Bill of Rights Amendment Proposal

[falapatorius]

This is an attempt to close a recently exposed potential legal loophole in the Bill of Rights. I believe a 3/4 majority is required for this to pass. If there is any will to address this issue, then please 'constructively' contribute to tighten this up, clean up the language, etc. If not.. Oh.. and if at all possible.. stay on topic.

7. When charged with criminal acts, Nations of The North Pacific shall have a fair, impartial, and public trial before a neutral and impartial judicial officer. In any criminal proceeding, a Nation is presumed innocent unless guilt is proven to the fact finder by reasonably certain evidence. A Nation may be represented by any counsel of the Nation's choosing. No Nation convicted of a crime shall be subject to a punishment disproportionate to that crime.

7. When charged with criminal acts, Nations of The North Pacific shall have a fair, impartial, and public trial before a neutral and impartial judicial officer. In any criminal proceeding, a Nation is presumed innocent unless guilt is proven to the fact finder by reasonably certain evidence. A Nation charged with a crime may either defend itself against the charge(s), or be represented by counsel. Any Nation may be retained as counsel, provided that Nation has not been banned from The North Pacific region, or is subject to forum administration sanctions. A counsels' legally justified, non-discretionary removal by the Court, dismissal by the client Nation, or case abandonment by counsel, shall not constitute a violation of a Nations' choice to be represented by counsel. No Nation convicted of a crime shall be subject to a punishment disproportionate to that crime.

Some may complain about the length , so if there are no objections (and if it's really needed), I would propose splitting off the first two sentences, and the last sentence.

 

[Flemingovia]

this is fine when the justice is not capricious, corrupt or throwing a tantrum. However, the BOR is there to protect citizens against abuse. I fear this proposal puts too much power in the hands of the court.

Under this proposal a justice could just dismiss any counsel they found difficult or who was not compliant. I do not think I could vote for this.

 

[falapatorius]

this is fine when the justice is not capricious, corrupt or throwing a tantrum. However, the BOR is there to protect citizens against abuse. I fear this proposal puts too much power in the hands of the court.

Under this proposal a justice could just dismiss any counsel they found difficult or who was not compliant. I do not think I could vote for this.

Considering recent events, I guess I'm not surprised at your response. Bad timing on my part maybe. But I am thinking ahead to the next major trial. Some bad precedents (imagined or otherwise) have been established recently.

I'm not sure if I agree it puts too much power in the hands of the Court. The fact that Justices can use discretion where no legislation/rules exist is much more susceptible to abuse (in the hypothetical instances you described). The Bill does state that a counsels' removal must be 'legally justified'. Unless I'm mistaken, that leaves room for a request for review. If not, then I can edit. This is just a first draft. But I will say the Bill isn't intended to give a Justice carte blanche to boot counsel for non-legal reasons. In my opinion though, Justices hands are tied with regard to courtroom behavior. If anything, I'd say the Court has very little power to ensure a timely, effective, and efficient trial (which is the biggest complaint in this Forum). Alternatively, if it's the Justices' behavior that is the issue, there are actions to be taken, as we've recently seen. What's good for the goose..

*Edit* After a reread, I decided to add the following (in bold):

A counsels' legally justified, non-discretionary removal by the Court,

 

[Flemingovia]

don't get me wrong. I think the current BOR provision is too loose and offers too many loopholes. However, it is all about maintaining a balance between the rights of the individual and the rights of the community.

We need some way that allows a court to function well, but affords the individual some protection when a justice forgets to take their dried frog pills.

Until now the current BOR provision has worked fine. under the current bench? I am not so sure.

 

[punk d]

How about this:

7. When charged with criminal acts, Nations of The North Pacific shall have a fair, impartial, and public trial before a neutral and impartial judicial officer. In any criminal proceeding, a Nation is presumed innocent unless guilt is proven to the fact finder by reasonably certain evidence. A Nation may be represented by any counsel of the Nation's choosing. No Nation convicted of a crime shall be subject to a punishment disproportionate to that crime.

7. When charged with criminal acts, Nations of The North Pacific shall have a fair, impartial, and public trial before a neutral and impartial judicial officer. In any criminal proceeding, a Nation is presumed innocent unless guilt is proven to the fact finder by reasonably certain evidence. A Nation may be represented by any counsel of the Nation's choosing provided that counsel is not banned from the forums of The North Pacific nor found guilty of contempt of court. No Nation convicted of a crime shall be subject to a punishment disproportionate to that crime.

Regulating Contempt of Court

Article 5. The Court

1. The Court will try all criminal cases, resolve conflicts or ambiguities in the law, and review the constitutionality of laws or legality of government policies by request of an affected party.
2. The Court will consist of at least three Justices, who will select a Chief Justice among themselves.
3. The Chief Justice will administer the rules of the Court. Where no rules exist, the Chief Justice may use their discretion.
4. The official opinion of the Court in any trial or review will be binding on all Government bodies and officials.
5. Justices will be elected by the Regional Assembly by a plurality vote every four months.
4. During any civil or criminal case, the presiding justice shall have the authority to levy a contempt of court offense upon any counsel for any reason at any point in time during the case.
5. Upon such designation the case shall be immediately suspended pending affirmation by by the Regional Assembly.
6. Affirmation of contempt shall require 2/3rds majority vote by the Regional Assembly.
7. If contempt is not affirmed, the presiding justice in the case shall be replaced as presiding justice by another member of the court and recused from future proceedings on the case.
8. The official opinion of the Court in any trial or review will be binding on all Government bodies and officials.
9. Justices will be elected by the Regional Assembly by a plurality vote every four months.

Here's the reasoning for this addition. One, it gives the court full latitude to charge someone with contempt. I believe justices will be able to keep decorum if they have a full range of reasons to "threaten" contempt. What this also does is cause an immediate review of the contempt levy should a justice charge counsel with contempt. That's a check on the wide reaching authority of the court. Another check is that if the affirmation of contempt fails, the presiding justice is removed from the case and recused. Thus, a presiding justice while having complete authority to levy contempt must be very careful as the entire RA will vote upon the action and the justice can be removed from the case if he or she does so willy nilly.

The underlying principle here is that justices must be able to keep decorum in the courtroom. Also - I believe the RA serves as the "reasonable man" litmus test for actions taken by the court. If a justice does something that doesn't seem reasonable the RA will and should act. This does make the court accountable to the RA but the court and all government officials are accountable to the RA. I think in order to maintain the freedoms laid out in the BOR and give justices authority (which should be seldom used) to ensure decorum is maintained, this could do it.

 

[falapatorius]

I think the current BOR provision is too loose and offers too many loopholes. However, it is all about maintaining a balance between the rights of the individual and the rights of the community.

We need some way that allows a court to function well, but affords the individual some protection when a justice forgets to take their dried frog pills.

Seems most legislation gets an aye/nay response, then gets voted on. Mind you, it can be difficult to see the landmines, but they are there for the clever mind to ferret out. Everyone sees the problem, but be damned if we can agree on a solution. But snarky arguments over legislation is better than none I guess. Cest la guerre.

 

[falapatorius]

A Nation may be represented by any counsel of the Nation's choosing provided that counsel is not banned from the forums of The North Pacific nor found guilty of contempt of court.

Well.. credit for brevity. That was pretty much what I was getting at with the 'legally justified' bit. I believe that contempt would be a legal justification (although affirming contempt might be better left to the non-presiding Justices..RA interference blah blah). But that's a constitutional amendment. Has that been done? I haven't read through all the amendments yet. If not, get on it. I could work it in if appropriate at this time to do so. Later tho..RL calls.

 

[punk d]

I've included some constitutional language. I did think about involving the other justices and I'd be open to that as well, but I was also striving for efficiency. The RA is the true seat of power in TNP where all of our powers are derived & I thought that it was best to have a critical decision like this made by them.

 

[SillyString]

I would suggest, "A Nation may be represented by any counsel of the Nation's choosing, within reasonable limits." I think that leaves the way clear to bar someone who is banned from the forum or who otherwise misbehaves, as well as prevent someone from trying to indefinitely pause a trial because their chosen counsel "has not yet agreed", but also leaves it flexible enough to avoid major loopholes.

Laying out contempt of court within the constitution seems rather problematic. At most, it ought to be defined in the legal code - I'd prefer an addition to the court's rules, though, which allows the moderating justice to bar an individual's posts from entering into the record for a discretionary period of time if the court unanimously finds them to have acted in contempt. Forcing a contempt finding to pass a 2/3 vote of the RA (and forcing the permanent recusal of the moderating justice if it fails) seems like a really good way to delay a trial (perhaps multiple times).

 

[punk d]

If it fails multiple times that would mean that a judge, actually multiple judges, are levying contempt against a counsel who is the "teflon" counsel with the RA not placing them in contempt. While logistically that is possible, I just don't see that happening in practice.

In general, I dislike the concept of the changes you are recommending other than the BoR because they give the court too much leeway and too much of an opportunity to do things differently on different occasions. I like the Constitution change because it makes it that much more difficult to change and it also makes it impossible for a later court to deem this provision unconstitutional.

I understand the point about delays but putting a counsel in contempt should not be standard protocol. I'd be willing to bend a little on allowing the court to set up certain aspects of contempt, but I'm not willing to remove the RA affirmation at this point without a sufficient check on this authority.

 

[SillyString]

I could probably support the RA having the ability to override a finding of contempt at its own discretion, but I'm concerned about making it obligatory.

The problem with 2/3 support of the RA is that 2/3 of the RA only barely supported removing Eluvatar from office when he was, what, three weeks inactive? It's a high bar to attain, and for good reason... but it also means that the likelihood of the RA upholding contempt is pretty low even for attorneys who are acting egregiously and who aren't wildly popular. As long as they can bribe, persuade, or threaten just over 1/3 of non-abstaining voting members into opposing the recall, they're guaranteed a replacement of the moderating justice, the appointment of a THO, and delays while the new moderating justice gets up to speed. Rinse and repeat for hilarity.

So I think it would be better for the Court to be able to find contempt, but as a safeguard for the RA to be able to revoke that finding (say, by majority vote). I also think the RA should have the power to require the CJ to replace the moderating justice (without asking for their recusal), and to outright require a justice to recuse themselves from a particular case. As of now, there's no provision in law that can do either one even in obviously problematic situations.

 

[Grosseschnauzer]

I would favor amending the Constitution to provide that the Court can regulate the conduct of counsel, and not the Bill of Rights.

Two things to consider: It is easier to pass an amendment to the Constitution that to the Bill of Rights, and I am philosophically opposed to amendment to the Bill of Rights.

Amending the Constitution on the topic, yes, amending the Bill of Rights, no.

 

[falapatorius]

There seems to be some consensus (thus far) the Court should be able able to levy a contempt of court ruling. I concur. There is some variation on where this legislation should be placed, and what role the RA should have. My reason for a BOR amendment stems from:

not according to the BOR. It says he can be represented by the counsel of his choice. Simply that. Who else is representing him is immaterial. If the court prevents him from receiving the representation he chooses, they have broken his rights under the bor.

Hence the exceptions as written into the Bill. Silly's 'reasonable limits' provision is short and sweet, but I fear the language is too vague, insofar what is "reasonable". Interpretations abound with that. Not averse to it tho. Perhaps a bit of clarification?

At this point I am willing to change this to a constitutional amendment. For punk's reason:

I like the Constitution change because it makes it that much more difficult to change and it also makes it impossible for a later court to deem this provision unconstitutional.

I'm inclined to give the Court the power to determine contempt, but the RA should be given a 24 hour period (negotiable) to request a vote be held on the ruling (majority vote to pass). I think an automatic vote, and threat of removal from the case would place undue 'outside' pressure on a Justice. I'm a bit conflicted about a Justice being removed from a case by the RA though. Could you live with a 'unanimous decision' to remove the presiding Justice be made by the other 2 Justices? (I left out the CJ provision, since it may be the CJ that is subject to removal). I can't help but find it a bit extreme a Justice be removed from a trial by the RA for an erroneous contempt finding. I would also ask if contempt needs to be defined?

As I stated earlier, I could make this a constitutional amendment, but I am still concerned with the BOR language about 'a counsel of their choice' being used to stall a legal proceeding. It could also present a potential conflict with the BOR if the reasonable limits (or whatever we can determine suits best) provision is adopted into a possible constitutional amendment. The language will need to be precise imo. Any ideas on this are welcome.

Anyway, none of this written in stone. It's a start though.

 

[Romanoffia]

this is fine when the justice is not capricious, corrupt or throwing a tantrum. However, the BOR is there to protect citizens against abuse. I fear this proposal puts too much power in the hands of the court.

Under this proposal a justice could just dismiss any counsel they found difficult or who was not compliant. I do not think I could vote for this.

Perhaps we should just have the Flemingovia God make all the decisions in his own arbitrary and capricious manner?

But of course - how could anyone who is promoting an official state religion for TNP ever be in favor of any civil liberties? I mean, imposing a state religion is almost as barbaric as a monarchy.

The problem is that the Court doesn't have enough power. In fact, the Court has absolutely no power whatsoever in terms of being free from political and popular pressure to render specific and predetermined decisions. Which appears to be exactly what you want and usually get from what I have experienced.

But, ironically, coming from someone who created a Fiqh Court (that fell flat on it's hind quarters) with an imaginary deity as the sole dispenser of faux justice, I am surprised that you don't want a court with more authority than the zero authority it currently has. Oh, but maybe giving the court some actual independence and freedom from the demands of certain people demanding auto-convictions or there will be hell to pay might reduce the amount of thuggery that can be inflicted upon the court?

You look like the only one throwing a tantrum here.

But, on a more serious point concerning the proposed bill:

It will never be permitted because it actually goes beyond the scope of game play because it includes the ability of the Admins to decide to a degree who will be acceptable as council (i.e.: nations banned from the region, et al).

 

[falapatorius]

Perhaps we should just have the Flemingovia God make all the decisions in his own arbitrary and capricious manner?

Ouch.. drive by hijacking. Forgiven though, given the current climate.

The problem is that the Court doesn't have enough power.

Funny thing about power.. you can never have enough. Plus the fact the various 'factions' guard it jealously.. well, you know what I mean.

But, on a more serious point concerning the proposed bill:
It will never be permitted because it actually goes beyond the scope of game play because it includes the ability of the Admins to decide to a degree who will be acceptable as council (i.e.: nations banned from the region, et al).

I dunno, some admins seem to actually care about TNP's integrity (could be wrong, but no definitive proof there). At any rate, no harm in trying.

 

[Romanoffia]

An easier solution for this that would not require an amendment to the BOR would be to pass a law requiring all councillors at law to be 'qualified' by meeting certain standards.

But the main problem is how to solve the problem of disruptive council. As it is, without a total overhaul, the Court has absolutely no means to maintain order without someone crying foul or invoking the BOR at the expense of the rights of others to be free from such disruption.

Mainly, this requires a complete overhaul and simplification of court procedures which, as it were, will never happen around here due to the convoluted nature of the Laws and Constitution.

Point being, the Court has the supposed "ability" to establish its own rules concerning procedures, and that would necessarily imply the right to take actions to establish order to assure those procedures work. Simply put, the Court can under the Constitutional provisions concerning the Court simply create a Contempt rule against contemptuous participants hell bend on disrupting the proceedings.

But then again, we all know what happens when someone tries to rein in contemptuous participants hell bent on disrupting Court proceedings.

My advice is to simply let the CJ do what the CJs have always done in the past - create the needed rules as needed and when needed. And, of course, whenever a CJ does this there is always moaning, groaning and gnashing of teeth over it (even when the established rules permit this) and someone's head will always roll.

Additional point being is that change in TNP is not tolerated by tradition.

 

[falapatorius]

As it is, without a total overhaul, the Court has absolutely no means to maintain order without someone crying foul or invoking the BOR at the expense of the rights of others to be free from such disruption.

I would say the Court can be subject to disruption, but it shouldn't be powerless to remedy said disruption. Why is only the Justices' behavior subjected to 'censure' (recall), while the disrupting party gets a pass? Giving the CJ power to legislate on the fly isn't the answer. The Court deserves protection under the Constitution as well.

Additional point being is that change in TNP is not tolerated by tradition.

Tradition is fine, unless it inhibits progress.

 

[Great Bights Mum]

Judges should have the power to hold someone in contempt. I actually assumed they already did. You know, an unwritten rule. Every lawyer knows it is stupid to get on the bad side of the judge. If that isn't enough of a deterrent, there are plenty of actions that can be taken that do not involve forum admin. Make them go sit in the kissing booth, do penance in one of the temples, or post in 20 OOC threads saying something nice about you. Ah, the possibilities!

 

[Flemingovia]

I am philosophically opposed to amendment to the Bill of Rights.

Forgive me, but I honestly do not understand this attitude. On a purely philosophical basis, the Bill of Rights is a human construction, and therefore is as capable of being flawed as any other human construction. Should a flaw be discovered, should it not be corrected? Should an improvement be thought up, should it not be amended?

Honest question. I do not understand a philosophical objection to amending something that WE made up.

 

[Romanoffia]

As it is, without a total overhaul, the Court has absolutely no means to maintain order without someone crying foul or invoking the BOR at the expense of the rights of others to be free from such disruption.

I would say the Court can be subject to disruption, but it shouldn't be powerless to remedy said disruption. Why is only the Justices' behavior subjected to 'censure' (recall), while the disrupting party gets a pass? Giving the CJ power to legislate on the fly isn't the answer. The Court deserves protection under the Constitution as well.

Additional point being is that change in TNP is not tolerated by tradition.

Tradition is fine, unless it inhibits progress.

That's the way it always is, especially in TNP: there is an unusual tolerance for troll tactics in which the trolls attack and the victims are suddenly viewed as being in the wrong for daring to defend themselves from trolling and other attacks.

That attitude of victimization of the victim is part and parcel of TNP 'Tradition' and that will never change.

The Court has absolutely no protection under the Constitution in practical terms. The root of the problem is that a very dangerous precedent has been established: all a defence council has to do is to level false accusations against a Justice, troll the court room, and if the Justice doesn't give in, then the Justice is recalled for not giving in to trolls.

So, what we now have is a Court that any and all Justices are now subject to recall for trying to contain disruptions in the courtroom or for not giving into pressure to assure a conviction out of hand. The result is that we now have a precedent that turns the Court into a kangaroo court that just does whatever is politically popular, justice being immaterial.

The other problem is that Constitution and Laws are so conflicted and unenforceable that it is no longer an instrument that protects individual rights - it has become a weapon to beat people down and a tool to be used against itself by those who wish to overthrow the Constitution.

Unfortunately, this will never change as the more things 'change', the more they remain the same (or get even worse).

Judges should have the power to hold someone in contempt. I actually assumed they already did. You know, an unwritten rule. Every lawyer knows it is stupid to get on the bad side of the judge. If that isn't enough of a deterrent, there are plenty of actions that can be taken that do not involve forum admin. Make them go sit in the kissing booth, do penance in one of the temples, or post in 20 OOC threads saying something nice about you. Ah, the possibilities!

The problem is that Justices dare not even attempt to maintain order in the courtroom or they will be subject to recall for attempting to do so in the first place.

Believe me, I have tried to get a contempt rule established and no other Justices would even give it a shadow of consideration.

Again, the precedent recently established has set in stone that any time a Justice does something that the Defence disagrees with, the Justice will be harassed into either resigning or being recalled for not agreeing with whomever for whatever.

The only way to maintain order in the Court in TNP is to make not just a Contempt Rule, but to actually pass a bill that makes Contempt of Court a criminal offence (Criminal Contempt) if it disrupts a trial to the point a trial can no longer be conducted.

This is what I would suggest be placed in the legal code of TNP:



Willful behavior committed during the sitting of a court and directly tending to interrupt its proceedings.

Willful behavior committed during the sitting of a court in its immediate view and presence and directly tending to impair the respect due its authority.

Willful disobedience of, resistance to, or interference with a court’s lawful process, order, directive, or instruction or its execution.

Willful refusal to be sworn or affirmed as a witness, or, when so sworn or affirmed, willful refusal to answer any legal and proper question when the refusal is not legally justified.

Willful publication of a report of the proceedings in a court that is grossly inaccurate and presents a clear and present danger of imminent and serious threat to the administration of justice, made with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false. No person, however, may be punished for publishing a truthful report of proceedings in a court.

Willful or grossly negligent failure by an officer of the court to perform his duties in an official transaction.

Willful or grossly negligent failure to comply with schedules and practices of the court resulting in substantial interference with the business of the court.

Willful refusal to testify or produce other information upon the order of a judge who is Granting of Immunity to Witnesses.

Willful communication with a Justice in an improper attempt to influence his deliberations.

Willful refusal by a defendant to comply with a Court Order or Decision.

Any other act or omission specified elsewhere in TNP Legal Code as grounds for criminal contempt.


And that is the only way to prevent disorder in the Court on the part of deliberately disruptive participants. I have been promoting such a Law for a very long time and everyone ignores it. And if they don't ignore it, some jackass claims that reining in a disruptive defence council who is deliberately trying to disrupt a trial is somehow violating someone's rights according to the BOR or is somehow 'bias'.

To be absolutely honest, I have given up all hope of any Court reform, Legal reform or Constitutional reform of any kind in this region. No one wants any kind of order in the Court, nor does anyone want the Court to actually be a Court that has any real authority whatsoever.

There must be a comprehensive and very well defined contempt law added to the legal code or the Court will be nothing but a puppet of popular and political pressures and, in the end, nothing but a toothless joke.

And if anyone wants to beat their head against a stone wall in the RA, just try to get a Contempt law for the Court passed. Try it and see just how much abuse and trolling one will get for even suggesting a perfectly rational and reasonable law.

No one want any reform in TNP and anyone who attempts to enact reform will receive enough abuse for it that they will simply throw up their hands in frustration.

Believe me, I know. In fact, let me introduce a Contempt Bill and just watch what will happen.

 

[falapatorius]

7. When charged with a crime, Nations of The North Pacific shall have a fair, impartial, and public trial before a neutral and impartial judicial officer. In any Court proceeding, a Nation is presumed innocent until proven guilty by the fact finder, via reasonably certain evidence.

8. A Nation charged with a crime(s) may either defend itself against the charge(s), or be represented by counsel. Any Nation legally residing in The North Pacific may be retained as counsel. A counsel found to be in contempt of Court, a counsel dismissed by the client Nation, or an instance where counsel abandons the proceeding, shall not constitute a violation of a Nations' choice to be represented by counsel. The Attorney General and its representatives shall not be exempt from contempt of Court citations, and are afforded the same protections as outlined in Section 9 of this document.

9. Any contempt of Court finding shall immediately be subject to a review by one of the non-presiding Justices, or a Temporary Hearing Officer if circumstances dictate such an appointment. The relevant Court proceeding shall be suspended until the review is completed. The reviewing Justice, or Temporary Hearing Officer, shall have 72 hours to accept/deny the finding of contempt. Findings of, and sanctions for contempt of Court shall be within the purview of the Court.

10. No Nation convicted of a crime shall be subject to a punishment disproportionate to that crime.

*All sections hereafter shall be renumbered accordingly.*

Explanation of changes:

I split up some sections for length, and made some language changes. One important change was:

Any Nation legally residing in The North Pacific may be retained as counsel.

I think this avoids admin influence. But I also prefer this as the BOR applies to TNP residents only. A nation from outside TNP is not bound by the BOR, and cannot claim to be protected under it. Nothing precludes a nation being founded/moved here (legally of course), and joining the Forums, for the purposes of acting as counsel. I think it's a better option than allowing a banned nation to be allowed to skirt that ban. A nation's choice of counsel should not supersede the TNP Constibillicode.

Section 9 deals with contempt of Court. My opinion is that another legal officer should review a contempt finding. An RA vote is an overstep, and can be used to delay the Court. The RA legislates, it doesn't adjudicate. The time limit for a review was an ititial thought, but obviously can be negotiated.

I just noticed Roman's Contempt Bill, but I don't think this will conflict with that. I've kept the language in my Bill general, while his Bill spells out what 'contempt' is, and proposes to criminalize it.

At this time, I motion for this proposal to go to formal debate. You can discuss, shred, and/or ignore this Bill there.

*Edit* added the bit about the AG.

 

[Crushing Our Enemies]

First off, mentioning presiding (or non-presiding) justices and temporary hearing officers in the bill of rights is not appropriate, since those offices are established by subordinate documents.
This seems like very risky phrasing:

A counsel found to be in contempt of Court, a counsel dismissed by the client Nation, or an instance where counsel abandons the proceeding, shall not constitute a violation of a Nations' choice to be represented by counsel.

I think that could be used to unduly deny a nation their choice of counsel, because it categorically states that those circumstances are not a violation of rights. There needs to be a qualifier there, perhaps "shall not, in and of themselves, constitute..."

There may be other flaws. Those were the two that jumped out at me. I haven't decided whether I'm in favor of this in general, but on the offchance that something like this passed, I want to avoid *adding* flaws to the bill of rights, because it is very hard to revert changes.

 

[SillyString]

I don't think it makes sense to restrict counsel to TNPers only, or to require someone to maintain a nation in TNP in order to act as an attorney. There's no reason for it - the attorney is not the one on trial, nor the one needing the protections of the bill of rights. Only the defendant fits that description.

More broadly, I really think the only Constitutional change that makes sense is to place reasonable limits on the extent of choice. A defendant should not be able to delay a trial by demanding a banned nation as their representation, or by having their attorney deliberately disrupt proceedings, or by refusing to declare counsel or represent themselves and firing all court-appointed attorneys, or any other shenanigans that someone might try. But I don't think it's either necessary or good to specify all of that within the document - what we need is some more generic wording that subjects that right (and ideally others) to reasonable, common-sense limits as we set forth in lesser law or procedure.

 

[Romanoffia]

I don't think it makes sense to restrict counsel to TNPers only, or to require someone to maintain a nation in TNP in order to act as an attorney. There's no reason for it - the attorney is not the one on trial, nor the one needing the protections of the bill of rights. Only the defendant fits that description.

More broadly, I really think the only Constitutional change that makes sense is to place reasonable limits on the extent of choice. A defendant should not be able to delay a trial by demanding a banned nation as their representation, or by having their attorney deliberately disrupt proceedings, or by refusing to declare counsel or represent themselves and firing all court-appointed attorneys, or any other shenanigans that someone might try. But I don't think it's either necessary or good to specify all of that within the document - what we need is some more generic wording that subjects that right (and ideally others) to reasonable, common-sense limits as we set forth in lesser law or procedure.

And wasn't that exactly what I was saying in that whole mess called 'TNP v. JAL' and caught unholy hell for it?

 

[Zyvetskistaahn]

The bill is now in formal debate. Formal debate shall conclude in five days, at which time a vote shall be scheduled.

 

[falapatorius]

7. When charged with a crime, Nations of The North Pacific shall have a fair, impartial, and public trial before a neutral and impartial judicial officer. In any Court proceeding, a Nation is presumed innocent until proven guilty by the fact finder, via reasonably certain evidence.

8. A Nation charged with a crime(s) may either defend itself against the charge(s), or be represented by counsel.

9. No Nation convicted of a crime shall be subject to a punishment disproportionate to that crime.

*Any sections hereafter shall be renumbered accordingly.*

I don't think it makes sense to restrict counsel to TNPers only, or to require someone to maintain a nation in TNP in order to act as an attorney. There's no reason for it - the attorney is not the one on trial, nor the one needing the protections of the bill of rights. Only the defendant fits that description.

I was just trying to afford some protection to a counsel from outside TNP, with regard to:

5. All Nations of The North Pacific have the right to be protected against the abuse of powers by any official of a government authority of the region.

If a foreign counsel were to be subject to abuse of powers by a Justice (unheard of, I know), he/she couldn't claim a BOR violation. But meh.. removed.

Anyway, the latest revision is not much different than the original BOR section. I agree any counsel of the Nation's choosing was the biggest problem. I removed that option, while retaining a nations' right to be represented by counsel. I also removed the contempt section, as Romanoffia has proposed a bill addressing that.

 

[Crushing Our Enemies]

This one might go to far. Simply having the right to counsel, without the right to *choose* one's council could result in defendents being assigned shitty counsel on purpose to ensure their conviction, or be represented by someone with a conflict of interest, etc.

The Bill of Rights is a very fragile document - slight changes can have many unintended effects. I think we need to be very careful about how we go about this, and recommend that it be withdrawn from formal debate for the time being.

 

[falapatorius]

This one might go to far. Simply having the right to counsel, without the right to *choose* one's council could result in defendents being assigned shitty counsel on purpose to ensure their conviction, or be represented by someone with a conflict of interest, etc.

Quality of counsel is irrelevant. Nowhere in the BOR is there mention of 'assigned counsel' (or anywhere else that I know of). Assigning counsel would be a BOR violation with the original wording of 'choosing' anyway. Furthermore, being represented by counsel involves making a choice. I disagree with your COI argument. A nation could also purposefully choose counsel with a COI. This revision doesn't prohibit a nation's right to choose a counsel at all.

 

[Crushing Our Enemies]

Your amendment says

8. A Nation charged with a crime(s) may either defend itself against the charge(s), or be represented by counsel.

You have removed the right to *choose* counsel, and have replace it with a right to be represented by counsel. That is what opens the door to assigning counsel. If a judge assigned an attorney to a defendant, that fulfills the right to be represented in your amendment.

This is what I mean about the BoR being a fragile document. Slight changes in wording can have massive effects on the law.

 

[Grosseschnauzer]

I still do not see anything in this topic that requires a change in the Bill of Rights. Anything needing constitutional force should go in the Constitution, and the rest can go in the Legal Code or left to Court Rules.

That's what some of you are trying to say, but aren't being very successful at it. In fact why are we aiming to amend the Bill of Rights first when nothing has been attempted yet through the Court Rules, the Legal Code, or the Constitution, in that order?

 

[Crushing Our Enemies]

I'm not philosophically opposed to changes to the Bill of Rights. A flaw in the BoR cannot be corrected by changes to subordinate documents like the Legal Code, nor is contradicting the BoR in the Constitution a good idea.

I'm not *totally* convinced that this problem requires a change to the Bill of Rights, but I think a careful rewording of clause 7 wouldn't be totally amiss. Perhaps something like:

A Nation may be represented by any counsel of the Nation's choosing, within reason.

 

[Romanoffia]

I still do not see anything in this topic that requires a change in the Bill of Rights. Anything needing constitutional force should go in the Constitution, and the rest can go in the Legal Code or left to Court Rules.

That's what some of you are trying to say, but aren't being very successful at it. In fact why are we aiming to amend the Bill of Rights first when nothing has been attempted yet through the Court Rules, the Legal Code, or the Constitution, in that order?

The problem is that the Court Rules are a shambles in terms of what the Justices are entitled to do and any attempts at changing those rules for the better will be met by either resistance to change or pseudo-change that only muddle things even more. Any attempts to pass constructive laws will also meet resistance and failure. It's tradition.

 

[Grosseschnauzer]

I still do not see anything in this topic that requires a change in the Bill of Rights. Anything needing constitutional force should go in the Constitution, and the rest can go in the Legal Code or left to Court Rules.

That's what some of you are trying to say, but aren't being very successful at it. In fact why are we aiming to amend the Bill of Rights first when nothing has been attempted yet through the Court Rules, the Legal Code, or the Constitution, in that order?

The problem is that the Court Rules are a shambles in terms of what the Justices are entitled to do and any attempts at changing those rules for the better will be met by either resistance to change or pseudo-change that only muddle things even more. Any attempts to pass constructive laws will also meet resistance and failure. It's tradition.

The Court has the power to alter or amend its own rules; it does not need the perission of any other branch or entity of government.

This is why I said what I saod abou the nomination in the special election nomination thread. The problem can be fixed, it just may need stronger hands to do so. And it won't need a constitutional amendment or an amendment to the Bill of Rights.

 

[Crushing Our Enemies]

Grosse, I think the problem may be that a plain text reading of the Bill of Rights requires us to allow *any* counsel of the nation's choosing, and does not permit any document to be altered to allow a nation to be denied their first choice of counsel for any reason or any length of time.

I think some leeway might could be read into the BoR in this matter, but I think the example amendment I posted above would put us on firmer footing to solve the problem through subordinate documents.

 

[Romanoffia]

I still do not see anything in this topic that requires a change in the Bill of Rights. Anything needing constitutional force should go in the Constitution, and the rest can go in the Legal Code or left to Court Rules.

That's what some of you are trying to say, but aren't being very successful at it. In fact why are we aiming to amend the Bill of Rights first when nothing has been attempted yet through the Court Rules, the Legal Code, or the Constitution, in that order?

The problem is that the Court Rules are a shambles in terms of what the Justices are entitled to do and any attempts at changing those rules for the better will be met by either resistance to change or pseudo-change that only muddle things even more. Any attempts to pass constructive laws will also meet resistance and failure. It's tradition.

The Court has the power to alter or amend its own rules; it does not need the perission of any other branch or entity of government.

I tried that and we see what happened. I used the Discretion of the CJ granted in Article 5, Section 3 and elsewhere in the Constitution and Legal Code and got Hell for it.

So, how do you reckon that anything can be changed by the Court when Justices get creamed for using Article 5, Section 3 to do something like maintain order in the Court?

And how will a change in the Court Rules stop Justices from getting crapped on if they don't make politically popular decisions via the threat of Recall?

Again, any change is a fool's errand when it comes to TNP. Anything pretending to be change is nothing more than rearranging the deck chairs on the RMS Titanic.

Court Justices need to be placed in a position where they are immune from political and other pressures to form their decisions independently and impartially instead of subjecting them to coercion to find a defendant guilty or not guilty or face recall.

As it is, anyone who can muster enough votes in the RA to recall anyone can indeed recall anyone for any arbitrary reason, or no reason at all. This is the flaw in our Constitution and Legal Code that will ultimately bring down this government one day.

As it stands now, the whole Constitution and Legal Code is a Byzantine arrangement rapidly approaching and iceberg for all of the very same perennial reasons.

But I'm wasting my breath because all too many people are just to willing to repeat history because they think they can do the same old thing over and over again expecting different results.

 

[Grosseschnauzer]

Discretion of the CJ is not the same thing as amending the Court rules.

COE, nothing of binding effect has been adopted to see if that can fix whatever issues may exist. Jumping first to amending the BoR is a bit extreme to me.

The B O R is a system of limitations and protections in the exercise of constitutional and statutory authority. In the absence of either having been used, it makes it hard to say that the B O R needs to be amended; how would we know if nothing has been adopted and tested?

And as I said before, if the Court rules don't work once some are adopted on the topic, then we look at the Legal Code, and if that doesn't work, then we look at amending the Constitution itself.

We haven't even tried any of those things, so amending the B O R is premature until those things are tried, and if each of those truly fail, then we can talk about amending the B o R. There's a reason why we set the amendment supermajority so high for the B O R, to discourage rash amendment, which is what I think we have here with this proposal.

 

[punk d]

Silly String the wide general terms you wish in terms of limitations I think is mostly filled by what I proposed here

A Nation may be represented by any counsel of the Nation's choosing provided that counsel is not banned from the forums of The North Pacific nor found guilty of contempt of court.

No nations banned by the forums and no nations guilty of contempt. Everybody else can be attorneys. I think this needs to be in the BoR, unlike Grosse, because barring language in the Court Rules (and even if there is such language) I believe there can be reasonable challenges to any attempt to remove a counsel chosen by a defendant from proceedings due to the present language of the BoR.

It depends upon the interpretations of the court, for sure, but I don't believe the issue is black and white. That is why some additional languange, imo, should be added to the BoR.

 

[Flemingovia]

I am philosophically opposed to amendment to the Bill of Rights.

Forgive me, but I honestly do not understand this attitude. On a purely philosophical basis, the Bill of Rights is a human construction, and therefore is as capable of being flawed as any other human construction. Should a flaw be discovered, should it not be corrected? Should an improvement be thought up, should it not be amended?

Honest question. I do not understand a philosophical objection to amending something that WE made up.

Bump.

I am still interested in this philosophical point.

 

[SillyString]

Silly String the wide general terms you wish in terms of limitations I think is mostly filled by what I proposed here

A Nation may be represented by any counsel of the Nation's choosing provided that counsel is not banned from the forums of The North Pacific nor found guilty of contempt of court.

No nations banned by the forums and no nations guilty of contempt. Everybody else can be attorneys. I think this needs to be in the BoR, unlike Grosse, because barring language in the Court Rules (and even if there is such language) I believe there can be reasonable challenges to any attempt to remove a counsel chosen by a defendant from proceedings due to the present language of the BoR.

It depends upon the interpretations of the court, for sure, but I don't believe the issue is black and white. That is why some additional languange, imo, should be added to the BoR.

On the one hand, I think you're correct - but I do think there are issues with specifying these restrictions explicitly. The first is that contempt of court doesn't currently exist, so simply inserting something into the constitution does give a justice almost unrestricted power to simply say "nah, you're in contempt" - this could of course be fixed by lesser legislation, but I'm not really a huge fan of referencing something in greater documents that only exists in lesser ones since they aren't actually bound by those lesser ones' clauses.

Second is that there may be other unforeseen circumstances where the right to select counsel should by rights be restricted. Off the top of my head might be insisting on someone who has refused to serve in that role, or asking the court for an extension while one attempts to contact one's chosen counsel who is currently on hiatus from NS, or other tactics designed to make selection of an attorney problematic. Simply specifying banned/contempt removes flexibility from handling those situations.

I do think that either my suggestion of "within reasonable limits", or COE's suggestion of "within reason" - both potentially followed by something along the lines of "as laid out in law" are the best way to go with this. They establish that flexibility exists, and the basis ("reason") for which that flexibility might be called upon, and delegate to a much-easier-to-amend form the actual work of hashing out the details. It's far easier to tweak something in the legal code if it's not quite working right than to tweak the BoR repeatedly.

 

[punk d]

Silly String the wide general terms you wish in terms of limitations I think is mostly filled by what I proposed here

A Nation may be represented by any counsel of the Nation's choosing provided that counsel is not banned from the forums of The North Pacific nor found guilty of contempt of court.

No nations banned by the forums and no nations guilty of contempt. Everybody else can be attorneys. I think this needs to be in the BoR, unlike Grosse, because barring language in the Court Rules (and even if there is such language) I believe there can be reasonable challenges to any attempt to remove a counsel chosen by a defendant from proceedings due to the present language of the BoR.

It depends upon the interpretations of the court, for sure, but I don't believe the issue is black and white. That is why some additional languange, imo, should be added to the BoR.

On the one hand, I think you're correct - but I do think there are issues with specifying these restrictions explicitly. The first is that contempt of court doesn't currently exist, so simply inserting something into the constitution does give a justice almost unrestricted power to simply say "nah, you're in contempt" - this could of course be fixed by lesser legislation, but I'm not really a huge fan of referencing something in greater documents that only exists in lesser ones since they aren't actually bound by those lesser ones' clauses.

Second is that there may be other unforeseen circumstances where the right to select counsel should by rights be restricted. Off the top of my head might be insisting on someone who has refused to serve in that role, or asking the court for an extension while one attempts to contact one's chosen counsel who is currently on hiatus from NS, or other tactics designed to make selection of an attorney problematic. Simply specifying banned/contempt removes flexibility from handling those situations.

I do think that either my suggestion of "within reasonable limits", or COE's suggestion of "within reason" - both potentially followed by something along the lines of "as laid out in law" are the best way to go with this. They establish that flexibility exists, and the basis ("reason") for which that flexibility might be called upon, and delegate to a much-easier-to-amend form the actual work of hashing out the details. It's far easier to tweak something in the legal code if it's not quite working right than to tweak the BoR repeatedly.

I'll agree that the points you made regarding the potential pitfalls of the language change I've introduced are definitely plausible.

But for me "reasonable" is simply too vague and within the BoR, I'd rather be very specific about what is restricted or not have restrictions contained with a rights document. It's very difficult to amend the BoR.

Reasonable is such a subjective word and my lesser law tried to define "reasonable" as the RA affirming or rejecting the contempt by the presiding justice. So, I think we're trying to get to the same point but taking different routes.

Let's back track and my question is more to see if you see the problem some of us see. Given the wording of the BoR as is today do you feel that a defendant could do as you raise as a concern, namely assigning an attorney who has left the game, and put a monkey wrench in the judicial proceedings given the language of the BoR?

If you do agree with that then I would be willing to compromise to add some cognate of "to reason" into the BoR language provided that whatever definition was defined by law. I'd be fine if that was in either the Constitution or Legal Code. I don't think anything will be a perfect solution but the wording of today's BoR scares me a little.