his council the absolute right to run a trial into the dirt and thwart due process which is not only the right of the defendant, but also the right of the People of this region in prosecuting crimes against the state (the state being the People as a collective unit).

Let me put it a little stronger - if a defendant has council that is denying its own defendant the right to due process, is it not the Duty of the Court to remedy such a denial of rights? After all, a council who is violating his own client's right to due process is also engaging in a criminal act against his own client's rights according to the BOR (mainly due process).

The Court, and the entire government for that matter, has a duty to protect the rights of all individuals, and especially those being tried in a Court. Therefore, the Court has the legitimate authority to protect the defendant's rights to due process should council be engaging in acts designed to deny due process to his own client.

If the defendant orders his council to engage in disruptive and/or contemptuous strategies designed to disrupt due process, then the defendant is also guilty of Contempt of Court. Then it becomes incumbent upon the Court to protect the rights of the defendant even if the defendant has essentially surrendered those rights to due process by engaging in Contempt or by his council engaging in contempt.

To not have the authority on the part of the Court to remove contemptuous council would essentially require the Court to uphold the destruction of due process as an absolute right of the defendant.

Therefore, it is logical, just and in the interest of preserving the absolute right of a defendant to due process to hold in Contempt or even remove from the proceedings any council who is actively, with forethought of malice, such council who is trying to destroy due process by contemptuous actions to that end.

 

[PaulWallLibertarian42]

If refering contempt charges against a member of the AGs office to the AGs office might create a COI. Could we set up a system where if it involves AGs office the Delegate or CJ of the court shall appoint a Special Prosecutor a Ken Star if you will outside of the AGs office to have the case referred to for possible prosecution?

 

[Romanoffia]

26. Presiding Justices may impose an appropriate penalty to deal with Contempt during legal proceedings and/or refer instances of Contempt to the Attorney General for Criminal Prosecution.

The section I bolded is setting off my spidey sense. What if a member of the AG's office is in contempt? Seems like a whole lot of conflicts. You might consider striking that part. I do like that contempt is being spelled out tho. Criminalization?.. not so sure that'll fly.

An AG for criminal prosecution is also not in any way exempt from being found in Contempt. The Prosecution is Council for the State/People and falls under the heading of 'Council' by definition.

The only way to deal with Contempt that disrupts due process is to make it potentially criminal because denial of due process in a deliberate and thoughtful way is denying due process to the Defendant, even if the defendant is party to the Contempt (which also makes the defendant, if in collusion with his council, guilty of Contempt).

Read my previous post.

 

[Romanoffia]

If refering contempt charges against a member of the AGs office to the AGs office might create a COI. Could we set up a system where if it involves AGs office the Delegate or CJ of the court shall appoint a Special Prosecutor a Ken Star if you will outside of the AGs office to have the case referred to for possible prosecution?

It actually wouldn't create COI as any AG under charges would be by logic suspended and any attempt by a biased AG Counsel assigned to the prosecution would be immediately recognized by the Court Justices.

The only neutral party in a court case should be the Presiding Justice, one of whose functions is to assure due process. Prosecutors have the job of nailing a defendant even if they know the defendant is innocent; the defence Counsel's job is to get his client off even if he knows the client is guilty.

That, however, does not entitle the Prosecutor nor the Defence from engaging in contemptuous activities to do so.

OOC: In North Carolina, one does not have to be an attorney in order to be a Judge at any level. At the Magistrate level of the system, it is generally preferred that a Magistrate Judge is NOT an attorney at law for a number of various reasons not relevant for the sake of argument here.

But, having sat as a Magistrate Justice in several Counties in three different states over the years, let me tell you, Contempt laws are a very powerful tool in not only maintaining order in the court, but also in assuring that a defendant gets due process.

Let me tell you a little interesting story about something in RL that very closely parallels the recent unpleasantness of TNP v. JAL that will shed light on this matter:

A number of years ago we had a court case here in my county in which the Defence Counsel because disruptive. When the Superior Court Judge warned that if such disruptive behaviour continued, Counsel would be held in contempt. Well, this didn't fall well with the Defence Counsel who then proceeded to accuse the Superior Court Judge of 'bias' against the defendant. The Superior Court Judge found Counsel in Contempt, fined him $2500 and gave him 30 days in jail for Criminal Contempt (by actions on the part of the Counsel in an attempt to disrupt due process) and new Counsel was assigned to the defendant.

Rule #1 - Accusing a Superior Court Justice of 'Bias' in the Courtroom during a trial (or even elsewhere) will get you jail time for Criminal Contempt and probably get you disbarred if you are an attorney.

Rule #2 - If a defence Counsel has absolute proof of Bias or COI on the Judge's part, that evidence can be submitted and if the evidence is valid, the Judge must recuse himself. But there must be absolute or reasonable material evidence, not just the opinion of Counsel due to a dislike of a Judge's order or decision.

Again, the possibility of being found in Contempt and the potential criminal liability for being found in Contempt is a great deterrent to BS in the Courtroom emanating form either the Prosecution or the Defence. And as such, anyone being found in Contempt of Court is a rare thing, usually reserved for people who are arrogant idiots.

The problem is in TNP, is that no one tends to pay attention to what is actually before them, and if they do pay all due diligent attention to it, they will generally catch Hell and get run through the wringer for actually engaging in rational thought. Look at RA votes - do you think any more than about 2% of the people voting actually take the time to understand what they are voting on?

Believe me, if the Court in TNP had a Contempt law to back up the authority of the Court, TNP v. JAL would have been over and done with by now. And, the Court would actually have some real authority to enforce order in the Court and the Law for that matter.

 

[PaulWallLibertarian42]

Prosecutors have the job of nailing a defendant even if they know the defendant is innocent

In that case I would say the honorable thing would be to dismiss all charges. But that is just me :p

 

[Grosseschnauzer]

Roman, "counsel," not "council."
Jeezes, one would think you'd know better.

 

[Flemingovia]

Oh dear

This is another attempt to fix TNP's legal problems by cut-and-pasting from a real life American legal code. I think this one is from North Carolina.

cut and pasting makes the bill proposer look more intelligent than they actually are, but it leaves us with laws that are bloated and utterly unsuited for a game environment where those applying the laws are not legal professionals.

Too long and too complex. You would have thought we would have learned by now.

this proposal has more to do with soothing Roman's damaged ego than it has any desire to improve the courts in TNP. After reading Roman for days posting all over the forum about how he is wronged, turning every issue into "it's all about Romanoffia" and generally behaving like a complete and utter .... widdle fwuffy bunny wabbit..... I am not predisposed to indulge him.

We need a contempt of court law. true. But we do not need South Carolina's* contempt of court bill.

*or whichever other state's law this is.

 

[Flemingovia]

Prosecutors have the job of nailing a defendant even if they know the defendant is innocent

In that case I would say the honorable thing would be to dismiss all charges. But that is just me :p

No they don't. If they discover, in the course of their inquiries, that a defendent is innocent, they have a duty to divulge the fact.

At least, that is true in the UK. I cannot believe that even in the US a prosecutor would go after an innocent person. trials are not a game. It is about determining fact, not "winning".

 

[Ator People]

If the presiding justice can impose a penalty for contempt, isn't that a de facto criminal conviction without due process?

 

[Abacathea]

If the presiding justice can impose a penalty for contempt, isn't that a de facto criminal conviction without due process?

Not at all, this happens in RL all the time. You have to remember who is actually doing the charging in this instance. RL courts have the ability to add and refuse charges as they see appropriate. Usually a judge who is charging someone with contempt of court has had all the evidence placed before them at that moment in time and made the judgement call that the individual is guilty of the offence. Perfectly legal just swift due process because the judge has witnessed the crime unfold right before their eyes.

 

[Great Bights Mum]

If the presiding justice can impose a penalty for contempt, isn't that a de facto criminal conviction without due process?

Nope. The judge is the king of his courtroom.

This proposal needs to be whittled down to 2 sentences, at most.

 

[Treize_Dreizehn]

This proposal needs to be whittled down to 2 sentences, at most.

I agree. We absolutely need to empower our justices to deal with disruption in the court room but it should be shorter. I honestly think trying to make it a criminal offense is a bridge too far though. Making it a criminal offense will seriously over complicate the trials. Not to mention it would have very little effect on defense counsel who aren't a part of these forums otherwise.

 

[Flemingovia]

^ what they said.

 

[Democratic Donkeys]

Oh dear

This is another attempt to fix TNP's legal problems by cut-and-pasting from a real life American legal code. I think this one is from North Carolina.

cut and pasting makes the bill proposer look more intelligent than they actually are, but it leaves us with laws that are bloated and utterly unsuited for a game environment where those applying the laws are not legal professionals.

Too long and too complex. You would have thought we would have learned by now.

this proposal has more to do with soothing Roman's damaged ego than it has any desire to improve the courts in TNP. After reading Roman for days posting all over the forum about how he is wronged, turning every issue into "it's all about Romanoffia" and generally behaving like a complete and utter .... widdle fwuffy bunny wabbit..... I am not predisposed to indulge him.

We need a contempt of court law. true. But we do not need South Carolina's* contempt of court bill.

*or whichever other state's law this is.

He actually copy-pasted it from North Carolina, I had to check for myself. Come on now, Roman. I know you like writing longwinded posts, surely you could do better?

 

[Treize_Dreizehn]

He actually copy-pasted it from North Carolina, I had to check for myself. Come on now, Roman. I know you like writing longwinded posts, surely you could do better?

Oh jeez. Maybe this is just the WA author in me, but plagiarism, even of laws is a serious thing. If I'd noticed y'all saying that I'd have commented on it as well. We definitely need to scrap this and start over from scratch.

 

[Treize_Dreizehn]

I've been thinking about this all day. I'm not sure we need a law on the subject at all? The justices can alter the rules to accommodate decorum. If someone breaches that decorum the court rules can allow for outright dismissal of any motions that don't conform (technically a justice could do that now, but I wouldn't mind it being codified somewhere). The justices already have moderation privileges. If someone goes off topic or gets insulty and it's NOT a motion, the justice can split the posts out into a specially created catch thread for such posts.

It seems to me we've been over thinking this. I'm also pretty sure Roman could've done all of those things with no law or rule changes.

 

[Great Bights Mum]

I've been thinking about this all day.

Now I just feel bad for you.

I agree, though. There is no reason a judge can't call the bailiff and have the offending party removed until whatever conditions the judge imposes are met. Like I said elsewhere, any lawyer knows things will go badly for him if doesn't stay on the good side of the judge.

 

[Romanoffia]

Roman, "counsel," not "council."
Jeezes, one would think you'd know better.

Will correct. I was tired when I posted. I was stuck in an archaic plural that went obsolete (not really, but it sounds good ).

He actually copy-pasted it from North Carolina, I had to check for myself. Come on now, Roman. I know you like writing longwinded posts, surely you could do better?

Oh jeez. Maybe this is just the WA author in me, but plagiarism, even of laws is a serious thing. If I'd noticed y'all saying that I'd have commented on it as well. We definitely need to scrap this and start over from scratch.

It's actually largely cut and pasted from the legal code in about 48 states that use the same text for the most part. Not plagiarism at all as items of common law are in public domain.

Were it plagiarism, then every country in the world would be guilty of it in their legal codes.

This proposal needs to be whittled down to 2 sentences, at most.

I agree. We absolutely need to empower our justices to deal with disruption in the court room but it should be shorter. I honestly think trying to make it a criminal offense is a bridge too far though. Making it a criminal offense will seriously over complicate the trials. Not to mention it would have very little effect on defense counsel who aren't a part of these forums otherwise.

Funny, isn't it? The very people who have taken advantage of being able to disrupt due process are against any attempts to prevent the disruption of due process by contemptuous behaviour.

Sure, if someone not directly involved in a trial starts making peanut gallery comments in a trial thread to disrupt the trial and the second the Justice edits or deletes such irrelevant trollery, the troll claims 'my right to free speech has been violated!" and the feces festival begins again.

Believe me, you are quite wrong about a Contempt Law having no effect on a contemptuous Defence Counsel. Had there been a Contempt Law in place during TNP v. JAL, your nappy little arse would have been out the door as far as participating in the trial and JAL would then have to either find new Counsel or represent himself and, frankly, I would have suggested he exercise his right to remain silent.

Frankly, I can't wait for TNP v. JAL to be brought up before the Court again if there is no Contempt Law in place at that time.

In fact, if TNP v. JAL is brought up again before the Court, and there is no detailed Contempt Law, I will literally get on my hands and knees and beg JAL to be one of his Defence Counsels. And then, my friend, I will show you exactly how much a trial can be disrupted without violating any of the rules that currently exist. And you will look like a trollish amateur in your previous contempt of the Court.

And as a side note, any Contempt Law less detailed and less specific that what I propose will have so many holes in it that it could be used as a basket ball hoop a mile across. I would absolutely relish the chance to defend JAL in Court without any detailed Contempt Law being in place.

Believe me when I say, TD, that I could put you and Mall to shame by employing the contempt strategy you pulled in TNP v. JAL.

Ironic as it may seem, or not as the case may be, I guarantee that I can be exponentially more vicious than anyone else, and get away with it by exploiting the rules, or rather, the holes in the rules. It will be as subtle as a IED under a toiled seat.

In which instance, everyone would be begging for this Bill to pass exactly as I wrote it.

Of course, any Contempt Law will probably never pass because it takes the weapon of trollery away from trolls, and trolls don't like being denied their crude methods.

My general advise, considering that the tradition and precedent is to apply laws exactly as written, is to pass a Contempt Law to close up the golf course of holes we call court procedure. Or, for your dancing and dining pleasure, I'm sure someone will exploit the current rules and save me the trouble of illustrating the virtue of this Bill.

 

[Romanoffia]

If the presiding justice can impose a penalty for contempt, isn't that a de facto criminal conviction without due process?

Nope. The judge is the king of his courtroom.

This proposal needs to be whittled down to 2 sentences, at most.

Now, if we want to whittle it down to the basic gist of maintaining order in the Court and to prevent deliberate attempts at coercing or influencing a Justice, then I suppose, for TNP purposes, this would be both broad and specific enough to cover all the holes that might be exppoited:

Section 1.9. Contempt of Court


25. Contempt of Court shall be defined as:


Willful behaviour committed during the sitting of a court and directly tending to interrupt its proceedings, or directly tending to impair the respect due its authority.

Willful or grossly negligent failure to comply with schedules and practices of the court resulting in substantial interference with Due Process.

Willful communication with a Justice in an improper attempt to influence his deliberations.


26. Presiding Justices may impose an appropriate penalty to deal with Contempt during legal proceedings and/or refer instances of Contempt to the Attorney General for Criminal Prosecution.

I changed "Business of the Court" with "Due Process" to close up a number of holes that might be exploited. I'm sure someone will, in practice find holes to exploit, but at least they will have to display a little more finesse and class to do so.

[addendum on edit]

I whittled it down a bit more.

 

[mcmasterdonia]

All further posts by romanoffia shall be limited to 140-characters and shall be posted in the form of a tweet.

 

[Flemingovia]

I've been thinking about this all day. I'm not sure we need a law on the subject at all? The justices can alter the rules to accommodate decorum. If someone breaches that decorum the court rules can allow for outright dismissal of any motions that don't conform (technically a justice could do that now, but I wouldn't mind it being codified somewhere). The justices already have moderation privileges. If someone goes off topic or gets insulty and it's NOT a motion, the justice can split the posts out into a specially created catch thread for such posts.

It seems to me we've been over thinking this. I'm also pretty sure Roman could've done all of those things with no law or rule changes.

We need a contempt of court law. true. But we do not need South Carolina's* contempt of court bill.

I have been thinking about TD's post, and I have come to the conclusion that I was wrong and TD is right.

Before we pass a contempt of court bill I would like to see a justice use the powers they already have in a sane and rational manner.

I do not believe in legislation where none is needed. One justice throwing a wobbly does not necessarily mean that the system needs revision.

 

[Ator People]

Don't get me wrong, I want to see a contempt of Court law, I just don't know if criminal charges without trial or the possibility of appeal is the way to do it.

 

[SillyString]

Don't get me wrong, I want to see a contempt of Court law, I just don't know if criminal charges without trial or the possibility of appeal is the way to do it.

I don't think a contempt of court law is the right approach at this point, but I definitely agree with the second part. There's actually a bit of a loophole in our laws on this - so long as something isn't called a criminal punishment, there are really very few limits on what can be done to a member. The only exceptions I can find involve removal from the region itself.

I'm in agreement with Douria and Flem otherwise. I think the Court is well equipped to handle disruptive behavior on its own.

 

[Romanoffia]

Don't get me wrong, I want to see a contempt of Court law, I just don't know if criminal charges without trial or the possibility of appeal is the way to do it.

I don't think a contempt of court law is the right approach at this point, but I definitely agree with the second part. There's actually a bit of a loophole in our laws on this - so long as something isn't called a criminal punishment, there are really very few limits on what can be done to a member. The only exceptions I can find involve removal from the region itself.

I'm in agreement with Douria and Flem otherwise. I think the Court is well equipped to handle disruptive behavior on its own.

No, the Court is NOT well equipped to handle disruptive behaviour. That is clearly self-evident. And you know it.

You try to remove an unruly Defence Counsel and I guarantee you will be subjected to exactly the same crap I was subjected to. Guaranteed.

Point being, I tried to get a Contempt rule set up in the Court Rules and that was a no-go as no one would even let it get anywhere near serious discussion. I gave up on it early on. Mainly because Court Rules only apply to Court Procedure.

That is why you need a law concerning Contempt which clearly defines Contempt. Otherwise, the Court will catch Hell and any Presiding Justice who tries to do anything about Contempt will get abused so mercilessly that they won't be able to sit down for a week.

There needs to be a well defined Contempt Law otherwise any Justice who tries to deal with disorder in the Court Room will have their Court Room turned into a circus due to the Constitution.

Now, let me quote the Constitution:

Article 5. The Court

1. The Court will try all criminal cases, resolve conflicts or ambiguities in the law, and review the constitutionality of laws or legality of government policies by request of an affected party.
2. The Court will consist of at least three Justices, who will select a Chief Justice among themselves.
3. The Chief Justice will administer the rules of the Court. Where no rules exist, the Chief Justice may use their discretion.
4. The official opinion of the Court in any trial or review will be binding on all Government bodies and officials.
5. Justices will be elected by the Regional Assembly by a plurality vote every four months.

Please note item # 3: "The Chief Justice will administer the rules of the Court. Where no rules exist, the Chief Justice may use their discretion."

That is what I tried to do under this specific article of the Constitution. And I caught Hell for it, even from you. And now you can claim that you can do exactly what I tried to do and that's just fine with the people who gave me Hell for it?

Excuse me while I laugh hysterically at the bold faced hypocrisy.

What you are failing to see is that discretionary actions on the part of a CJ will meet with absolute opposition if that decision is not popular with the mob.

Therefore, any discretionary act on the part of a Presiding Justice concerning Contempt should be set in Law so that the Justice has the actual, set in stone authority to deal with Contempt as his discretion permits.

You can't claim the very same act is OK for one person to do and not OK for another person to do.

And, please not also that I stand corrected on one critical issue that has been the practice of the Court but is NOT set anywhere in the Constitution nor is it set anywhere in the Legal Code, and that being, the Court has no legal authority anywhere to create even it's own Rules.

To Wit:

Chapter 3: Judicial Law

1. These procedures will govern the Judiciary.

Section 3.1: Chief Justice Selection
2. Whenever the position is vacant, the Justices shall elect a Chief Justice from among themselves by a majority vote.
3. In the event that a Chief Justice has not been elected by seven days after the conclusion of a Judicial election, including the conclusion of any required run-off votes, the Chief Justice shall be the Justice who received the highest number of votes in said election. In the event of a tie for highest number of votes, the Chief Justice shall be the one among those tied with the longest period of membership in the Regional Assembly.

Section 3.2: Appointment of Hearing Officers
4. If there is a vacancy on the Court, or any Justice is unavailable or has a conflict of interest the remaining Justices will promptly appoint a hearing officer to participate as temporary Justices.
5. If no Justices are available or all Justices have a conflict of interest, the Delegate will promptly appoint the needed hearing officers with the agreement of the Speaker.
6. In implementing the previous clause, any person who has a conflict of interest will be treated as absent.
7. Any hearing officer appointed under this Section must not have a conflict of interest and may not hold any other office while serving as a judicial hearing officer.

Section 3.3: Criminal Trial Procedure
8. When seeking an indictment to eject or ban, or expel from the RA due to oath violation, pending a trial, the Government must inform all the Justices.
9. Any Justice may approve or deny an indictment, and their decision will be final.
10. Once an ejection is performed, the Government must notify the ejected nation of their rights within one hour, and publicly submit a criminal proceeding to the court within six hours.
11. Once a criminal proceeding is presented, the defendant will have 48 hours to enter a plea, or a plea of "Not Guilty" may be entered for them.
12. Once a plea is entered, a period of time set by the Court for the discovery of evidence and witness testimony will begin. This period is normally 7 days.
13. Once discovery ends a period of time for arguments on the evidence and law will begin, its duration set by the Court. This period is normally 5 days.
14. During discovery and arguments, either side may make objections or requests publicly on the forum.
15. Once arguments end, the Court will have 72 hours to decide on a verdict and, if necessary, sentence.

The Constibilicode has a gaping big hole in it a mile wide.

While the Constitution says:

The Chief Justice will administer the rules of the Court. Where no rules exist, the Chief Justice may use their discretion.

Fine and dandy, but the Legal Code and the Constitution do not give the Court the authority even to create its own rules.

Now, that essentially means that since the Court has no rules, the CJ has the authority to do whatever the Hell the CJ wants to do because since there is no authority for the Court to make it's own rules, no rules exist at all. And then it's all up to the CJ's 'discretion' in a fluid and amorphous fashion?

Think about it.

OH, and as the icing on the cake, any Justice (or anyone for that matter) can be subjected to a recall for any reason, including but not limited to using the letters "F", "S" and "W" and not paying homage and supplication to public opinion and political pressures.

That means lacking a specific law on Contempt and specific Laws governing all aspects of the Court's authority, the Court is meaningless. In fact it's less than meaningless. It's worthless, like Deutschmarks from The Weimar Republic.

Please pardon me for being a bit confuzzled, but why is it that any time anyone proposes objective, rational and logical laws that will actually accomplish something they are met with violent opposition?

The only rational conclusion I can think of is that there is a sufficiently large segment of people here who don't really care, understand or want laws that actually mean anything and which can actually be applied equally and fairly to one and all.

Everyone claims they want rational, objective and meaningful laws yet they refuse to do anything but denigrate any attempts to arrive at such a conclusion.

And this is exactly why we need a Contempt Law that actually gives legal authority to the Court and exempts the Court from retribution for attempting to maintain the authority of the Court and Due Process.

You know what? I've concluded something. We would have been better off under the Flemingovian Constitution because at least it was clearly defined on all matters.

Note to Flemingovia: Send me a re-write of your Constitution. Given the insanity that abounds in TNP, I may just support it along with your State Religion Bill (if you put some real teeth in the bill).

 

[Crushing Our Enemies]

And, please not also that I stand corrected on one critical issue that has been the practice of the Court but is NOT set anywhere in the Constitution nor is it set anywhere in the Legal Code, and that being, the Court has no legal authority anywhere to create even it's own Rules.

Actually, it totally does.

11. Government bodies may create rules for their own governance subordinate to this constitution and the laws.

 

[Democratic Donkeys]

[me]snickers

Also, kudos to our Augur for actually reading a Romanoffia post, I just scroll through those.

 

[Crushing Our Enemies]

I was skimming, but that bit jumped out at me.

 

[Flemingovia]

No, the Court is NOT well equipped to handle disruptive behaviour.

The court was well equipped. The presiding justice was not.

 

[Grosseschnauzer]

As with the attempt to amend the Bill of Rights first on another court-related topic, it makes no sense to amend the Constitution or the Legal Code until the Court has adopted and tried out Court Rules on contempt of court first.

If it is ever shown in practice under a Court rule specifying what is contempt and what range of penalties a justice or the Court can impose, that it wasn't enough to stem the problem, then that would be the time to look at an amendment to the Legal Code.

And then, if a legal code provision proves not to be enough to stem the problem, then that would be the time to look at the Constitution.

We're no way near the point for legislation other than perhaps a sense of the RA resolution asking the Court to address the issue first by adopting a Court rule on the matter.

 

[Romanoffia]

As with the attempt to amend the Bill of Rights first on another court-related topic, it makes no sense to amend the Constitution or the Legal Code until the Court has adopted and tried out Court Rules on contempt of court first.

If it is ever shown in practice under a Court rule specifying what is contempt and what range of penalties a justice or the Court can impose, that it wasn't enough to stem the problem, then that would be the time to look at an amendment to the Legal Code.

And then, if a legal code provision proves not to be enough to stem the problem, then that would be the time to look at the Constitution.

We're no way near the point for legislation other than perhaps a sense of the RA resolution asking the Court to address the issue first by adopting a Court rule on the matter.

Well, that is a viable idea. My main concern is to make sure that there are provisions for the Court to punish Contempt and maintain order. But I'm not talking about amending the Constitution here (although, it does need amending or replacing, IMHO).

No, the Court is NOT well equipped to handle disruptive behaviour.

The court was well equipped. The presiding justice was not.

And that, sir, is a load of crap.

Just watch what happens the next time a politically charged trial comes before the court and you get a disruptive Counsel and they shove the BOR right up the Justice's collective arse.

And, please not also that I stand corrected on one critical issue that has been the practice of the Court but is NOT set anywhere in the Constitution nor is it set anywhere in the Legal Code, and that being, the Court has no legal authority anywhere to create even it's own Rules.

Actually, it totally does.

11. Government bodies may create rules for their own governance subordinate to this constitution and the laws.

The key phrase is to 'govern itself'. That does not include anything beyond procedure and structure at this time.

Again, I used the Constitutional and Legal discretion as CJ while presiding over TNP v. JAL and got nothing but Hell for it. What makes you think that the Court can wave a magic wand and the trolls will all join hands with the Justices and sing Kum-by-yah?

Like I said before, I offer a viable solution by addition to the Legal Code. You can either act to rein in Contempt issues or not. I really don't care at this point how it is accomplished.

I can solve the whole matter easily by asking the Court for a clarification of two points of procedure and Constitution and let the Court solve the matter without so much as a new Law or Constitutional Amendment. And then we will see if the present Court has the intestinal fortitude to give a definitive answer or take the sleazy way out and make a scotched decision.

I think that would be a better approach to ending (or not) Contemptuous behaviour in the Court.

 

[Romanoffia]

I would like to move this to Formal Debate.

 

[Flemingovia]

I urge people not to vote for this cut-and-paste from South Carolina's legal code.

this is not what is needed, as several people have pointed out above.

 

[Zyvetskistaahn]

The proposal is now in formal debate. Formal debate shall conclude in five days, at which time a vote shall be scheduled.

 

[Egalotir]

I like the idea and I'm all for it, it's definitely a must. But as it has been said already, we need to change the wording as it's way too long and copy-pasted. Also a few key words need to be looked at/changed such as criminal proceedings/charges and all that.

 

[SillyString]

I too object to plagiarized laws.

 

[Romanoffia]

I too object to plagiarized laws.

I will rewrite it. And, after all, aren't all of our laws (and even Constitution) Plagiarised?

I will do a re-write in 50 words or less to satisfy those who seem to object to order in the court.

After all, I think that the only way to deal with this problem is to actually pass a law concerning Contempt because the Court seems extremely reluctant to do something that is entirely fitting and necessary.