Court Rules Revisions

[Romanoffia]

I have decided, as CJ, that we urgently need to change a couple of things in the Court Rules to prevent certain problems (like having a dysfunctional Court, for one).

And I want this done in the next few days so that future justices won't have to contend with shenanigans and legalistic tricks designed to upgef*ck trials and turn them into a three ring circus.

Proposal:

1.) Abolish the entire 'Pre-Trial' phase in trial procedure altogether and have motions submitted to the Court during the trial phase as the issues arise; or,

2.) Move the Pre-Trial phase from before "Discover" to immediately after "Discover" so as to make motions to 'dismiss on grounds of insufficient evidence' more logical and allow such motions to be made as the issues arise during the course of the trial.

I am the only Justice crazy enough to ask for public input on such matters so take advantage of that while you can.

Either way, there will be a change in the legal procedures of this Court or the whole system will come crashing down with a resounding thump of technical and procedural clusterf*ckery at ever turn.

So, read up on Court Rules, make your suggestions, and it will be put before the greater court to see if there is enough will on the part of everyone to fix this mess we call a legal system.

 

[Romanoffia]

Please keep on topic. I've already had to split this thread once. I don't want to have to do it again.

Any further irrelevant posts to the subject at hand will be appropriately dealt with now that my moderations abilities have been sorted out (my browser had an issue that has been corrected and Punk D fixed something, I know not what ).

 

[Grosseschnauzer]

Motions should be made at one time after discovery and before trial opens addressing any and all issues counsel may deem need to be raised. (Of course, motions about setting the calendar for the proceeding, appointing temporary hearing officers, continuances (where those have merit), and those type of housekeeping things might need to be raised before discovery is over and you'll have to figure out how to distinguish those things.)
As I mentioned elsewhere previously, I would also recommend the Court seriously consider adding a rule about enforcing decorum in the Courtroom threads and provide for a range of penalties that could exclude testimony, witnesses, evidence, suspend counsel and so forth rather than leave people guessing. It would better comport with due process notions of prior notice and an opportunity to be heard under the Bill of Rights as a remedy to misbehavior that can be imposed by the Court.

That's my $.02 on the subject.

 

[Flemingovia]

provide for a range of penalties that could ... suspend counsel

if Grosse's revisions are adopted, we will need to change the wording of the Bill of Rights. The BOR states that someone accused can be represented by the counsel of their choosing, no ifs or buts. If the court bars that person, the rights of the accused are broken.

Re-wording the BOR to allow for the court to refuse a counsel would be quite easy to do. But it would save appeals later on.

 

[Crushing Our Enemies]

I'm not sure a BOR amendment would be necessary. It guarantees free speech, but delegate is still allowed to suppress RMB spam. Reasonable limits can be placed on rights - it would probably be up to the court.

 

[Grosseschnauzer]

provide for a range of penalties that could ... suspend counsel

if Grosse's revisions are adopted, we will need to change the wording of the Bill of Rights. The BOR states that someone accused can be represented by the counsel of their choosing, no ifs or buts. If the court bars that person, the rights of the accused are broken.

Re-wording the BOR to allow for the court to refuse a counsel would be quite easy to do. But it would save appeals later on.

Suspending a counsel for deliberate misbehavior and violating the Court's rules I don't think rises to the level of denial of having counsel; it simply has to be a tool to persuade defendants and their counsel to behave. And a temporary standby counsel could be chosen if need be.

It's better than having moderation warning levels of 60% in order to suspend a user for a period of time, as it would keep forum moderation out of the middle of it.

 

[Romanoffia]

Motions should be made at one time after discovery and before trial opens addressing any and all issues counsel may deem need to be raised. (Of course, motions about setting the calendar for the proceeding, appointing temporary hearing officers, continuances (where those have merit), and those type of housekeeping things might need to be raised before discovery is over and you'll have to figure out how to distinguish those things.
As I mentioned elsewhere previously, I would also recommend the Court serious add a rule about enforcing decorum in the Courtroom threads and provide for a range of penalties that could exclude testimony, witnesses, evidence, suspend counsel and so forth rather than leave people guessing. It would better comport with due process notions of prior notice and an opportunity to be heard under the Bill of Rights as a remedy to misbehavior that can be imposed by the Court.

That's my $.02 on the subject.

There would have to be a certain leeway on certain things. But thinking about it, perhaps we could refine the Court Rules as per which type of motions, specifically evidentiary motions, should occur at specific times as logic might dictate.

One of the issues that needs to be specific are decorum rules and that the Court should have the authority to impose penalties due to 'contempt' issues.

provide for a range of penalties that could ... suspend counsel

if Grosse's revisions are adopted, we will need to change the wording of the Bill of Rights. The BOR states that someone accused can be represented by the counsel of their choosing, no ifs or buts. If the court bars that person, the rights of the accused are broken.

Re-wording the BOR to allow for the court to refuse a counsel would be quite easy to do. But it would save appeals later on.

I would tent to agree that a defendant has the right to be represented by anyone they wish to have represent them, but I can imagine certain specific instances where council may actually damage the ability for a defendant to have a fair trial.

One instance is where council may be incompetent and that the defendant is not competent to defend themselves as a result of their behavior or the behavior of the council in the court room.

Under the logic I presume you are applying to a defendant's right to choose council or a fair trial cannot be had, this opens up a big hole in the BOR in terms of people being able to pull technical theatrics in order to prevent a trial from even happening at all.

As a specific example, the BOR says that a defendant can chose anyone to be their Council, which might include persons banned from the forum, or a person who refuses to take up the job. In this latter instance, the defendant could then claim that his choice of Council by refusing to represent the defendant is denying the defendant of the BOR right involving choice of council. If the defendant refuses to change his choice, then he cannot have council of his choice and no trial can proceed.

Or, if a defendant refuses to appear before the court as in TNP v. H&H - the Court appoints a defense council and the trial occurs in absentia of the defendant, yet the defendant has made no choice of council.

Point being, all a defendant has to do is choose as his council someone who refuses to act as council and then the defendant says he cannot be tried because he was denied the council of his choice and the court cannot under the BOR force the defendant to choose a different council.

Now, this example might be a bit over the top, but in technical terms, a trial could literally be prevented from ever happening if someone was creative enough to try exactly this. And, as it were, they would be largely technically correct because the court cannot assign Council under certain interpretations of the BOR. The Court cannot even order the defendant to act as his own council if the defendant wants someone else to do so - you cannot force a defendant to choose any council other than which he decides to choose.

So, we have a conundrum here that can be easily solved if one interprets the relative points in the BOR as to mean a defendant has the right to council to act on his behalf and that the BOR is interpreted as to only imply that a defendant has a right to council of his own choosing provided that council is not disqualified for any number of legitimate reasons such as the council doesn't exist or refuses to represent the defendant, in which instance the defendant could either represent himself or exercise his right to remain silent. Hence, no council is denied to the defendant.

Then we could have (and did) the case in which the defense council acted in so unruly a manner that the proceedings were disrupted, in which instance the defense council in fact and deed denied its own client the right to a fair trial (yet another tactic to thwart a trial and avoid legal consequences).

In any of the previous instances, it then become required that the Court fulfill its duty to proceed with and assure a fair and impartial trial, up to and including removing all impediments to a fair trial and due process up to and including ordering the defendant to choose another Council which, in effect, would compel the Defendant to exercise his rights under the BOR. This, however, could set an ugly precedent by extension of extending the authority of the government in general to compel someone to exercise their rights under the BOR or cede that right to the government to exercise those rights in on behalf of a stupid or unruly defendant.

Which all leads to COE's statement:

I'm not sure a BOR amendment would be necessary. It guarantees free speech, but delegate is still allowed to suppress RMB spam. Reasonable limits can be placed on rights - it would probably be up to the court.

I would tend to agree that none of this would require a BOR amendment provided the rule changes don't go to far.

As COE contents quite correctly the BOR guarantees free speech, but there are limits to what is and is not free speech.

Free speech can be defined as any speech that is not intended to suborn illegal acts or to cause unreasonable disruption of regulated public forums such as this forum or the RMB for our intents and purposes. A prime example from real life:

"The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic" - Chief Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes (schenck v. united states, 249 U.S. 47, 39 S. Ct. 247, 63 L. Ed. 470 [1919])."

We tolerate a lot of BS on this forum including but not limited to freely used obscenities if not excessive.

Despite the BOR guarantee of free speech, if a defendant or council in a trial was to suddenly tell the Court to "F*** OFF, YOU MOTHERF***ING SODS!" in 24 point sized red letters, I would find it hard to believe that any sitting Justice would not hesitate to send the offenders packing and have done with it. And that's if the board Admins didn't send the offender packing for a TOS violation.

Point being is that certain sections of the forum have restricted free speech due to rules specific for certain sections of the forum. Certain sections of this forum are restricted as to who can post in those sections of the forum or even see those sections of the forum. But, do those restrictions constitute a violation of free speech by the very fact that posting in those sections is not open to everyone? If Joe Blow Jackass wants to post in a certain hidden or private section of the forum but is denied that 'right' isn't his ability to speak freely violate? Of course not.

You can pretty much say anything you want, but where you can say it can be legitimately restricted without violating free speech.

If someone doesn't like the fact that they can't say whatever they want to say in a Court Trial thread, then they are free to say it elsewhere - and no violation of free speech has occurred in the Court Trial thread.

But here's a kicker that people often forget - not only does the defendant have a right to a fair trial, but the People of TNP in the form of the prosecutor also have the same right to their end of a fair trial. If someone violates the court room with disruptive behavior, they are also violating the rights of not only the defendant but also the People of the region who have a right to enforce the laws and adjudicate cases at law.

By the same token, if a fair trial cannot be had at a certain specific time, it must be held when the time is more conducive to conducting a fair trial. But what should not be tolerated is allowing defense council the tactic of disrupting a trial to the point of distraction and then calling foul after they caused the problem in the first place via disruptive behavior.

 

[Romanoffia]

provide for a range of penalties that could ... suspend counsel

if Grosse's revisions are adopted, we will need to change the wording of the Bill of Rights. The BOR states that someone accused can be represented by the counsel of their choosing, no ifs or buts. If the court bars that person, the rights of the accused are broken.

Re-wording the BOR to allow for the court to refuse a counsel would be quite easy to do. But it would save appeals later on.

Suspending a counsel for deliberate misbehavior and violating the Court's rules I don't think rises to the level of denial of having counsel; it simply has to be a tool to persuade defendants and their counsel to behave. And a temporary standby counsel could be chosen if need be.

It's better than having moderation warning levels of 60% in order to suspend a user for a period of time, as it would keep forum moderation out of the middle of it.

I agree with that totally.

 

[Flemingovia]

The wording of the BOR at present does not give a person the right to counsel. It gives a person the right to counsel of their choice

If I choose an incompetent counsel, that is my choice. I live with the consequences.

there are, as Roman points out, problems this creates. For example, I might choose to be represented by Govindia, who is banned from the forum. Not sure what would happen, but it would gum up the works, that's for sure.

I think the BOR needs tweaking to limit the rights it gives - but so long as the law remains as it does, we cannot just ignore the wording.

If I am ever put on trial, I will be insisting on that right, in full. Counsel chosen by the court, or counsel vetoed by the court, will deny me my civil rights.

 

[falapatorius]

I agree with eliminating the Pre-Trial phase altogether, and that motions to dismiss be only made once. Perhaps a stipulation should be made that in the instance where more than one counsel is representing a party, the motion to dismiss must be taken to be presented by the 'legal team'.. rather than allowing each individual counsel to submit a dismissal motion (on the same grounds).

Grosse's point about Courtroom decorum has merit. But I would also like to see a protocol established that discourages a Justice from commenting in a public courtroom thread, while said Justice is hearing the case being discussed (I use that term loosely) in the thread. Not to restrict the Justices' freedom of speech, but to avoid the inevitable accusations of bias.

Another concern I have regards calling for a request for review mid-trial. I'm not sure if it's in the Court's purview to address this, or if it's a matter for the RA. While there may be legitimate circumstances that warrant a review request, it can also be used as a delay tactic. Asking for the other Justices' opinions on a ruling during the hearing of a case definitely undermines the authority of the presiding Justice. Perhaps another good reason to establish some kind of Appellate Court. Although a request for review post-decision might serve the same purpose.

 

[Romanoffia]

OK, here is my proposed changes so far on Court Rules.

Struck items have been indicated in red, additions in blue.

The effect is to eliminate Evidentiary Motions in the Pre-Trial phase and move them to the discovery phase.

Also, the entire section involving "Civil Trials" has been struck because we have no civil law code in TNP and as such, civil proceedings are beyond the scope of the Court since civil proceedings do not in fact exist.

Changes to Adopted Court Rules - Proposed May 31, 2014

In accordance with the Legal Code of the North Pacific the Court establishes the following rules for Trial Proceedings:

Article 1: Indictment Procedures

1. All criminal charges or civil claims brought before the Court must be presented in the form of an Indictment.
   
2. After the filing of any Indictment, the Justices will consider the indictment for not more than 72 hours, and will determine whether it should be accepted or rejected.
   
3. An Indictment may be rejected for procedural or substantive reasons, and the reasons for rejecting an indictment must be publicly disclosed in full.
   
4. The rejection of an indictment does not permanently bar its resubmission. An indictment may only be resubmitted if substantive changes have been made to bring it into line with these rules, however; harassment through repeated filings is not permitted.
   
5. If an Indictment is accepted, its acceptance must be published. When the acceptance is published, a Moderating Justice must also be appointed.
   
6. At the time of acceptance, the Defendant must be notified of the pending action by the Court.
   
7. The Moderating Justice is responsible for commencing trial proceedings in a prompt manner, pursuant to the following Criminal or Civil Procedures, as appropriate.
   
8. In the case of Indictments seeking an ejection and/or banning, or expulsion from the RA due to oath violation, the procedures set by the Legal Code will be followed exactly as stated.

Article 2: Criminal Trial Procedure

1. When a trial thread is opened, the Defendant must be notified by the Moderating Justice, via forum PM, or Telegram if PM is not a viable option.
   
2. The Defendant will have 48 hours from the opening of the thread to enter a plea.
   
3. Following the acceptance of a plea by the Moderating Justice, a 72-hour period for pre-trial motions will start. This is the only time in which motions to dismiss charges, based on arguments of law, will be considered.
   
4. When all pre-trial motions have been settled, a Discovery period will commence which will last no fewer than 5 days. Motions to dismiss on issues concerning evidence shall not be heard at this time.
   
5. Following the conclusion of Discovery (when all evidence has been submitted and accepted or rejected by the Court), and all Evidentiary motions have been will be handled), there will be a period of at least 72 hours for arguments on the evidence and the law.
   
6. Following the conclusion of Arguments, and the final resolution of any outstanding motions, the Court will have, 96 hours to reach a verdict.
   
7. Following the publication of the Verdict, the Court will have 48 hours to announce a punishment. During this time, either Party may offer its opinion regarding sentencing.
   
8. When a sentence is announced, the Court will notify all relevant government and administrative officials of any actions mandated by the Sentence.
   
9. As necessary, and in the interests of justice, the Moderating Justice may alter this timetable to ensure a fair and balanced proceeding.

Article 3: Civil Trial Procedure

1. In the interests of efficiency, Civil Trials will be adjudicated by a single Justice, whose final ruling may be appealed to the full court solely on the basis of its legal reasoning. The Court may refuse to hear such an appeal if it finds no clear legal error demonstrated by the appellant’s request for appeal.
   
2. The Moderating Justice assigned to any Civil Trial will be the serve as the decider of fact as well as the procedural moderator.
   
3. In all Civil Trials, Complainants will represent themselves; the Attorney General is not responsible for handling civil matters. The Defendant may appoint counsel as they see fit, as in other trials.
   
4. When a trial thread is opened, the Defendant must be notified by the Moderating Justice, via forum PM, or Telegram if PM is not a viable option.
   
5. No Plea process exists for civil trials; if the Defendant wishes to concede the matter, he or she may do so at any time.
   
6. After the trial thread is opened, 72 hours will be reserved for pre-trial motions. This is the only time in which motions to dismiss a case, based on arguments of law, will be considered.
   
7. Following the resolution of all motions, the Justice will open Discovery, which shall last 5 days.
   
8. Evidence in Civil Trials must conform to all other evidentiary standards, but is limited, on each side, to: not more than three sworn and witnessed affidavits, documentary evidence, and any Affidavits necessary to substantiate said documentary evidence. Depositions are not permitted.
   
9. Following the completion of Discovery, and the resolution of any outstanding Motions, arguments on the evidence and law will be presented for 72 hours.
   
10. Following the completion of this period, the Justice will have 48 hours to deliberate on the facts, render a verdict, and, if appropriate, enter a judgment for the victorious party.
    
11. Any Appeal of a Civil Trial must be filed within 72 hours of the publication of the verdict.
    
12. The Justice may modify the timetables of Clauses 1-10 at their discretion.

Article 4: General Evidentiary Rules

1. The Court adopts the following rules on evidence and witness testimony to ensure fair administration, elimination of unjustifiable delay, and promotion of growth and development of the law of evidence to the end that the truth may be ascertained and proceedings justly determined.
   
2. All relevant evidence is admissible, except as otherwise provided by the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, or the Legal Code. Evidence which is not relevant is not admissible.
   
3. "Relevant evidence" is any evidence that is likely to have any impact on the Court’s determining the truth of the allegations or charges in any given case.
   
4. Even if it is relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.
   
5. Evidence of a person’ character not admissible for the purpose of proving that a specific act in conformity with their ordinary behavior.
   
6. Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show that the current allegations are in accordance with past actions, but may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident.
   
7. In all cases in which evidence of character or a trait of character of a person is admissible, proof may be made by testimony as to reputation or by testimony in the form of an opinion. On cross-examination, inquiry is allowable into relevant specific instances of conduct. In cases in which character or a trait of character of a person is an essential element of a charge, claim, or defense, proof may also be made of specific instances of that person’s conduct. Evidence of the habit of a person or of the routine practice of an organization, whether corroborated or not, and regardless of the presence of eyewitnesses, is relevant to prove that the conduct of the person or organization on a particular occasion was in conformity with the habit or routine practice.
   
8. Prior to, or within the first 24 hours of, the commencement of Discovery, all Parties will submit a list of witnesses they intend to call, as well as the scope and subject of each Witness’ intended testimony, to allow for adequate preparation.
   
9. During the Discovery phase of a trial, all Parties will submit any and all evidence they wish to use to the Court. Either side may object to any piece of evidence. Any objection must clearly explain why, in accordance with the Court Rules and general legal principles, the evidence should not be admitted into Court Record. The Moderating Justice will make a determination after hearing from both sides.
   
10. During this phase, witness testimony will be taken. This is the only time in which witness testimony may be gathered. Testimony may be gathered in the form of a sworn deposition conducted via an instant messaging service, or in the form of a sworn, witnessed affidavit. Any collection of witness testimony must be conducted in accordance with these Rules.
    
11. Other types of acceptable evidence include, but are not necessarily limited to, documentary evidence such as screenshots, chat logs, telegrams, forum posts, and other documents. Unless specifically covered by an exception under these Rules, documentary evidence must be authenticated through witness testimony, or it may be excluded as Hearsay.

Article 5: Depositions

1. When taking a deposition, counsel for each party must be present, along with the witness being questioned.
   
2. The party calling a witness is responsible for arranging any deposition, and the opposing party is expected to make reasonable efforts to be available to permit the taking of depositions.
   
3. Any witness being deposed will be subject to cross-examination, which shall not be confined to the scope of the original direct examination. Re-direct and re-cross are available as needed.
   
4. When conducting a deposition, the procedure shall be as follows:
   
   • The questioner shall ask a question, and indicate clearly when the question is complete.
     
   • The opposing counsel will have the opportunity to make a brief objection, the end of which will be indicated clearly. If the opposing counsel has no objection, they must indicate so.
     
   • If an objection is made, the questioning party may defend against the objection, and indicate the completion of their response clearly in the record.
     
   • When the opposing counsel has indicated that they have no objection, or the questioning counsel has completed their response to an objection, the witness will be instructed by the questioning party to answer.
     
   • This process will repeat for each question, and be followed as precisely as possible, to allow the Justice to easily follow the course of the deposition and rule on objections effectively.
5. At the completion of a deposition, each Party must submit a copy of the complete log to the Moderating Justice for review. The Justice will review all objections, and publish an official record version of the deposition with appropriate edits in accordance with any sustained objections.
   
6. The unedited copy of the Deposition will be distributed to the other Justices for record-keeping, but excluded elements will not be considered in making factual determinations.

Article 6: Affidavits

1. Witness testimony may also be submitted through an Affidavit. Affidavits are sworn statements, which may be used as a basis for later examination or, if no cross-examination is required, may stand on their own. The person giving an affidavit is called the Affiant.
   
2. Affidavits may be taken by either party.
   
3. Questions are not permitted during the taking of an affidavit.
   
4. Affidavits must be recorded in the presence of a non-party witness. The Affiant must state an oath of complete honesty prior to giving their statement.
   
5. At the conclusion of the statement, both the recording party, and the witness, must submit a copy of the Affidavit to the Moderating Justice. If everything is in order, the Moderating Justice will submit the affidavit to the official record.
   
6. If an opposing party wishes to cross-examine an Affiant, a Deposition must be scheduled. It is the obligation of all parties to make themselves and their witnesses reasonably available for necessary depositions.
   
7. In extraordinary circumstances, when parties are for reasons of geography or real life unable to coordinate for depositions, the Parties may consult with the Moderating Justice to determine an appropriate means of recording a witness’s deposition. In-thread testimony is strongly discouraged due to the massive time delay involved in asking one question at a time; mutually agreeable interrogatories are a preferable option.

Article 7: Privilege

1. Privileges are policies which excuse individuals from testifying as to certain matters. Two privileges exist in The North Pacific: classified government activities, and the attorney-client privilege.
   
2. The classified activities privilege protects government members from having to testify concerning the conduct of their official duties as to matters deemed secret or confidential unless the appropriate authority in the government has determined that disclosure at trial would not cause an adverse effect on current government matters as to the defense or external relations of the region.
   
3. The Moderating Justice, Justices, or Hearing Officer has an unfettered right of access to review all of the information to which the classified activities privilege is asserted by a party or witness before a trial or hearing so that the Court can rule on claims of admissibility and privilege.
   
4. Attorney-client privilege extends to all communications between a party and their counsel, as well as to any other individuals who are consulted in connection with the case. This privilege is permanent and inviolate, except when it is invoked in bad faith. All parties must invoke this privilege in good faith, or it may be disregarded by the Moderating Justice.

Article 8: Documentary Evidence

1. Parties are responsible for documenting all forms of electronic evidence, such as forum posts, private messages, NS telegrams, or IRC logs before they are presented at trial.
   
2. Such material will include the location of the material (with an URL if available), including the poster or sender, the recipient, and the date stamp of the material, and any other objective information that tends to establish that the material is bona fide and not a fabrication.
   
3. Parties are responsible for providing a copy of all such documents to the other parties in the proceedings prior to trial.
   
4. Documents not provided to all parties prior to trial, or whose authenticity is insufficiently demonstrated, may be excluded from the trial by the Moderating Justice.
   
5. A document which has circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness is not excluded by the hearsay rule, if the court determines that the document is offered as evidence of a material fact; the document is more probative on the point for which it is offered than any other evidence which the proponent can procure through reasonable efforts; and the general purposes of these guidelines and the interests of justice will best be served by admission of the document into evidence.
   
6. Examples of such documents are written items, the authenticity of which can be shown in the absence of editing or tampering at a subsequent time by any person, records of the government or other authority, or substantiation of the statement by other evidence or eyewitness testimony.

Article 9: Hearsay

1. "Hearsay" is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted as opposed to proving the fact that the statement was made.
   
2. Exceptions to hearsay include excited utterances and statements against interest. Statements made by any opposing party are always admissible, as they may be refuted through individual testimony.

Article 10: Competency and Credibility

1. Every person is competent to be a witness, except as otherwise provided in these Rules.
   
2. A witness may not testify to a matter unless sufficient evidence to support a finding that the witness has personal knowledge of the matter.
   
3. Evidence to prove personal knowledge may, but need not, consist of the witness’ own testimony.
   
4. This rule is subject to the requirements for opinion testimony by expert witnesses.
   
5. The credibility of a witness may be attacked by any party, including the party calling the witness.
   
6. If the witness is not testifying as an expert, their testimony in the form of opinions or inferences is not admissible. Testimony as to facts is all that is admissible from non-expert witnesses.
   
7. If technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the Court in making factual determinations, a witness may be qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may offer their expert opinion as evidence. This may happen provided the following requirements are met:
   
   • the testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data
     
   • the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods, and
     
   • the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case.
8. Any individual testifying as a witness must review all relevant documents prior to their testimony.

Note to GrosseSchnauzer: Check to see if there are any redundancies that need to be handled.

 

[Grosseschnauzer]

Since I was asked, I would suggest Article II, Rules 3, 4, and 5, be carefully reviewed to see if that is the sort of sequence you want to use for pre-discovery, discovery, and post-discovery/pre-trial motions. If your intent was to limit the scope of any motions prior to discovery, I don't see that in Rule 3, and I'm not exactly sure what is being accomplished. Earlier you basically said you were looking to shift pre-trial motions to take place after discovery, but I am not sure these changes accomplish that, either.

BTW, this is the first time I've even looked at the Court Rules in their current forum, so it is possible I'm not understanding something that has been in the Rules, but I tend to think I got it. So bottom line, those three rules need some work,

 

[Romanoffia]

Well, the bottom line is to prevent disorder in the Court as a means for the defense to corrupt or stop trials. Moving certain motions to places in the trial where they logically should go is the point.

The biggest problem is that no one pays attention to the Constitution as to the purvey of the court in terms of what its powers and abilities are. Make an unpopular decision or render an unpopular verdict, and you get lynched.

We have a major Constitutional issue to decide here in terms of preventing the annihilation of an independent Judiciary via the recall process.

I am getting pretty fed up on the whole thing.

I have other Justices who are largely absent or will not listen to the Chief Justice, or otherwise vie for control of the Court rather than obey the established structure of authority.

The whole legal system and Judiciary is being replaced by Lynch Mob rule and I don't like it. At this point I am talking to a number of people who are considered not to be part of the 'Oligarchy' as to how to proceed on this matter. If I fight a recall and win, we have an independent Judiciary that is preserved; If I lose, then we have Lynch Mob rule where any justice can be recalled for not making popular decisions and popular verdicts.

If I resign as Chief Justice, there will be Constitutional ramifications that will ultimately serve to bring down the entire legal system, and the entire Constitution and requisite consequence.

The irony is that the very people with whom I am discussing this issue with and who understand exactly the point I am making are of the mind that I should just throw my hands up and let everyone have what they want and then sit back and do nothing to prevent an entire collapse of the entire Constitution and hope something better comes out of it. The collapse is coming no matter what I do, and having a recall destroy an independent Judiciary will only assure that the process will begin in earnest and result in a certainty.

 

[Flemingovia]

If I resign as Chief Justice, there will be Constitutional ramifications that will ultimately serve to bring down the entire legal system, and the entire Constitution and requisite consequence.

I think you overestimate your own significance.

 

[Romanoffia]

If I resign as Chief Justice, there will be Constitutional ramifications that will ultimately serve to bring down the entire legal system, and the entire Constitution and requisite consequence.

I think you overestimate your own significance.

Actually, no I don't.

And that shall be seen.

 

[Flemingovia]

Beware of hubris, Ajax.

 

[Democratic Donkeys]

If I resign as Chief Justice, there will be Constitutional ramifications that will ultimately serve to bring down the entire legal system, and the entire Constitution and requisite consequence.

I think you overestimate your own significance.

Actually, no I don't.

And that shall be seen.

Well then I guess it is a good thing you won't resign, but will be recalled.

Can I call that you will resign right before the recall vote ends?

 

[Romanoffia]

If I resign as Chief Justice, there will be Constitutional ramifications that will ultimately serve to bring down the entire legal system, and the entire Constitution and requisite consequence.

I think you overestimate your own significance.

Actually, no I don't.

And that shall be seen.

Well then I guess it is a good thing you won't resign, but will be recalled.

Can I call that you will resign right before the recall vote ends?

You know, you need two thirds of the votes cast as Aye. Abstains are as good as Nays in a quorum. That is, unless you are willing to go to the point of twisting and ignoring the rules, or, better yet, making up the rules as you go along just to suit your goals?

 

[Treize_Dreizehn]

You know, you need two thirds of the votes cast as Aye. Abstains are as good as Nays in a quorum. That is, unless you are willing to go to the point of twisting and ignoring the rules, or, better yet, making up the rules as you go along just to suit your goals?

Not to take anyone's side here but the constitution says this: "7. Abstentions cast in the Regional Assembly will not be used to determine the result of any vote, but may be used for quorum and all other purposes."

 

[Democratic Donkeys]

Oh, another 10 percenter. You don't give a tinker's dam about the laws, you just want to twist things to suit your goal of recalling this well-versed Justice.

 

[Flemingovia]

What is a ten percenter?

 

[Romanoffia]

You know, you need two thirds of the votes cast as Aye. Abstains are as good as Nays in a quorum. That is, unless you are willing to go to the point of twisting and ignoring the rules, or, better yet, making up the rules as you go along just to suit your goals?

Not to take anyone's side here but the constitution says this: "7. Abstentions cast in the Regional Assembly will not be used to determine the result of any vote, but may be used for quorum and all other purposes."

No.

The law and Constitution specifically state that it requires a 2/3rd Aye vote based upon all votes cast. An Abstain is as good as a Nay. But then again, people wanted JAL convicted to the point that they would recall a Justice who refused the demand to assure a conviction and dismissed the case as a result.

You know, you made a really big mistake harassing me in the Court the way you did. Let me tell you why...

The AG will bring up the charges again under the same indictment against JAL. And, JAL will be convicted as sure as the sun will rise tomorrow, lack of evidence be damned.

And your actions only guaranteed that JAL would be convicted because any Justice who doesn't vote to convict will be recalled and run through the wringer. And that will go on until those people who want JAL convicted and booted get their way.

So, you didn't do any favors to JAL by doing what you did. You just assured that this will go on until someone convicts JAL because that is what certain people want.

Your court room shenanigans is about to result in the recall of a Justice who was the only impartial and fair justice who could preside over TNP v. JAL.

You accused the only person in TNP who could treat this case with total impartiality of being biased against JAL when that was not the case. Now you have assured he will be convicted.

And so now, the only Justice that was impartial and unbiased against JAL is about to be removed. Everyone thinks JAL is guilty regardless of the admissible evidence and therefore you will now have a Court that will convict JAL out of hand. They will get their way once I am out of their way. And certain people, regardless of the rules of voting in the RA, will remove a Justice even after a vote that has less than 2/3rds Aye votes and in total disregard of what the law says.

This is one of the reasons I am refusing to resign. I cannot stand by without a fight after being subjected to pressure to assure a conviction and from Justices who refuse to support the rules of the Court. I cannot stand up against people who fail to see that the Law applied Absolutely is no path to Justice. Certain people want JAL nailed to a tree and they will stop at nothing to do exactly that.

Flemingovia called JAL "Teflon" and was POed that a conviction was not predetermined. So, he went after me to remove me from the Court because he knew I wouldn't guarantee a conviction against JAL. He called me every name in the book and started a 'pile on' Romanoffia just to assure JAL gets convicted. Flemingovia wants JAL convicted and run out of town and by God, he will make sure that will happen no matter what anyone says.

Just like JAL being given a fair trial after which he will be shot, I will be recalled regardless of the vote. And all just to convict JAL regardless of the Law. Constitution or Evidence. And you did it to JAL.

So, either way, if I am by chance not recalled, I won't run again for Justice. Why? Because with the threat of recall for making unpopular decisions and bowing to political demands by a certain few people, there can be no Justice in TNP.

So, if you want to make a statement that means we still have an independent judiciary immune to political demands by a handful of people who demand JAL be convicted, then change your vote to NAY in the recall.

Otherwise, you only get used as a tool to assure an automatic conviction of JAL. Or is that what you really want?

 

[Flemingovia]

Flemingovia called JAL "Teflon" and was POed that a conviction was not predetermined. So, he went after me to remove me from the Court because he knew I wouldn't guarantee a conviction against JAL. He called me every name in the book and started a 'pile on' Romanoffia just to assure JAL gets convicted. Flemingovia wants JAL convicted and run out of town and by God, he will make sure that will happen no matter what anyone says.

umm.... you DO remember that I was JAL's defence lawyer last time around, and I got him acquitted in the second JAL trial, don't you?

As it happens, I said at the outset that I thought a conviction was unlikely, and outlined a number of possible defence lines that could be used - all of which were taken up by the defence team.

But carry on. Do not let facts get in the way.

 

[Romanoffia]

You know, I have something to say to you but I refuse to use the kind of vocabulary you would normally use. There may be children here.

 

[Flemingovia]

I think Treize_Dreizehn is correct in his assessment concerning "abstain" votes. They count towards the tally of votes cast, but are disregarded when considering majorities.

that is clearly laid out in article 7, as Treize_Dreizehn quoted.

 

[Grosseschnauzer]

Abstentions count for quorum, whether an RA member voted for activity rules, but are not counted to determine the result of any vote in the RA, or in any election.

Why is this even a matter of confusion, I fail to understand; it is the basic principle the RA had repeated voted to instate or reinstate every time anyone tried to change it,

If a minority of RA members vote aye or nay, then that minority determines the result of a vote. Period.

 

[Democratic Donkeys]

What is a ten percenter?

You should know, you are one. The rabble-rousers, the malcontents, who just like to be big bullies. I mean, I've seen you at the meetings... we meet in IRC, right after the 9pm cabal meeting?

 

[St George]

What is a ten percenter?

Clearly a 10 per center is a member of the IRC Cabal/Elugarchy/Oligarchy/BlackTyrHandThing Party/NPOUDLRaiderDefender Plot to Control the region/amimissinganyotherrecentconspiracy? type person.

 

[SillyString]

What is a ten percenter?

You should know, you are one. The rabble-rousers, the malcontents, who just like to be big bullies. I mean, I've seen you at the meetings... we meet in IRC, right after the 9pm cabal meeting?

Speaking of which, this week's meeting is going to need to be rescheduled. Does 9pm Tuesday work for you this time around? I know it usually conflicts with your weekly pin the tail on the donkey club, but maybe just this once? There's a special election coming up, after all - you don't want to miss this one!

 

[punk d]

To Justices Ator and Silly - not to get this thread back on track, but do you plan to pursue revising the court rules as the outgoing Justice was?

 

[Romanoffia]

New court rules will be to BURN THE WITCH!

Of course, that only applies of the witch is not a member of the Official State Religion of Flemingovianism...

 

[punk d]

To Justices Ator and Silly - not to get this thread back on track, but do you plan to pursue revising the court rules as the outgoing Justice was?

Bump.

Edit - Apparently some justices don't waste their time in the public gallery often enough.

 

[Romanoffia]

Advise to Court:

On the advise of several people, I have whittled down my proposed Bill on Contempt to about 1/10th its original size, and changed the language a bit to suit the context of the Court in TNP.

Given the fact that there can be quite legitimate claims that the Court can only create rules that affect procedures and not behaviour in the Court Room, it is probably the best tool to prevent disruption in the Court: http://forum.thenorthpacific.org/single/?p=8144318&t=7202169

Believe me, if this bill passes, it will be the greatest gift to the Court of all times.

 

[SillyString]

To Justices Ator and Silly - not to get this thread back on track, but do you plan to pursue revising the court rules as the outgoing Justice was?

Bump.

Edit - Apparently some justices don't waste their time in the public gallery often enough.

Sorry for the delay in answering.

I've actually been working on a draft for a while now. I mentioned it to Ator and Roman early on in the Douria trial, and it's been given to Ator for him to look over.

 

[punk d]

Thanks Silly.

 

[Romanoffia]

And nothing will change.

 

[Treize_Dreizehn]

New rules are up! Yaay.

 

[Democratic Donkeys]

And nothing will change.

How does it feel to be wrong? The rules changed, and they seem very sensible. Thank Flemingovia we have a Chief Justice who is willing to stick things out instead of throwing a fit.

 

[SillyString]

Notwithstanding the discouragement from posting here ( ), I'd like to encourage people to continue using this thread to comment on the rules as they stand, ask questions about them, and to suggest further improvements down the line. I think this sort of thread falls within the bounds of permissible judicial participation.

I'd also like to acknowledge everyone who contributed to the new rules - COE, who did a lot of the early legwork during his term as CJ and whose draft makes up the foundation of mine; r3n, Eluvatar, Douria, and Grosseschnauzer, who proofread and/or offered suggestions or clarifications on various issues; and Ator and Kiwi, who helped finalize everything.

 

[Romanoffia]

Notwithstanding the discouragement from posting here ( ), I'd like to encourage people to continue using this thread to comment on the rules as they stand, ask questions about them, and to suggest further improvements down the line. I think this sort of thread falls within the bounds of permissible judicial participation.

I'd also like to acknowledge everyone who contributed to the new rules - COE, who did a lot of the early legwork during his term as CJ and whose draft makes up the foundation of mine; r3n, Eluvatar, Douria, and Grosseschnauzer, who proofread and/or offered suggestions or clarifications on various issues; and Ator and Kiwi, who helped finalize everything.

Just read the rules, and they are very well constructed.

I was going to suggest the method you enacted to effectively 'strike from the record' by splitting a thread when decorum is violated by contempt.

Considering the rule changes, I will with draw my bill in the RA.