Contempt of Court Bill Proposal

It'd be like introducing a vegetable patch into the Hanging Gardens of Babylon.
 
I'm under the impression that this proposal is coming from a rather recently resigned court justice. I can only assume that he understands the rules associated with the court and understands the workings of the court and how it proceeded up until very recently. Following that logic I can also only assume that he is perhaps one of the best-suited people to deem whether or not the court needs reforms and assuming as much, I'm inclined to listen.
 
As opposed to the current Chief Justice of the court, who is saying 'hold on, let us come up with our new rules first'?
 
Romanoffia:
Silly String is also absolutely incorrect that enforcing order in the Court via a Contempt Law would cause the need for a new trial.
Click to expand...
One of us has a demonstrably better grasp of the laws than the other.

The Bill of Rights is very clear - nations charged with criminal acts are guaranteed a trial, wherein they are presumed innocent and have the right to counsel. The criminal code lays out the list of criminal acts which nations can be charged with. No crime in the criminal code may be punished before the accused has received a full, fair trial and a guilty verdict has been rendered, and it would be unconstitutional for any addition to the legal code to attempt to wrench away that right.

If contempt is to be handled without a trial, its inclusion in governing documents must be elsewhere. Otherwise, it is a crime like any other and must follow the same rules.

Yrkidding:
I can only assume that he understands the rules associated with the court and understands the workings of the court and how it proceeded up until very recently.
Click to expand...
You may want to check that assumption at the door and read up on the circumstances that led to his resignation. As the current Chief Justice, I can assure you he does not.

I would also invite everyone to read the newly adopted court rules. ;)
 
Aaaand if everyone will take a look at the new court rules you'll see why I was so strongly against this and willing to delay it as long as possible. We have a fix to the problem without any legislative action being needed.
 
Yrkidding:
I'm under the impression that this proposal is coming from a rather recently resigned court justice. I can only assume that he understands the rules associated with the court and understands the workings of the court and how it proceeded up until very recently. Following that logic I can also only assume that he is perhaps one of the best-suited people to deem whether or not the court needs reforms and assuming as much, I'm inclined to listen.
Click to expand...
Essentially, the Court has come around to my exact way of thinking on this matter given the new rule changes that I have suggested via this proposed legislation. Albeit, they don't use the term "Contempt" but rather "Decorum". Either way, the current Court Rules changes do exactly what this bill proposes to do.

But as usual, my exact ideas are reworded so that someone else can claim credit for it all. But I diverge.

As to Silly Strings comments, in fact, I am the most qualified person that has ever sat upon the Court in TNP given my RL experience as a Magistrate Judge who deals on a regular basis with procedure, various points of Law and Legal Logic and Reasoning, but apparently actual experience is generally suppressed in this region as irrelevant. Again I diverge.

The one thing I would have made different in the Court Rules which have been enacted today would be to 'strike' statements that are in violation of the Principle of Contempt in a manner that removes them from consideration of the Court and require the sitting Justice to explain the striking in this type of manner:

If someone said the following:

"I think this court is biased, the justice is a biased jackass, and he is an Electric Automatic Doggy Bottom Biter!"
Click to expand...

It would become:

"I think this court is biased, the justice is a biased jackass, and he is an Electric Automatic Doggy Bottom Biter!"

This statement has been stricken from the record as irrelevant, an act of Contempt of Court, and a violation of Decorum.
Click to expand...

But I suppose splitting a thread is a great way to strike something from the record altogether because it leaves no indication that anything was struck at all.

But other than that, since the new Court Rules satisfy my concerns about 80% on the issue of Contempt no matter what term it is called by, I will put this bill on the back burner and withdraw it. I want to see if the new Court Rules can handle this without any legal or constitutional challenges.

In light of the recent Court Rules Changes, I withdraw this bill in deference to the Court making a practical attempt to deal with the matter of Contemp.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top