UNDER DEBATE: Addition to the Criminal Code
- Thread starter Belschaft
- Start date
Gaspo
TNPer
Elu and I have been working on a proposal for this which enumerates reasonable punishments, as well. I hope he'll post it. It's a bit more clearly defined - your draft requires affirmative proof that the intent of the submitter was to waste the court's time. That's a heavy burden of proof. I believe our version only requires actual result being a waste of the court's time, resources, or slight against the court (outrageous behavior, etc - censure currently means basically nothing). I'll work with Elu on a draft which is a bit more fleshed-out. I like the idea but am not a fan of the definition at this juncture. There are other descriptions which might be more appropriate, and perhaps the court would enjoy greater power to sanction for outrageous behavior in the future.
- Pronouns
- he/him/his
- TNP Nation
- Zemnaya Svoboda
- Discord
- Eluvatar#8517
As the AG, I would not want to prosecute these cases, tbh. There are already a number of cases before the court as it stands and I would not be surprised if a number of semi-frivolous cases would be added because of this clause. As it stands, the court can just throw out these complaints and we move on.
I believe my office would be compelled to try these cases and proving that a person intentionally is 'wasting the court's time' is no easy task. Proving intention never really is especially because I can't force anyone to testify against themselves. I think these cases would be very easy for defense to win, unless the court's themselves offered expert testimony to support the prosecution.
I believe my office would be compelled to try these cases and proving that a person intentionally is 'wasting the court's time' is no easy task. Proving intention never really is especially because I can't force anyone to testify against themselves. I think these cases would be very easy for defense to win, unless the court's themselves offered expert testimony to support the prosecution.
Romanoffia
Garde à l'eau!
As an addition to Punk D's and Gaspo's comments, Contempt of Court would by definition fall under these possible situations:
1.) Contempt of Court in the form of behavior that opposes or defies the authority, justice, and dignity of the court;
2.) Civil contempt involving the willful and intentional failure to perform an act that is ordered by a court as a means to enforce the rights of individuals or to secure remedies for parties in a civil action.
3.) Direct Contempt is as an act that occurs in the presence of the court and is intended to embarrass or engender disrespect for the court or to otherwise disrupt the proceedings through behavior before the court.
A Rule 11 violation (Frivolous and Groundless Suits at Law) which would be illustrated best by a case like Windhorst v. Mark Stone, Nick Trombetta and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Civil Action 09CV1216, Adams District Court. To wit:
The decision of the court stated that the “plaintiff did not have valid claims against State Farm to begin with. Plaintiff’s counsel did nothing more than try to bully State Farm into paying policy limits(etc.,,,)”. “At the outset of the litigation against State Farm, counsel knew that State Farm had neither breached the insurance contract nor did so in bad faith by engaging in reprehensible claims processing practices. The only person guilty of reprehensible claims processing practices was plaintiff’s counsel.” “...all of plaintiff’s claims against State Farm lacked substantial justification, in that they all were substantially groundless, substantially frivolous, and substantially vexatious. Therefore, an award of attorney fees against plaintiff’s counsel and in favor of State Farm is appropriate under § 13-17-102(4).” The court also found that “plaintiff’s counsel filed claims against State Farm in violation of Rule 11.”
Now, given that the AG is forced to prosecute every case (and thereby denied any prosecutorial latitude other than modifying the charges since it is the prosecutor that is actually bringing the charges in response to a complaint) then it should be incumbent upon someone to take responsibility whose case is determined frivolous in a court decision dismissing a given case, and therefore be charged with a Rule 11 type violation.
Of course, whether or not a charge is frivolous goes beyond a judge or prosecutor simply claiming a charge is frivolous - it must include a determination bases upon adherence (or not as the case may be) to a specific set of rules of evidence.
1.) Contempt of Court in the form of behavior that opposes or defies the authority, justice, and dignity of the court;
2.) Civil contempt involving the willful and intentional failure to perform an act that is ordered by a court as a means to enforce the rights of individuals or to secure remedies for parties in a civil action.
3.) Direct Contempt is as an act that occurs in the presence of the court and is intended to embarrass or engender disrespect for the court or to otherwise disrupt the proceedings through behavior before the court.
A Rule 11 violation (Frivolous and Groundless Suits at Law) which would be illustrated best by a case like Windhorst v. Mark Stone, Nick Trombetta and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Civil Action 09CV1216, Adams District Court. To wit:
The decision of the court stated that the “plaintiff did not have valid claims against State Farm to begin with. Plaintiff’s counsel did nothing more than try to bully State Farm into paying policy limits(etc.,,,)”. “At the outset of the litigation against State Farm, counsel knew that State Farm had neither breached the insurance contract nor did so in bad faith by engaging in reprehensible claims processing practices. The only person guilty of reprehensible claims processing practices was plaintiff’s counsel.” “...all of plaintiff’s claims against State Farm lacked substantial justification, in that they all were substantially groundless, substantially frivolous, and substantially vexatious. Therefore, an award of attorney fees against plaintiff’s counsel and in favor of State Farm is appropriate under § 13-17-102(4).” The court also found that “plaintiff’s counsel filed claims against State Farm in violation of Rule 11.”
Now, given that the AG is forced to prosecute every case (and thereby denied any prosecutorial latitude other than modifying the charges since it is the prosecutor that is actually bringing the charges in response to a complaint) then it should be incumbent upon someone to take responsibility whose case is determined frivolous in a court decision dismissing a given case, and therefore be charged with a Rule 11 type violation.
Of course, whether or not a charge is frivolous goes beyond a judge or prosecutor simply claiming a charge is frivolous - it must include a determination bases upon adherence (or not as the case may be) to a specific set of rules of evidence.
SPEAKER HAT:
THere have been no posts here for a long time. I therefore judge that it must be either ready to go to vote, or have died a death.
Could the proposer advice me how they wish to proceed?
THere have been no posts here for a long time. I therefore judge that it must be either ready to go to vote, or have died a death.
Could the proposer advice me how they wish to proceed?
Gaspo
TNPer
It is of note that I plan to work with the courts to introduce rules governing this, as the offenses covered here are more easily handled through court restrictions than through the whole hooplah of a trial. I would suggest that this be tabled, at least for a while, but that's up to Bel.