Court Jurisdiction Amendment Bill

Actually, we do have a form of Common Law that has indeed developed in TNP - it's called precedence and it involves all previous court decisions.

That said, If you examine any TNP trial thread, arguments at Common Law as to the definition of terms have always been cited by the Prosecution and Defense, and justices tend to make decisions based upon Common Law logic. If we had no method of logic established by practice of how we deliberate court cases, we could not even enforce the laws.

Common Law is something that is established by custom and practice which are the elements of precedence. Also, when we use legal terms in the Code, the logical definition of those terms have to come from somewhere, and hence, the definitions we use are in fact based in Common Law/Anglo-Saxon Positive Law.

In fact, the concept of Presumed Innocence and Burden of Proof as we practice in TNP come directly from Common Law/Anglo-Saxon Positive Law. That is only logical considering the fact that most of us here are probably from countries that are part of the Commonwealth or former Colonies of the British Empire. Hence, most of us tend to think along those terms in legal matters in TNP as basis for logic, reason and rationale for deciding verdicts.

OTOH, if we are just a 'statute' system without any basis in Common Law/Anglo-Saxon Positive Law or a similar Common Law system, then our legal system would be in the order of a Codex like Napoleonic Code and one's individual liberties would be meaningless.
 
Roman, I suggest you look at what the current Court has said on the matter of precedent.

And precedent doesn't really help as to clvil claims because there have been no cases involving civil claims. And under prior cases, civil claims proved notoriously difficult to process for the parties and the court.

There has to be an adoption of the concept of common law and setting a benchmark. That's what interesting about what states in the U.S. have done; I could have provided data on what the newly independent colonies in the Americas did in adoption of the common law in England. You would find every state addressed the matter and defined what the common law being received was, and as of what date. Some states, such as Georgia adopted common law principles as code (contract, property, tort, procedure) but recognized the use of precedent to modify and evolve their common law. Louisiana of course isn't a common law jurisdiction as its prior law was based on the civil codes of Spain and France; but I have noticed that over time, Louisiana has annually amended its civil code to "adopt" evolution in the principles of common law from the other 49 states. (Amazing what you can learn walking around a law library for a few hours at a time, just to look!)

In TNP that is impossible since we haven't had a common law tradition to adopt. Hence, the discussion in my previous post.
 
As I noted, the fact that Justices in the past have decided cases based upon functional definitions that originate in Common Law, the practice of Common Law exists regardless of whether or not it is specifically mentioned anywhere in the legal code or Constitution.

Point being, is that the Constitution gives the Court authority to settle disputes between citizens of TNP which do not fall under the heading of criminal offenses, ergo, civil complaints are by definition disputes between two or more parties involving a perceived wrong-doing by one or the other party.

Since the Constitution specifically grants the Court the authority to adjudicate Civil matters that arise form disputes in which one party claims it was harmed by another in a way that does not rise to the criminal level. This gives the court the responsibility to develop methods and reasoning that arise from custom and practice and applied in a way that is consistent with the Constitution. Laws that would prorogue the Court's delegated authority under the Constitution would be, by definition, unconstitutional.

Hence, every time a conflict arises between two parties, a principle will in essence be set as a legal template as to how similar cases involving conflicts between two parties will be handled in the future - and essentially creating precedent that can be, if needed, codified.
 
The RA has voted that prior precedent under prior constitutions does not have precedential value, and there is nothing in the Constitution or Legal Code that specifically defines what a "civil case" is.

Implying a common law tradition does not have a clear basis in TNP. I should note that in looking at the concept of reception as to the common law of England, there are references to the fact that King Alfred the Great is responsible for the implementation of a common law system in the first place, and part of that mechanism was to not recognizing rulings that predated the system he implemented.

With that in mind, something more than a court rule is required to create the substance of a civil claim. The court can establish rules but that doesn't help with whether a substantial type of claim exists.
 
This has nothing to do with prior constitutions. It has everything to do with the logic which Justices choose to deliberate cases.

Civil complaints are the purvey of the Court, it says it is the purvey of the Court in our present Constitution, and therefore Civil Cases (which are properly disputes between two or more parties concerning tort issues which do not fall under the Criminal Code) will be considered and adjudicated by the Court.

The means and rules by which the Court will adjudicate Civil matters is clearly laid out in the Court Rules which do in fact comply with the Constitution.

Anyone is free to file a civil complaint against anyone for absolutely anything. Whether or not the Court will hear it is another matter. If someone does something shitty to someone else that results in damages to that person in any reasonable form under any reasonable definition of shitty, then someone should be held accountable for their shitiness.

A problem we have here in TNP is that too many people find interestingly convoluted ways around the Criminal Code to avoid prosecution. By the same token, there are a lot of disruptive disputes between individuals that tend to cause a lot of acrimony and problems which need to be resolved. That is why we made provision for Civil Complaints in the Constitution (I know, I was there for the draughting of several constitutions including the present one).

One might not be guilty on a Criminal violation, but nevertheless one may be responsible for a Civil offense against another individual.

In other words, if I were to accuse you of doing something criminal and it damages your reputation in the region, it is a case of slander and libel. It is a Civil matter involving a dispute between two people. It is not Criminal under the definition of Fraud, but nevertheless, damages have occurred in a Civil sense.

Now, if we abolish the right of people to file suit for such Civil offenses then that means anarchy in a legal sense of the word. One could conceivably go around leveling all manner of accusations aimed at damaging another person above and beyond political fair play and simply get away with it. And again, this is why there is a provision for Civil cases in the Constitution as it is written, and there is no need for a civil code, per se. All that is required is for one person to offend another by insult or injury which results in an outrageously offensive action which results in real damages.

Said damages can be remedies in exactly the same way a criminal offense can be remedied which negates the straw man argument that there is no way to gain satisfaction in cases of 'equity' in TNP or in an RP game.

If one does something that is genuinely offensive to the sensibilities of the TNP community to the point that some kind of remedy is required to correct and which offense does not rise to the criminal level, then it is only logical that such an offense be equalized and remedied.

If we do not permit the use of such bases for adjudication such as 'Common Law' principles and definitions, then there is no need for the Court at all nor even due process. It then becomes a matter of 'you will have a fair trial after which you will be shot'. The letter of the law should not be above the spirit of the law because, as we all know, the law is an ass.

To remove the common sense of Common Law principles from our legal system or to deny such principles as a basis for mitigation of personal conflicts involving real or perceived damages and to resort to absolute application of code without consideration of Common Law Principles or mitigating circumstances or justification, and to reduce ever legal decision to a mathematical algorithm of absolutes, thus reducing the whole legal system to a narrow set of nebulous and poorly constructed definitions of 'criminal' violations would result in a very empty region in about two days.

They neglect of Common Law/Anglo-Saxon Positive Law or the equivalent would result in everything being a criminal offense punishable by 'death' in every instance. It would kill the region.

We don't need heads a-rolling. Believe me when I say that in my occasional tenures as a TNP court justice over the years, I would have probably gone down as the Hanging Judge if I did not apply the Principles of Common Law in my deliberations.

To not recognize the principles of Common Law/Anglo-Saxon Positive Law (or some similar logical and established system) as a guiding light to the deliberation of the Court is tantamount to delivering justice with the flip of a coin or a random whim without any further recourse to the Law.

Maybe I'm just being a jackass, but I think that we should just have a set of logical principles which inform our legal system in TNP rather than a narrow set of rules that are designed to exploit loop-holes and justice in general.

Now, Grosseschnauzer, I would be more than happy to oblige your ideas of what our legal systems should be because it would make my life a whole lot easier. I could simply say to people, "The law says this, you are guilty and I don't care what you say about what the law means".

But I have more principles and a bigger sense of justice than to simply acquiesce to a dead and fossilized formula for delivering codex styled justice.
 
I was just thinking about that, GM. Giving people exactly what they want is usually the most diabolical forms of punishment disguised as a gift. :P
 
Always late to the party...

Don't everyone throw their stones at once, but,
Shouldn't the RA interpret the law as opposed to the Court?
It's basically saying "hey Court Justices, what did the RA mean when they said 'XYZ'?"
Instead of saying "hey RA, what did you mean when you said 'XYZ'?"

Regarding Civil versus Criminal cases,
Embarrassingly I never got around to submitting a civil or criminal complaint because I couldn't figure out what a civil case was.
I could not find a definition. Should there be one, or am I just stupid?
 
Civil cases are disputes between two different people I think. Criminal cases are cases where the state prosecutes someone under the law. I THINK.

(I know, I is of no goods with mah legal systems and stuffs)
 
You see, that is the problem. The Court can't define, and shouldn't be defining what is the substance of a civil claim is. That's the RA's job.

The Court is free to adopt procedures about civil claims, but without knowing what civil claims are, it has to be a bit difficult and will create real problems as to the the right of notice as to what conduct might be subject to a civil proceeding when that hasn't been defined by law.

I have not and will not recognize as legitimate any civil proceeding in the Court until the R.A. has adopted a law or a constitutional amendment clearly defining what civil claims are, and if need be enact laws defining each type of civil claim that may be the basis of a civil proceeding.

At the moment, there are no such creatures in TNP law, and to suggest otherwise is wishful thinking.
 
I believe the court should in fact have jurisdiction over civil cases as well, or at least we should create another arbiter's court to solve disputes between members.
 
I don't think the figh should have legal say over civil cases between members of the thp but I do think we should have three separates courts the civil the criminal and also the appeals court to deal with a verity of cases that come through the courts
 
Lord Byron:
Always late to the party...

Don't everyone throw their stones at once, but,
Shouldn't the RA interpret the law as opposed to the Court?
It's basically saying "hey Court Justices, what did the RA mean when they said 'XYZ'?"
Instead of saying "hey RA, what did you mean when you said 'XYZ'?"

Regarding Civil versus Criminal cases,
Embarrassingly I never got around to submitting a civil or criminal complaint because I couldn't figure out what a civil case was.
I could not find a definition. Should there be one, or am I just stupid?
Click to expand...

The RA defines that law via legislation. The Court interprets the law based upon the wording of the law and any precedent that relates to the law literally or conceptually.

See next quote...

Lord Nwahs:
Civil cases are disputes between two different people I think. Criminal cases are cases where the state prosecutes someone under the law. I THINK.

(I know, I is of no goods with mah legal systems and stuffs)
Click to expand...

Exactly. Civil cases settle disputes between individuals that are not 'criminal' offenses. There can be some over-lap between civil and criminal (that is, specific damages are civil and certain civil offenses would wander into the criminal if they involved fraud, per se).

Essentially, Criminal offenses are crimes against the state or the People; civil offenses are interpersonal offenses.

See next quote...

Grosseschnauzer:
You see, that is the problem. The Court can't define, and shouldn't be defining what is the substance of a civil claim is. That's the RA's job.

The Court is free to adopt procedures about civil claims, but without knowing what civil claims are, it has to be a bit difficult and will create real problems as to the the right of notice as to what conduct might be subject to a civil proceeding when that hasn't been defined by law.

I have not and will not recognize as legitimate any civil proceeding in the Court until the R.A. has adopted a law or a constitutional amendment clearly defining what civil claims are, and if need be enact laws defining each type of civil claim that may be the basis of a civil proceeding.

At the moment, there are no such creatures in TNP law, and to suggest otherwise is wishful thinking.
Click to expand...

I understand completely what you are saying.

As per the substance of a civil claim is, there is a very clear definition of what a Civil Claim is. Look it up in a dictionary. Civil claims are based upon one party having been injured by another party. "Injury", as it were, would in the context of TNP involve damage to one's reputation in which damage to that person's reputation actually occurred (such as inciting others to harass or wrongly disparage an individual) which does not rise to level of the criminal attributes of "Fraud".

Civil cases in the context of TNP would necessarily involve settling inter-personal disputes that have become somewhat disruptive or otherwise lead to acrimony in the form of mediation rather than to conflate it to a criminal matter with a severe penalty.

You are correct in the fact that we do need a specific set of Civil Codes to cover what is obviously not criminal but is essentially 'wrong doing' conducted with malice of forethought. Civil offenses need to conform to the Constitution which does provide for Civil proceedings.

Give me a half an hour and I will write up a bill for a Civil Law that will cover specific civil offenses for the RA to consider.

But the overall point is that we need laws to address 'Defamation' that is conducted with malice of forethought concerning patently false accusations and other forms of incivility in which clear damage was the specific intent of the transgressor.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top