Statute of Limitation

wizardofoz01:
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".
Click to expand...
Well that's why I added "soliciting harm to the region" to cover I guess a "soft treason definition" by the courts. As for all the definitions, I'd prefer judges be allowed to be flexible in their decision to name that. To be able to handle the question on a case by case basis.

I thought it'd be implied that it'd be left to courts...


Section 6. Charges of treason or actively soliciting harm to the North Pacific with other regions or nations will be an exception to accruement.  The definition of treason and the act of actively sociliting harm to the North Pacific shall be defined by the courts on a case by case basis, notwithstanding precedent.
Click to expand...

If this amendment does not stand then I don't think I'll be able to allow a Pierconium to run around the North Pacific freely, spreading tales of the "good ol'days" of mass ejections and banning the words: democracy, freedom, and dictatorship.
 
I wouldn't have a problem with this new language, since it specifically says any treason definition will be left to the Court... meaning we wouldn't have to add a treason definition de novo anywhere.
 
I zm not sure that leaving the definition of a crime to the Court is a proper approach.

As things stand currently, the constitution permits any violation of the constitution or the legal code to be a ground for a court proceeding. Using the approach of "leaving it to the Court" means that some future court justice could apply a vastly different definition in one trial and another justice could apply a different definition in another trial; but neither would be "wrong" since the determination of the definition of treason was left totally to the court to determine.

A general definitional statement of some kind is needed so any Court justice could, at least, start from a common starting point in defining treason.

Mr. Speaker, isn't this issue going off-topic from the object of this proposed bill? I think it is altogether a different issue, and any impact on exempting such a proposed crime can be dealt with separately.
 
It might be beneficial if a treason discussion were held separately if only to discuss the issue in-depth: 1) Whether treason should have a statute of limitations; 2) What the definition is.

I wouldn't go so far as to say the treason matter is off-topic, but adding a treason measure in might slow down the bill and may result in people voting against the statute of limitations idea just on the grounds of the treason clause.

I'm wondering if we can reach a compromise here - sniffles clearly feels strongly about this and I respect that. Perhaps we can start another thread for this topic immediately and proceed with discussing this current proposal without the treason provision.

EDIT: My problem with a codified version of treason is that it may just be lip-service. If treason really happens, it will be so politically charged that people will be beating down the doors of the Justices to get them to convict. I see Grosse's point that a pure treason definition on a case by case basis is dangerous, but the opposite, a rigid definition, is also dangerous. One can imagine a situation where the Justices feel the defendant is not guily of treason as stated in the Constitution but the populace feels so differently that they might make life very difficult for the Justices on this forum. I would personally want an acknowledgement that treason is a high crime in the Constitution and lay out a VERY minimum definition that it entails subverting the region from without or from within, in such an insidious manner as to threaten the very existence of our form of government. Then, each Court if a treason case arises can utilize this minimum definition and any previous precedent to judge each case. In situations like this I feel that it is better to "set the bar" high rather than define treason as merely soliciting harm. A "looser" definition in the Constitution would result in a scenario where people might scream for treason where there is none, and might result in a very poisonous atmosphere.
 
wizardofoz01:
EDIT: My problem with a codified version of treason is that it may just be lip-service. If treason really happens, it will be so politically charged that people will be beating down the doors of the Justices to get them to convict. I see Grosse's point that a pure treason definition on a case by case basis is dangerous, but the opposite, a rigid definition, is also dangerous. One can imagine a situation where the Justices feel the defendant is not guily of treason as stated in the Constitution but the populace feels so differently that they might make life very difficult for the Justices on this forum. I would personally want an acknowledgement that treason is a high crime in the Constitution and lay out a VERY minimum definition that it entails subverting the region from without or from within, in such an insidious manner as to threaten the very existence of our form of government. Then, each Court if a treason case arises can utilize this minimum definition and any previous precedent to judge each case. In situations like this I feel that it is better to "set the bar" high rather than define treason as merely soliciting harm. A "looser" definition in the Constitution would result in a scenario where people might scream for treason where there is none, and might result in a very poisonous atmosphere.
Click to expand...
:agree: Much more eloquent than anything I could've came out with.
 
With something as touchy as treason, it would be wise to define treason in a very narrow way.

Mind you, that in the US 'Treason' is (essentially) defined soley as a citizen engaging in an act of war against the US.

The US definition of treason (defined in the US Constitution) is so narrow that I think only about 40 people have ever been charged with treason and even fewer convicted of it.


This is everyone I can find that was formally charged with threason in The United States (I could only find one actual conviction):

* Aldrich Ames, CIA, and his wife sold secrets to Soviets
* Benedict Arnold. Plotted to help Britain during the Revolutionary War.
* David Barnett, CIA, arrested 1980
* US Air Force Sergeant Herbert W. Boeckenhaupt sold secrets of Strategic Air Command to GRU
* Christopher Boyce, Andrew Daulton Lee arrested for selling secrets to Soviets
* Anthony Cramer
* Larry Wu-Tai Chin, CIA, spied for China for 3 decades
* Officials of the Confederacy, the most organized rebellion in the history of the U.S. Federal Government
* Iva Toguri D'Aquino, who is frequently identified with "Tokyo Rose".
* Velvalee Dickinson
* Governor Thomas Dorr 1844, convicted of treason against the state of Rhode Island; "Dorr Rebellion"
* Nelson C. Drummond, Navy, worked for GRU
* US Army Sergeant Jack Dunlap NSA courier, worked for GRU
* Iyman Faris, a former Ohio truck driver who was plotting with Al-Qaeda to destroy the Brooklyn Bridge.
* Ronald Grecula, on May 23, 2005, was arrested in the United States as an American citizen who was working with Al-Qaeda to build a bomb and deliver it to them.
* Robert Hanssen FBI counterintelligence agent, who sold top secrets to the Soviet Union for two decades
* Max Haupt
* Alger Hiss, State Department official, sold secrets to Soviet Union
* Tomoya Kawakita
* Tyler Kent, communications to Soviet Union, convicted 1941
* Fritz Kuhn, Nazi, held in internment camp, deported after world war II
* Edward Lee Howard, CIA, defected USSR 1985
* Timothy McVeigh, charged with the Oklahoma City Bombing, said to be the worst act of Domestic Terrorism in the United States.
* Ahmed F. Mehalba, a United States Air Force translator who was convicted of lying to government agents and removing classified documents from the Guantanamo Bay detention facility.
* Richard Miller FBI agent, arrested 1983
* Harold Nicholson CIA, arrested 1996
* Ronald W. Pelton NSA communications specialist, revealed to Soviets that US submarines tapped Soviet undersea cables
* William Perl spied for Soviet Union
* Jonathan Pollard US Naval Investigative Service, and wife Anna, spying for Israel
* Ezra Pound, brought back from Italy to face charge of treason for supporting Mussolini, declared insane and unfit to be tried
* The Saint Patrick's Battalion, Irish-Americans who fought for Mexico in the Mexican-American War.
* Earl Edwin Pitts, FBI, arrested 1996, secrets to Soviets
* Ethel and Julius Rosenberg, atomic bomb secrets to Soviet Union
* John Anthony Walker, a Soviet spy active during the Cold War; also some family members, Michael Anthony Walker
* John Walker Lindh, young Californian Muslim, joined the Afghani Taliban, although before September 11, 2001; accepted a plea bargain, 20 years in prison and a gag order lasting that long. He was not convicted of treason.


IOW, it's damned near impossible to convict someone of treason if treason consists only in the act of waging war against one's own country.
 
In view of the fact that there really hasn't been any comments concerning the draft I posted previously, (other than the discussion that moved to a separate thread concerning a definition for treason as a possible exception) I think the following is now ready for formal debate and a vote, and I request the Speaker to formally select this bill:

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 2006 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 effect on 1 May 2006.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top