Govindia's ban Article VI Section 2 review

So, that would imply that prior to the recently passed bill, one could legally get away with an illegal act because the law said you could get away with an illegal act, thus making the illegal act legal despite being illegal? :duh:

Oh, to be a court justice again.

This is one of the defects in TNP law: No tort law.

When someone does damage in an unwarranted fashion it cannot be adequately corrected/remedied and/or properly corrected in a fashion in which justice is properly conveyed.
 
No, but I do decide whether to file indictments, and I'm setting a policy that prosecutions won't go forward if there are legal or evidentiary defects that would impair a successful prosecution.

Now that the revised Legal Code has been enacted, that policy will be even more of an imperative.
 
So as I understand it, Grosse has ruled that every time we make a change to the legal code, we go through a period where there is no rule of law in TNP? Rather like when you change governments in the game Civilization you go through a period of Anarchy?

So, if I were a delegat of a certain frame of mind, here is what I would do...

1. INtroduce some legislation into the RA to change the legal code. A simple wording change or something, that has a good chance of passing.
2. make sure it gets seconded and put to a vote.
3. THEN do what the fuck I like with impunity, knowing that I am untouchable.

has it ever occurred to you all that the more we tinker with our constitution and legal system the more barking mad it becomes?

Folks, whether the Flemingovian constitution is the way to go or not, we NEED a better system.
 
Read the bill that was voted on.

It did not amend the old Legal Code; it totally repealed it. There was nothing left to carry over. If a case had been brought, the repeal of the law under which it was brought would have ended the case.

Had the sponsor of the legislation provided for a survival clause as to past violations of the old code, then it would have been different. But it did not. It did provide for the continuation of the AG's office, and all treaties. but that was it.

You'll see in the one bill at vote now that I included a contingency clause so the statutory amendment can be placed in the new Legal Code.

That's what happens when you totally repeal something. It becomes a nullity and anything based on it fails at that point.
 
Govindia:
Well I guess that should be fixed?
Click to expand...
Actually, it can't without violating the Bill of Rights since it would be reviving a criminal law for acts made legal by the repeal.

Flemingovia:
.... or we just count our lucky stars we have been spared another six-month trial.
Click to expand...

Had you been insistent as Eluvatar was on meeting the currently in force deadlines and having testimony and evidence prepared prior to trial, then the last trial would not have been six months plus.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
Flemingovia:
.... or we just count our lucky stars we have been spared another six-month trial.
Click to expand...

Had you been insistent as Eluvatar was on meeting the currently in force deadlines and having testimony and evidence prepared prior to trial, then the last trial would not have been six months plus.
Click to expand...
Interesting revisionist approach to history there. especially considering that Eluvatar was so slow in filing charges on one occasion that Justice Grimalkin dismissed the charges.

But Hey, blame the defence for the court's fuck up, why don't you? It is not down to the defence to make sure a trial runs quickly or smoothly. The defence is there to secure an acquittal for their client. I think i did rather well on that score, don't you?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top