Supreme Court of TNP?

Romanoffia

Romanoffia

Garde à l'eau!
Here's an interesting concept for casual discussion -

Now this would be a fun idea - A "Supreme Court" of TNP as a final appeals court largely for the purpose of determining the constitutionality of laws/actions that are being challenged through appeal on constitutional issues.

Here's how it would be constituted and how it would work:

Former Justices of the Court on TNP or others who show a talent for the law would be eligible for membership.

A minimum of those 3 justices sitting on any case, and above that, always an odd number so as to force a decision either way.

Recusal rules apply in conflict of interest relating to a given case. This prevents 'abstain votes' which would be treated as a recusal and another former judge would step in.

Only cases where a constitutional issue can be legitimately invoked will be heard.

The "Supreme Court" can also kick a case back down for re-trial or refuse to hear a case based upon simple majority of the sitting justices that volunteer to hear the case.

A minimum of three justices can be compelled to hear the case if the lower court orders a determination from the Supreme Court.

Former Justices not currently serving would be automatically eligible for membership but subject to removal should the RA legitimately decide that a crime was committed in the decision process (such as fraud, etc., under common law principles)

No justice can vote on a bill before the RA while a relevant Supreme Court case is being heard.

Additional thoughts:

The idea of former court justices allows for independence in decision making from the general Court of sitting justices.

This creates a precedent system in which previous court decisions can be invoked.

It also creates a system in which previous case history can be invoked which creates a body of law in re to laws and cases being part of and related to the Constitution itself.

It creates a body of individuals who have a more than normal understanding of TNP law, Constitution, Legal Code and Common Law issues.

The idea is to create a body that is above politics.




Any thoughts on this?
 
Roman, knock it off.

You know damned well that one of the two tasks of the Court as it is set up under the Constitution now is just that.

I wonder how many other things you are going to propose that already exist.
 
I mean a separate and independent court for specifically constitution items. What's wrong with that?

Things need to be changed around here and legitimate ideas and suggestions should get a little more than a 'knock it off' response.
 
I think we can get enough people who can fill a three slot arrangement. This is just something to consider in the future for when we have sufficient activity/participation in the government in terms of RA members. Might take a while, but we will get there.
 
How about we just take the courts we have, find three active people who can do it, and put time limits on things? I'm not one for time limits, mind you, but I've heard of trials and rulings going on for an extended period of time... it may be time to cap that.

Also make the courts less about procedure and more about getting the correct ruling.
 
Define speedy.

Really, NS courts should have, at max, one week for the prosecution, one week for the defense, and one week for a decision. At maximum. Meaning if either the prosecution or the defense can't get things together in a week's time, we move on. They do what they can and the next phase of the trial is commenced.
 
Define speedy? Two weeks, tops, max.

If the courts and the government in general takes months to act and/or come to a decision, then the government and courts are ineffective.

Look at JAL's trial. It's been going on so long that I hear there are dinosaurs waiting to testify. It needs to be dismissed. The prosecution has obviously proven its inability to prosecute a case in a meaningful and timely fashion. The courts have been unwilling to force the prosecution to act. The defense has been respectful and active yet has been thumped at every point.

You cannot hold an ongoing court case against someone for months and months as a political tool. You have to make a decision by jury (where the hell is the jury? I think that's in the Constitution) or you have to let it go. Sh*t. I can't even follow what the Hell the trial is about to begin with. It's been going on so long that that they transcripts will be placed before the Book of Genesis in the Bible by the Pope.

And that's what I mean by a 'speedy' trial. Two weeks, tops, max.

This constipated crap has got to stop, or get moving depending upon how you look at it. ;D
 
Hmm, maybe not a time limit for the overall length of the trial so much as time restriction for certain elements. Opening statements for both sides should be over in the first 48 hours, evidence can take as long as it may, so long as there is a steady stream of question and replies, not the days or weeks between questions that we saw in the JAL trial. If either party misses a deadline, the Court will move on without them. Its perfectly fair, ensures a speedy trial, and avoids the quagmires we saw in past trials.

However the time tables need to be very, very defined. No room for loopholes or excuses, leave nothing to exploit.
 
Blue Wolf II:
Hmm, maybe not a time limit for the overall length of the trial so much as time restriction for certain elements. Opening statements for both sides should be over in the first 48 hours, evidence can take as long as it may, so long as there is a steady stream of question and replies, not the days or weeks between questions that we saw in the JAL trial. If either party misses a deadline, the Court will move on without them. Its perfectly fair, ensures a speedy trial, and avoids the quagmires we saw in past trials.

However the time tables need to be very, very defined. No room for loopholes or excuses, leave nothing to exploit.
Click to expand...
The more back-and-forth things we have going by both sides, the more the trial has the capacity to stall. Hence why I just believe the judges open with the charge brought upon the accused, prosecution presents their case / witnesses until a certain period of time (1 week IMO), defense does the same business (1 week), a decision is then made by the courts (1 week), and the trial's over. That way, defense only needs to be active for a week, prosecution only needs to be active for a week, and the courts get to decide shortly thereafter. No formalities like opening statements, closing statements, etc, mostly because we're not real-life and judges can read all transcripts / evidence as they wish. *shrugs*

Only thing I can see having back-and-forth are the closing statements, only for both sides to cover any remaining bases, but that's debatable. I just worry, as I've seen many many times, people go inactive or simply give up in NS trials, so it's best to get them while we can to get the maximum out of both sides. Remember, it's not real-life: people here aren't paid to be someone's attorney or are 'required by law' to serve jury duty. People will commit but commitments can always be broken. Thus, we need to account for that and limit both the timeframes and the back-and-forthness of the trial.
 
The adopted rules for the Court actually require all evidence and testimony to be prepared and ready for posting before the formal trial begins. There's a time limit for the sides to prepare their evidence, and transcripts of the testimony. The actual trials could be submitted within a couple of days, actually, if the current rules were followed.

Why the court that started the JAL case went to a full panel, when only one justice was required has never been explained. Why the court ignored the time limits has never been explained. I guarantee you that had I still been on the court, it would have been on time, with one justice presiding, and with all the testimony and evidence ready on time or excluded.

It really isn't that hard. The time limits are already part of the Court's rules. And with if the maximum time the preparation should have taken, that JAL trial should have been over in about two-and-a-half weeks, tops.
 
Pardon me Romanoffia, I'm refusing to prosecute?

It was made clear to me that I cannot take depositions until a plea is recognized. :spin:
 
Grosseschnauzer:
The adopted rules for the Court actually require all evidence and testimony to be prepared and ready for posting before the formal trial begins. There's a time limit for the sides to prepare their evidence, and transcripts of the testimony. The actual trials could be submitted within a couple of days, actually, if the current rules were followed.

Why the court that started the JAL case went to a full panel, when only one justice was required has never been explained. Why the court ignored the time limits has never been explained. I guarantee you that had I still been on the court, it would have been on time, with one justice presiding, and with all the testimony and evidence ready on time or excluded.

It really isn't that hard. The time limits are already part of the Court's rules. And with if the maximum time the preparation should have taken, that JAL trial should have been over in about two-and-a-half weeks, tops.
Click to expand...
I trust that had you been there it would've been done in a timely fashion. But we need protocol to ensure it gets done regardless of how expedient or inexpedient the particular factions of the trial are (prosecution, defense, judges, etc).

Perhaps one of the reasons why it's taking so long (I don't know for sure as I've not been a part of a TNP court case) is the fact that all evidence needs to be gathered prior to it all coming to fruition. Perhaps if a trial is requested by the prosecution, they should be expected to have their evidence lined up or at least a fair amount of it if needed? Honestly, for things like a coup, I'd imagine it'd be open-and-shut: it's probably pretty obvious if someone is or is not couping a region. Other trials might not be as black n' white, but if we don't keep things going at a good pace, no trials will reach an end, or it'll become a joke and a verdict will be reached way past the point of anyone caring.

It's to that extent that I say we focus on procedure that's fast (with time limits) and with the least amount of back-and-forthness going on between the various bodies that participate in a trial.
 
Todd McCloud:
Grosseschnauzer:
The adopted rules for the Court actually require all evidence and testimony to be prepared and ready for posting before the formal trial begins. There's a time limit for the sides to prepare their evidence, and transcripts of the testimony. The actual trials could be submitted within a couple of days, actually, if the current rules were followed.

Why the court that started the JAL case went to a full panel, when only one justice was required has never been explained. Why the court ignored the time limits has never been explained. I guarantee you that had I still been on the court, it would have been on time, with one justice presiding, and with all the testimony and evidence ready on time or excluded.

It really isn't that hard. The time limits are already part of the Court's rules. And with if the maximum time the preparation should have taken, that JAL trial should have been over in about two-and-a-half weeks, tops.
Click to expand...
I trust that had you been there it would've been done in a timely fashion. But we need protocol to ensure it gets done regardless of how expedient or inexpedient the particular factions of the trial are (prosecution, defense, judges, etc).

Perhaps one of the reasons why it's taking so long (I don't know for sure as I've not been a part of a TNP court case) is the fact that all evidence needs to be gathered prior to it all coming to fruition. Perhaps if a trial is requested by the prosecution, they should be expected to have their evidence lined up or at least a fair amount of it if needed? Honestly, for things like a coup, I'd imagine it'd be open-and-shut: it's probably pretty obvious if someone is or is not couping a region. Other trials might not be as black n' white, but if we don't keep things going at a good pace, no trials will reach an end, or it'll become a joke and a verdict will be reached way past the point of anyone caring.

It's to that extent that I say we focus on procedure that's fast (with time limits) and with the least amount of back-and-forthness going on between the various bodies that participate in a trial.
Click to expand...
A great deal of time was spent interviewing witnesses on the forum.
 
Todd McCloud:
Grosseschnauzer:
The adopted rules for the Court actually require all evidence and testimony to be prepared and ready for posting before the formal trial begins. There's a time limit for the sides to prepare their evidence, and transcripts of the testimony. The actual trials could be submitted within a couple of days, actually, if the current rules were followed.

Why the court that started the JAL case went to a full panel, when only one justice was required has never been explained. Why the court ignored the time limits has never been explained. I guarantee you that had I still been on the court, it would have been on time, with one justice presiding, and with all the testimony and evidence ready on time or excluded.

It really isn't that hard. The time limits are already part of the Court's rules. And with if the maximum time the preparation should have taken, that JAL trial should have been over in about two-and-a-half weeks, tops.
Click to expand...
I trust that had you been there it would've been done in a timely fashion. But we need protocol to ensure it gets done regardless of how expedient or inexpedient the particular factions of the trial are (prosecution, defense, judges, etc).

Perhaps one of the reasons why it's taking so long (I don't know for sure as I've not been a part of a TNP court case) is the fact that all evidence needs to be gathered prior to it all coming to fruition. Perhaps if a trial is requested by the prosecution, they should be expected to have their evidence lined up or at least a fair amount of it if needed? Honestly, for things like a coup, I'd imagine it'd be open-and-shut: it's probably pretty obvious if someone is or is not couping a region. Other trials might not be as black n' white, but if we don't keep things going at a good pace, no trials will reach an end, or it'll become a joke and a verdict will be reached way past the point of anyone caring.

It's to that extent that I say we focus on procedure that's fast (with time limits) and with the least amount of back-and-forthness going on between the various bodies that participate in a trial.
Click to expand...
Elu was referring to the testimony being taken at the trial, and not before trial as the rules planned.

The rules contemplated the use of IRC or other message system that could be recorded. Posting in threads on the forum takes forever, which was why the rules sought to change it.
 
Eluvatar:
Pardon me Romanoffia, I'm refusing to prosecute?

It was made clear to me that I cannot take depositions until a plea is recognized. :spin:
Click to expand...
I didn't say that, what I said was a comment concerning an inability to prosecute.

Such an inability indicates that the court is not strongly compelling the participants into abiding by the time and procedural schedule and which, the court seems to have some issues with as well.

At this rate, half of the population of TNP will be asking, "JAL who?!" :P
 
Romanoffia:
At this rate, half of the population of TNP will be asking, "JAL who?!" :P
Click to expand...
Yeah, I remember him.

Didn't his defence counsel have some kind of breakdown and started a cult?

:P
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top