Statute of Limitation

Grosseschnauzer

Grosseschnauzer

TNPer
What, you may ask, is a "statute of limitations"?

Basically, it sets a time limit after which one cannot file a criminal indictment or a civil claim in court. It prevents simeine from bring their claim long, long, after the fact when others might not have access to information, evidence, or witnesses because of the passage of time.

This will close the door on many longstanding greivances between parties within the region currently, or who were in the region in the past.

What I propose to do is set a deadline for all claims, civil or criminal, that may have existed (1) prior to the adoption of the current revision last July, (2) that arose since Jlu and before the adoption of the proposed bill, and (3) set the period for new claims that arise in the future to be filed. By definition, impeachment proceedings cannot be brought when an officeholder leaves office; the bill will reaffirm that concept.

Keep in mind what the Constitution defines as acts that can be the basis of a criminal indictment or a civil claim:

Constitution Article V Section 5:
Section 5. Grounds for Civil, Criminal or Impeachment Proceedings.
The following acts shall constitute grounds for civil, criminal or impeachment proceedings:
A - Failure of a Nation to observe and abide by the Constitution of The North Pacific and The North Pacific Legal Code.
B - Failure of a Nation to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any other nation or region in a manner inconsistent with the Constitution of The North Pacific and the North Pacific Legal Code.
C - Failure of a Nation to refrain from giving assistance to any nation or region against which The North Pacific is taking defensive or enforcement action. Exceptions is given to those Nations acting with official authorization of the North Pacific Army or the North Pacific Intelligence Agency, and is subject to the consent of the Cabinet officer having appropriate jurisdiction.
D - Failure of a Nation to Observe Its Oath of Office or its Oath as a Registered Voter.
Click to expand...

I do not have any hard and fast time periods in mind, but for purposes of opening an informal discussion, let me suggest these:

1. Any claim of a criminal act as defined in the Constitution and Legal Code of The North Pacific that occured prior to 7 July 2005 may not be brought in the Court of The North Pacific on or after 7 July 2006.
2. Any claim of a civil nature as defined in the Constitution and Legal Code of The North Pacific that occured prior to 7 July 2006 may not be brought in the Court of The North Pacific on or after 7 July 2006.
3. Any claim of a criminal act as defined in the Constitution and Legal Code of The North Pacific that occured on or after 7 July 2005 and prior to the date of enactment of this Law, may not be brought in the Court of The North Pacific 60 days after such enactment .
4. Any claim of a civil nature as defined in the Constitution and Legal Code of The North Pacific that occured on or after 7 July 2005 and prior to the date of enactment of this Law, may not be brought in the Court of The North Pacific 120 days after such enactment.
5. Any claim of a criminal act as defined in the Constitution and Legal Code of The North Pacific that occurs on the date of, or after the date this Law is enacted may not be brought in the Court of The North Pacific 60 days after such act is alleged to have been committed in whole or in part.
6. Any claim of a civil nature as defined in the Constitution and Legal Code of The North Pacific that occurs on the date of, or after the date this Law is enacted may not be brought in The Court of The North Pacific 60 days after such claim is alleged to have arisen in whole or in part.
7. Any act that is alleged to be the basis of an impeachment proceeding may not be brought once the current term of the officeholder has expired, or the officeholder has left office.

What do y'all think?
 
A better frame for a statute of limitation is to set a specific amount of time after someone has been charged with a crime or to have been alleged to have committed a crime after which any charges will not be entertained.

There has to be specific offenses for which there are no limitations, such as overt treason or hacking, though.

R
 
Roman, I think you are mixing up "speedy trial" concepts with what I am proposing.

It would be possible to create exceptions to this proposal as part of the bill or in later legislation. I do think it important, though, that we begin to think about how to clear the deck and assure that in next few months, future criminal charges and civil claims can be brought into court on a more timely basis.
 
Hm. An interesting proposal.

What about the definition of when a criminal act occurs? It may be an obvious point, but suppose someone allegedly violates the law on the 21st of the month and then violates the same law again on the 23rd.

Would the time limit be from the first occurrence of the violation or the last?
 
Btw, at some point I may move this into Legislative Discussion, but considering it's election season, there may not be as many people browsing here, so I see no harm in leaving it on the main forum page.
 
What Byard says is correct, if the two acts are separate. If they are related, then, since the series of acts are not completed until the last act of the series, the time period would begin on the day of the last such act.
 
I should have discussed the following initially, but I simply forgot to.

The Constitution does not impose limitation or deadlines under which criminal proceedings or civil proceedings that are based on conduct that took place prior to the ratification of the current revision. At the time, many wanted an opportunity to at least attempt such prosecutions, so the language was left broad enough so the legal basis for such proceedings would exist.

Time marches on, and at some point it would be next to impossible to fairly bring such claims without problems for the prosecution or a defendant. It seems more than reasonable that providing a limit of one year as to such claims and adopting that deadline sufficiently in advance so there is prior notice to anyone who feels they still have a basis to present such allegation. It is time to close the books on the events that took place before the current Constitution revision was ratified.

Likewise, the current revision does not ptovide any time limit to present a claim that arose once the current revision was ratified. Thus, a time period is included for future claims that arise, and a transition period is provided for claims that have arisen since the current revision took effect,

I may change the draft to specify a date rather than the "date of enactment" language, but at the moment, there is no time frame for when this proposal would be moved forward, and such a date would have to be on or after the date the law would have been enacted.
 
If the issue is a 'quick and speedy trial', then we have to find a limit for the amount of time from:

a - when the alleged crime was committed (say a year or so), and

b - a time limit on how long of a span of time is appropriate between the charge being levelled and a trial actually beginning.After a year or even less, the ability for anyone to mount a cohesive defense against a charge is greatly diminished as is the ability to prosecute a charge.

Also, you don't want people bringing up nit-picky dead issues (dead because they have not been acted upon) for the purpose of applying political leverage at some future date.
 
The concept of "speedy trial" as it is generally used in legal systeems refers to the time it takes a charge, once brought, to the day a trial begins. That is different than what I am talking about.

What I am speaking of is in part implied by your reference to "nit-picky dead issues," and what I am referring to deals with that problem. In the long term, a year is way too long in Nationstates time. (A year is four, count 'em four, Cabinet terms. In real life that could be the equicalent of 8 to 12 to 20 years, depending on the government system.

I probably should add an additional sentence that the limitations period does not begin until the act is discovered, or should have been discovered by the government or the victim of the alleged activity. That would prevent the use of concealment to bypass prosecution.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
I probably should add an additional sentence that the limitations period does not begin until the act is discovered, or should have been discovered by the government or the victim of the alleged activity. That would prevent the use of concealment to bypass prosecution.
Click to expand...
That would be an excellent idea.
 
wizardofoz01:
Grosseschnauzer:
I probably should add an additional sentence that the limitations period does not begin until the act is discovered, or should have been discovered by the government or the victim of the alleged activity. That would prevent the use of concealment to bypass prosecution.
Click to expand...
That would be an excellent idea.
Click to expand...
That's a double edged sword. Traditionally, the starting point would be when the act was committed.

If you wait until the act is 'discovered', then it opens up the door for someone to 'sit' on evidence until it becomes advantageous for that evidence to be 'discovered'. If you set the date as when the crime was committed, it is carved in stone and not subject to various mechanations in holding off on submitting evidence as 'newly discovered'.

This is especially true since any useable 'evidence' in this context would already essentially public as it would have occured on the forum or in some other public and overt act. Hence, the evidence is there and if people can't see it, it doesn't have any effect on when a crime was committed. And if someone sits on evidence (which would by nature be an interpretation of facts) then would they not be guilty of obstruction of justice? And try proving it.

That's why I think that a period for determining a statute of limitation should begine with when the alleged crime was committed.
 
The principle that has emerged in RL is "discovered or should have been discovered".

This way, efforts to conceal do not reward the lawbreaker, and failure to be deligent do not reward the government or a victim. Once the act is known and could have been acted on then the clock begins to run. If there is an active concealment, then the clock does not begin to run until the act should have been discovered with reasonable effort.

Thus an act that is secretly planned say on a IRC channel that is not connected with TNP, but which is then committed through intermediaries would trigger one time period for the intermediaries (when the act was actually committed) and a later time for the planners (once their participation should have reasonably been discovered.)

There is no way one can make a firm hard and fast rule for all situations, thus, a "discovered or should have been discovered" benchmark is seen as a fair middle ground.
 
Besides which, Pierconium, the legislation has not even been formally drafted, much less adopted by the Regional Assembly. This thread is still an informal discussion of the idea.

And if it is important, GM could always negotiate an agreement with the Attorney General and request the Court to approve it. Such an arrangement would have the same effect. As far as I know, any agreement GM had was with the AG, but was never presented to the Court. The Court could enter an order that made the agreement binding.
 
If that's the case, I would have no trouble trusting the Court to determine when a certain act was "discovered or should ahve been discoverd".
 
wizardofoz01:
If that's the case, I would have no trouble trusting the Court to determine when a certain act was "discovered or should ahve been discoverd".
Click to expand...
"Discovered or should have been discoverd" really makes me wince. To permit such a subjective set of criteria in place of absolute fact is a potential atrocity. Again, when something was discovered, should have been discovered and actually happened are three different critters altogether. This opens the door to suddenly 'discovering' things for political purposes.


I will inform Gracius Maximus that he can return on July 8th.
Click to expand...

Just make sure that the statute of limitations isn't fluid and subjective first.


R
 
Romanoffia:
"Discovered or should have been discoverd" really makes me wince. To permit such a subjective set of criteria in place of absolute fact is a potential atrocity. Again, when something was discovered, should have been discovered and actually happened are three different critters altogether. This opens the door to suddenly 'discovering' things for political purposes.
Click to expand...
I honestly see no better way. Hard and fast rules about "discovery" are equally open to abuse.
 
wizardofoz01:
Romanoffia:
"Discovered or should have been discoverd" really makes me wince. To permit such a subjective set of criteria in place of absolute fact is a potential atrocity. Again, when something was discovered, should have been discovered and actually happened are three different critters altogether. This opens the door to suddenly 'discovering' things for political purposes.
Click to expand...
I honestly see no better way. Hard and fast rules about "discovery" are equally open to abuse.
Click to expand...
The hard and fast rules of discovery are based upon the hard and fast facts of when the crime was actually committed and not open to any form of abuse. If you cannot prove beyond a doubt when a crime was committed, you cannot prove a crime was committed at all.

Give the nature of what evidence is admissible in these conditions in this context, the absolute nature of that evidence would be quite clear as to when a crime was allegedly committed.

Ultimately, without a clear, set in stone date as to when a crime was committed (or a reasonable and duly short span of time) it cannot be proved when or where the crime was committed or even whether or not the accused had been 'present' at the time.

Imagine bringing charges against someone and saying, "I know you committed a crime, we have evidence, but we have no idea when you committed a crime." It won't work and without establishing a clear means, motive and opportunity, you have no proof of criminal action.

I could say, "I saw someone shoot so and so, but I have no idea when it happened". It doesn't hold water.

Also, without a clear time-line that is reasonably accurate, all the evidence is worthless. And without a clear time for when a crime was committed, it becomes quite easy to fabricate 'evidence' or 'interpret' evidence in a manner in which it could cover an unrealistic span of time.

There are clear rules of evidence that apply in legal issues, real or hypothetical. It includes witnesses and hard evidence that can be tagged to a specific time and place. If you don't have all the parts to the puzzle, you have no picture. Of corse the argument might be stated that real rules of evidence do not apply in this (game) context, but I contend that they do.





A statute of limitations is a statute in a common law legal system setting forth the maximum period of time, after certain events, that legal proceedings based on those events may begin. In civil law systems, these provisions are usually part of the civil code or criminal code and are often known collectively as periods of prescription or prescriptive periods.

Please not that in the definition of 'Satute of Limitations' (in general definition) clearly states: "A statute of limitations is a statute in a common law legal system setting forth the maximum period of time, after certain events, that legal proceedings based on those events may begin. "

"After certain events" (meaning the events that comprise the commission of an offense) is key to this issue. Clearly it is the actual time in which the offense was alleged to have occured. If the crime is discovered after the statue of limitation on that particular crime has passed, it's tough nuts on the prosecutors, etc.

Further note that: "Once the statute of limitations on a case runs out, if a party raises it as a defence any further litigation is foreclosed."

That means if a trial is still under way when the statute of limitation (from the time of the commission of the alleged crime) expires, further litigation is 'forclosed'.

These particular principles are present and applied in all legal systems that include statutes of limitations. It is clear that the statute of limitation timespan begins specifically with the time at which the actual crime is committed. Hard and fast 'rules of discover' are irrelevent. What is relevent is when the alleged crime is to have occured.

In essence, a statute of limitation can be defined clearly as:
"Laws setting deadlines for filing lawsuits within a certain time after events occur that are the source of a claim." . This also pertains to criminal cases.

Time of discovery is irrelevent to the issue of statutes of limitation.



R
 
Keep in mind that the application of a limitation period in my proposal on the basis of the discovery of an act, or the time when that act should have been discovered will be for future conduct that is the basis of a judicial proceeding. As to conduct that occurred prior to 7 July 2005, the bar will be absolute. As to acts since then prior to the adoption of the proposal as law, it will likewise be absolute.
It is my intention to balance the interest of both sides in a proceeding as to the use of the date an act or conduct took place or is later discovered. This way, everyone will be on notice that in the future, they may be subject to a proceeding outside of whatever time period is fixed as the period for the limitations statute, if their initial conduct is concealed, and only discovered later.
In those circumstances, the only question of fact that would exist is whether the act or conduct that was hidden initially could have been discovered earlier either by the victim or the government with reasonable effort. If the answer is yes, and if the proceeding is brought on after the limitation period, then it would be barred. If the answer is no, and the period of time is less than the limitation period in the statute, then the action will not be barred.
It is important that there be no penalty to the government or the victim if the perpetrator(s) conceal their acts and conduct, and no penalty to the alleged perpetrator if the victim or the government procrasinated when they could have reasonably uncovered the act or conduct giving rise to the proceeding.
 
Romanoffia:
The hard and fast rules of discovery are based upon the hard and fast facts of when the crime was actually committed and not open to any form of abuse. If you cannot prove beyond a doubt when a crime was committed, you cannot prove a crime was committed at all.
Click to expand...
Well let me ask this. And the following scenario is not meant to be rhetorical -- I'm not trying to make a point but to help the discussion along.

Suppose I wrong a TNP nation on Feb 2, and an investigation starts a week later. However, I'm a criminal genius, so I manage to stonewall the investigation through some outwardly unsuspicious means, and the authorities don't definitively pin it on me until March 2. Now clearly, once they find out that I did something wrong, then that means when they STARTED the investigation I had already done something wrong. But here, that period of 3 weeks.. Wouldn't that mean that the criminal is free to stonewall investigations as long as they can in the hopes that a statute of limitations expires.

I'm not pretending to know the law on this; but I do know what my personal belief of justice is. And to lightly paraphrase a line from Sherlock Holmes, "The law may be clear, but justice.. that is not always so easy."
 
Suppose I wrong a TNP nation on Feb 2, and an investigation starts a week later. However, I'm a criminal genius, so I manage to stonewall the investigation through some outwardly unsuspicious means, and the authorities don't definitively pin it on me until March 2. Now clearly, once they find out that I did something wrong, then that means when they STARTED the investigation I had already done something wrong. But here, that period of 3 weeks.. Wouldn't that mean that the criminal is free to stonewall investigations as long as they can in the hopes that a statute of limitations expires.
Click to expand...

That's entirely another breed of duck altogether. The deliberate stonewalling, or rather the concealment of a criminal act would be obstruction of justice. If the concealment is for the intent of obstructing justice by delaying a proceeding, it is a crime in and of itself.

Nevertheless, obstructionism is the very basis that most lawyers operate on. Concealment alone in most instances would still not negate a statute of limiations, but would be a crime in and of itself which would also be subject to a statute of limitation.

But what of the cases in which no concealment is evident - a case in which the crime was simply not discovered. Is the fact that someone doesn't admit to having committed an undiscovered crime constitute 'concealment'? I shudder to think that it would since one has the implict right to not be compelled to provide self-incriminating testimony.

If someone said that they did something very illegal and pointed out that it was never discovered by anyone and it is beyond a statute of limitation, then it would be tough nuts on a prosecutor.

Of course, given that there are varying degrees of crimes, it would neccessitate that there be various classes of crimes and that we thus classify crimes and set specific statutes of limitations for various classes of crimes. See where all this is leading?

It results in the need for specialists in TNP legal code due to an increasingly complex code and that would mean that we would have to have :eek lawyers who would actually understand the laws. And that makes me very queezy. :ill:
 
I think that'd be just another set of bureaucracy that would intimidate new and existing players. What we need is public discussion, to make this understandable to everyone not just the select few who choose to. After all the law doesn't just cover lawyers, it covers all of us.
 
Byardkuria:
Gee, why didn't anyone think of this before . . . ;)
Click to expand...
Now that I am not holding an office, that is an issue I intend to revive. It sort of got lost in the shuffle with the personnel changes in the Ministry of Justice, and the forum change.

There are still some unresolved issues, but I still am of the opinion that the final version should be adopted by the Court, even if the Bar is set up as a quasi-autonomous body.
 
I don't think it would be just another bureaucracy..

After all, these lawyers would be serving the public, so even if you yourself do not know the law, you can hire someone who DOES know the law.. someone who's working for you.
 
I would, but instead I'd like to request we get back on topic of statutes of limitation, if there are any more comments to be made.

The Bar topic and its psosible consequences don't really belong here to begin with, which is why I'm not splitting the topic.
 
To any member of the Assembly who has been waiting for me to post a draft, I apologize for the delay. I hope to compile a draft within the next few days.

(OOC: I have spent a lot of time near hospitals the last two weeks. My sister has been diagnosed with stage four cancer and the prognosis is poor at best. (She's also had a dozen or so strokes since October.) But I haven't forgotten about this, I just haven't had the time and online access especiallyt during this last week.)
 
Grosseschnauzer:
To any member of the Assembly who has been waiting for me to post a draft, I apologize for the delay. I hope to compile a draft within the next few days.

(OOC: I have spent a lot of time near hospitals the last two weeks. My sister has been diagnosed with stage four cancer and the prognosis is poor at best. (She's also had a dozen or so strokes since October.) But I haven't forgotten about this, I just haven't had the time and online access especiallyt during this last week.)
Click to expand...
I can take a knack at it if you're too busy!

Very sorry about the whole situation! I'm hoping for the best!
 
This is a first formal draft of the proposed bill. Comments and Suggestions?

A Bill for An Act related to the establishment of time limitations for the filing of judicial proceedings in The Court of The North Pacific

Section 1. Definitions
As used in this law:
(A) A "Statute of Limitations" places a time limit on pursuing a legal claim in relation to wrongful conduct. After the expiration of the stated period, the victim or the Government loses the right to file a claim seeking criminal punishment or any other remedy as to that claim, unless an exception applies as provided in the Constitution or the Legal Code.
(B) “Accrual” refers to the beginning of an applicable time period for a claim. The limitations period does not begin until the act, or the last act of a series, is committed by some actor. If the victim or the Government does not learn of the act until a later time, then the limitations period does not begin until the act, or the last act of a series, is discovered, or should have been discovered, by the victim or the Government.
( C ) The presiding officer may determine any issue of fact that exists as to the application of the provisions of this law in an appropriate judicial proceeding.
Section 2. General Time Limitation of Actions
Any action filed in the Court of The North Pacific based upon any ground stated in Article V, Section 5 of the Constitution, or that otherwise seeks a punishment or remedy as a result of injury to a member nation of this region, or any other nation, or of the Region generally, shall be commenced within sixty days after the right to file an action accrues.
Section 3. Time Limitations for Actions Based on Conduct that Occured Prior to 7 July 2005.
Any action filed that relates to a claim that accrued prior to 7 July 2005 must be filed in the Court of The North Pacific no later than 7 July 2006.
Section 4. Time Limitations for Actions Filed Subsequent to 6 July 2005 and Prior to 1 May 2006.
Any action filed that related to a claim that accrued subsequent to 6 July 2005 and prior to 1 May 2005 must be filed in the Court of the North Pacific no later than 1 September 2006.
Section 5. Impeachment Proceedings.
Any action in the nature of an impeachment proceeding may not be brought once the current term of the officeholder expires, or the officeholder leaves office.
Section 6. Effective Date
This Law shall take effective on 1 May 2006.
Click to expand...

Edited to include effective date, fix typos and clarify applicability to claims affecting the region as a whole.
 
Sorry to bring this up so late in the game but I would like an exception for the case of treason, simply running away from prosecution should not be allowed to flout the law.

Section 6. Charges of treason or actively soliciting harm to the North Pacific with regions or nations will be an exception to accruement.
Click to expand...
 
One problem that would need action first would be a definition of "treason." Neither the Constitution nor the Legal Code currently include a definition of such a crime. While Article V, Section 5 of the Constitution makes reference to a violation of the Constitution or the Legal Code as a ground for a judicial proceeding, that in and of itself does not constitution a definition of "treason." Under those circumstances, it might be better to address that in separate legislation in the future, and any exemption from the limitations ptovisions could be included in such legislation. I would view an attempt to define specific crimes as being outside the intended scope of this proposal.
 
wizardofoz01:
Are you saying that treasonous offenses should have no statute of limitation?
Click to expand...
exactly!

One problem that would need action first would be a definition of "treason." Neither the Constitution nor the Legal Code currently include a definition of such a crime. While Article V, Section 5 of the Constitution makes reference to a violation of the Constitution or the Legal Code as a ground for a judicial proceeding, that in and of itself does not constitution a definition of "treason." Under those circumstances, it might be better to address that in separate legislation in the future, and any exemption from the limitations ptovisions could be included in such legislation. I would view an attempt to define specific crimes as being outside the intended scope of this proposal.
Click to expand...

That's a matter for the courts should charges be filed. I don't think it's any secret who this amendment is aimed at and I feel that the definition of treason be fluid; to change, live, and breathe with the region's changing attitudes.
 
I think what Grosse is getting at is that we can't decide anything about treasonous offenses until it is engrained somewhere (ie, the Constitution) exactly what constitutes treason.

Either that or saying in the Constitution that the Court has power to determine whether an act rises to the level of treason.

Even "actively soliciting harm" against the region may not rise to the level of treason, depending on what this "harm" is and how much it is "solicited".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top