[Private] Court Rules Amendment

[SillyString]

Here you go, Ator (and presumably Kiwi in a few days ). I've made some changes since you read them last - 1.1.4 and 1.1.5, 2.4, and the entirety of chapters 3 and 4.

The reasoning behind 2.4 is non-obvious, so I'll explain it proactively - I think it would be beneficial to restrict the back-and-forth argumentation that goes on in some review threads, and basically require all submitted briefs to stand on their own merits as whole arguments. Having them sent in private and posted publicly after the period for submission is over would ensure that all submissions address the content of the request itself, and not another person's post.

If you have questions on anything else, ask away!

Adopted Court Rules​

These rules are established by the Court and are binding on all matters brought before it. Amendments to this document may be passed by a majority vote of the Justices.

Chapter 1: Criminal Trials

Section 1: Indictments

1. All criminal charges brought before the Court must be presented in the form of an indictment.
2. All indictments must be publicly accepted or rejected, and the Court will endeavor to do so within 72 hours of filing.
3. An indictment may be rejected for procedural or substantive reasons, and the reasons for rejecting an indictment will be publicly disclosed in full.
4. A rejected indictment may only be resubmitted if significant changes have been made to address the reasons it was rejected.
5. When an indictment is accepted, the Chief Justice will promptly appoint a Moderating Justice and a Standby Hearing Officer.
6. The Standby Hearing Officer will be available to serve as a Hearing Officer should any matter requiring the recusal of the Moderating Justice arise during the trial.
7. The Moderating Justice will promptly inform the Defendant of the charges against them.
8. In the case of indictments seeking to impose penalties on a Defendant prior to the conclusion of a trial, including their removal from the region or expulsion from the Regional Assembly, the procedures established by the Legal Code must be followed as stated and will override any conflicting adopted rules and procedures of the Court.

Section 2: Criminal Trial Procedure

1. The Moderating Justice will open a trial thread promptly once an indictment has been accepted.
2. When a trial thread is opened, the Moderating Justice will notify the Defendant via a Private Message to their forum account and a Telegram to their nation. Alternate methods of notification may also be used so long as the Moderating Justice has a reasonable expectation that these methods will be more effective than the above options.
3. The Moderating Justice will work with both the Defense and the Prosecution to establish a reasonable timetable for the trial. Trials shall proceed linearly through the following stages:
   • Plea Submission: The Defendant will be given a period of time to enter a plea and to choose any desired legal representation. If no plea has been submitted by the end of this period, a plea of Not Guilty will be entered into the record on the Defendant's behalf. If the Defendant has not declared either their intent to represent themselves or the identity of their chosen counsel by the end of this period, an attorney will be appointed for them by the court.
   • Evidence Submission: Following the end of Plea Submission, both the Defense and the Prosecution will be given a period of time to present gathered evidence in full, object to evidence submitted by opposing counsel, and present motions to the Moderating Justice.
   • Argumentation: When all outstanding motions and objections have been settled, the Prosecution and Defense will be given a period of time to make arguments on the evidence and the law, as well as to respond to the arguments made by opposing counsel.
   • Deliberation: After argumentation has concluded and any outstanding motions and requests have been resolved, the Court will deliberate amongst itself in order to reach a verdict. The Court will endeavor to keep this period below a maximum of five days.
   • Sentencing: When the Court renders a verdict of Guilty, the Prosecution and the Defense will be given a period of time to make sentencing recommendations before the Court makes an ultimate determination. Once a sentence has been issued, the Moderating Justice must personally notify the defendant as well as any government or administration officials who must act to carry out the sentence.
4. The defendant may, at any time, replace their legal counsel or choose to represent themselves.
5. As necessary, and in the interests of justice, the Moderating Justice may alter the established timetable to ensure a fair trial.
6. The Moderating Justice may, at any time, ask questions of the prosecution or the defense in order to get clarification on relevant issues.

Section 3: Evidence

1. The Court accepts both documentary evidence and witness testimony as valid submissions.
2. Objections to evidence by either the Prosecution or the Defense must clearly explain why, in accordance with the Court Rules and general legal principles, the evidence in question should not be admitted into the Court Record.
3. Relevant evidence may be admitted or excluded at the discretion of the Moderating Justice after hearing from both sides.
4. Documentary evidence, which includes forum posts or threads, IRC logs, screenshots and other evidence of a similar nature, must be authenticated through witness testimony unless an exception is granted by the Moderating Justice.
5. Witness testimony must be gathered in the form of a deposition or a statement.
6. All witnesses giving testimony must first swear an oath as follows:"I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth."
7. Witness depositions may be taken over instant messenger or in a forum thread separate from the trial thread. A deposition may only be conducted in a forum thread if a deposition over instant messenger is not feasible.
8. When conducting a deposition over instant messenger, the procedure shall be as follows:
   • Counsel for each party must be present, along with the witness being questioned.
   • 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.
   • At the completion of a deposition, each Party must submit a copy of the complete log to the Moderating Justice in private for review. The Justice will review all objections, and publish an official record version of the deposition in the trial thread, with appropriate edits in accordance with any sustained objections.
9. When conducting a deposition in a forum thread, the procedure shall be as follows:
   • The questioner shall ask all their questions in a single post.
   • The opposing counsel will post in the trial thread objecting to any questions they wish, or indicating that they do not object to any of the questions.
   • If any objections are made, the questioning party will post to defend against any objections they wish. They may also withdraw questions that have been objected to.
   • The Moderating Justice will review any objections and post to sustain or overrule each objection. If an objection is sustained, the question will not be answered.
   • The witness being deposed will post to answer the remaining questions.
10. Witness statements must be sent directly to the Moderating Justice by the witness before the scheduled end of discovery. The Moderating Justice will post the statement in the trial thread.
11. If the opposing party wishes to cross-examine a witness providing a statement, a deposition must be scheduled.
12. Depositions which deviate from the above procedures may be admitted at the discretion of the Moderating Justice.

Chapter 2: Requests for Review

1. Anyone may submit a request to the Court for a review of government policy or law.
2. Any Justice may accept or deny a request for review, at their discretion. The Justice who accepts a request for review will become its Moderating Justice.
3. During the five days after a request for review has been accepted, anyone may offer information that is relevant to the case and/or advise the Court on how to rule in the form of a brief.
4. Briefs must be submitted in private to the Moderating Justice, who is responsible for posting all received briefs in the public thread after the period for submitting briefs has ended.
5. The period for submitting briefs may be altered at the discretion of the Moderating Justice.
6. The Court will endeavor to deliver an opinion answering the request for review within seven days after the end of the period for submitting briefs.

Chapter 3: Decorum

Section 1: Judicial Conduct

1. Justices are discouraged from posting in the Public Gallery except when making official announcements unrelated to any trial or review.
2. A Moderating Justice is strictly prohibited from posting in any thread in the Public Gallery relating to the issue they are moderating, barring truly exceptional circumstances.
3. Justices must endeavor to recuse themselves from matters where they have a conflict of interest.
4. Justices are required to recuse themselves from any matter within a trial where their individual decision is appealed to the full court, as well as any matter where the majority of the Court orders them to.

Section 2: General Conduct

1. All indictments, requests for review, briefs, Court decisions, and other official filings must be presented using an established template, if one exists.
2. All parties in any matter before the court must conduct themselves in an appropriate, legal, and civil manner.
3. Posts which fail to meet the above requirements may be split at the discretion of the Moderating Justice, and will not be considered in the Court's deliberations.
4. An individual may, by the unanimous decision of the Court and based on excessive or repeated poor behavior, be declared to be in contempt in a particular issue before the Court.
5. Motions made by individuals declared to be in contempt may be summarily denied, and the timeline of relevant matters need not be altered in order to accommodate any disciplinary actions handed down by forum administration.
6. Any finding of contempt will be immediately rescinded should the Regional Assembly object to that finding by majority vote.

Chapter 4: Precedent and Appeals

Section 1: Precedent

1. All official Court decisions are legally binding on the Court as a whole as well as each individual Justice.
2. Prior decisions made by the Court, regardless of its composition at the time, must continue to be obeyed by the Court and by each individual Justice until and unless their validity is formally overturned in a new request for review.
3. The Court is a reactive body. Without any such request, the Court may not proactively overturn previous rulings.
4. No Justice may act contrary to the opinions and decisions of the Court as a whole.

Section 2: Appeals

1. The petitioner in a rejected request for review, as well as any of the participating parties in a criminal trial, may appeal a decision made by an individual Justice to the Court as a whole for consideration.
2. The petitioner in an accepted request for review, as well as any of the participating parties in a criminal trial, may file a request asking the Court to order the recusal of any Justice from hearing or ruling on a particular case.
3. During the proceedings of a matter before the Court, substantive appeals and requests which relate to that matter must be addressed before the proceedings can continue.

 

[Ator People]

Adopted Court Rules​

These rules are established by the Court and are binding on all matters brought before it. Amendments to this document may be passed by a majority vote of the Justices.

Chapter 1: Criminal Trials

Section 1: Indictments

1. All criminal charges brought before the Court must be presented in the form of an indictment.
2. All indictments must be publicly accepted or rejected, and the Court will endeavor to do so within 72 hours of filing.
3. An indictment may be rejected for procedural or substantive reasons, and the reasons for rejecting an indictment will be publicly disclosed in full.
4. A rejected indictment may only be resubmitted if significant changes have been made to address the reasons it was rejected.
5. When an indictment is accepted, the Chief Justice will promptly appoint a Moderating Justice and a Standby Hearing Officer.
6. The Standby Hearing Officer will be available to serve as a Hearing Officer should any matter requiring the recusal of the Moderating Justice arise during the trial.
7. The Moderating Justice will promptly inform the Defendant of the charges against them.
8. In the case of indictments seeking to impose penalties on a Defendant prior to the conclusion of a trial, including their removal from the region or expulsion from the Regional Assembly, the procedures established by the Legal Code must be followed as stated and will override any conflicting adopted rules and procedures of the Court.
   Why the change to the above clause? In fact, why do we need this clause at all?

Section 2: Criminal Trial Procedure

1. The Moderating Justice will open a trial thread promptly once an indictment has been accepted.
2. When a trial thread is opened, the Moderating Justice will notify the Defendant via a Private Message to their forum account and a Telegram to their nation. Alternate methods of notification may also be used so long as the Moderating Justice has a reasonable expectation that these methods will be more effective than the above options.
3. The Moderating Justice will work with both the Defense and the Prosecution to establish a reasonable timetable for the trial. Trials shall proceed linearly through the following stages:
   • Plea Submission: The Defendant will be given a period of time to enter a plea and to choose any desired legal representation. If no plea has been submitted by the end of this period, a plea of Not Guilty will be entered into the record on the Defendant's behalf. If the Defendant has not declared either their intent to represent themselves or the identity of their chosen counsel by the end of this period, an attorney will be appointed for them by the court.
   • Evidence Submission: Following the end of Plea Submission, both the Defense and the Prosecution will be given a period of time to present gathered evidence in full, object to evidence submitted by opposing counsel, and present motions to the Moderating Justice.
   • Argumentation: When all outstanding motions and objections have been settled, the Prosecution and Defense will be given a period of time to make arguments on the evidence and the law, as well as to respond to the arguments made by opposing counsel.
   • Deliberation: After argumentation has concluded and any outstanding motions and requests have been resolved, the Court will deliberate amongst itself in order to reach a verdict. The Court will endeavor to keep this period below a maximum of five days.
   • Sentencing: When the Court renders a verdict of Guilty, the Prosecution and the Defense will be given a period of time to make sentencing recommendations before the Court makes an ultimate determination. Once a sentence has been issued, the Moderating Justice must personally notify the defendant as well as any government or administration officials who must act to carry out the sentence.
4. The defendant may, at any time, replace their legal counsel or choose to represent themselves.
5. As necessary, and in the interests of justice, the Moderating Justice may alter the established timetable to ensure a fair trial.
6. The Moderating Justice may, at any time, ask questions of the prosecution or the defense in order to get clarification on relevant issues.

Section 3: Evidence

1. The Court accepts both documentary evidence and witness testimony as valid submissions.
2. Objections to evidence by either the Prosecution or the Defense must clearly explain why, in accordance with the Court Rules and general legal principles, the evidence in question should not be admitted into the Court Record.
3. Relevant evidence may be admitted or excluded at the discretion of the Moderating Justice after hearing from both sides.
4. Documentary evidence, which includes forum posts or threads, IRC logs, screenshots and other evidence of a similar nature, must be authenticated through witness testimony unless an exception is granted by the Moderating Justice.
5. Witness testimony must be gathered in the form of a deposition or a statement.
6. All witnesses giving testimony must first swear an oath as follows:"I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth."
7. Witness depositions may be taken over instant messenger or in a forum thread separate from the trial thread. A deposition may only be conducted in a forum thread if a deposition over instant messenger is not feasible.
8. When conducting a deposition over instant messenger, the procedure shall be as follows:
   • Counsel for each party must be present, along with the witness being questioned.
   • 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.
   • At the completion of a deposition, each Party must submit a copy of the complete log to the Moderating Justice in private for review. The Justice will review all objections, and publish an official record version of the deposition in the trial thread, with appropriate edits in accordance with any sustained objections.
9. When conducting a deposition in a forum thread, the procedure shall be as follows:
   • The questioner shall ask all their questions in a single post.
   • The opposing counsel will post in the trial thread objecting to any questions they wish, or indicating that they do not object to any of the questions.
   • If any objections are made, the questioning party will post to defend against any objections they wish. They may also withdraw questions that have been objected to.
   • The Moderating Justice will review any objections and post to sustain or overrule each objection. If an objection is sustained, the question will not be answered.
   • The witness being deposed will post to answer the remaining questions.
   I'm not convinced we need to define the exact procedure for depositions. Has this been a problem in the past with the current rules?
10. Witness statements must be sent directly to the Moderating Justice by the witness before the scheduled end of discovery. The Moderating Justice will post the statement in the trial thread.
11. If the opposing party wishes to cross-examine a witness providing a statement, a deposition must be scheduled.
12. Depositions which deviate from the above procedures may be admitted at the discretion of the Moderating Justice.

If we aren't so specific with the deposition procedure we don't need the above clause.
Chapter 2: Requests for Review

1. Anyone may submit a request to the Court for a review of government policy or law.
2. Any Justice may accept or deny a request for review, at their discretion. The Justice who accepts a request for review will become its Moderating Justice.
3. During the five days after a request for review has been accepted, anyone may offer information that is relevant to the case and/or advise the Court on how to rule in the form of a brief.
4. Briefs must be submitted in private to the Moderating Justice, who is responsible for posting all received briefs in the public thread after the period for submitting briefs has ended.
   I understand your reasoning here but I'm concerned that it will be perceived as less than transparent. I'd prefer just having it all in the forum thread. I know it's not ideal, but it maintains a sense of transparency throughout the review.
5. The period for submitting briefs may be altered at the discretion of the Moderating Justice.
6. The Court will endeavor to deliver an opinion answering the request for review within seven days after the end of the period for submitting briefs.

Chapter 3: Decorum

Section 1: Judicial Conduct

1. Justices are discouraged from posting in the Public Gallery except when making official announcements unrelated to any trial or review.
2. A Moderating Justice is strictly prohibited from posting in any thread in the Public Gallery relating to the issue they are moderating, barring truly exceptional circumstances.
3. Justices must endeavor to recuse themselves from matters where they have a conflict of interest.
4. Justices are required to recuse themselves from any matter within a trial where their individual decision is appealed to the full court, as well as any matter where the majority of the Court orders them to.
   I actually think the opposite would be preferable here (justices recuse themselves from an appeal). Otherwise we're going to end up with two justices having to make a decision between the two of them. I don't see why the original justice doesn't have a vote in an appeal. I agree fromt he second half, though (justices must recuse themselves if the full court orders them to).
   

Section 2: General Conduct

1. All indictments, requests for review, briefs, Court decisions, and other official filings must be presented using an established template, if one exists.
2. All parties in any matter before the court must conduct themselves in an appropriate, legal, and civil manner.
3. Posts which fail to meet the above requirements may be split at the discretion of the Moderating Justice, and will not be considered in the Court's deliberations.
4. An individual may, by the unanimous decision of the Court and based on excessive or repeated poor behavior, be declared to be in contempt in a particular issue before the Court.
5. Motions made by individuals declared to be in contempt may be summarily denied, and the timeline of relevant matters need not be altered in order to accommodate any disciplinary actions handed down by forum administration.
6. Any finding of contempt will be immediately rescinded should the Regional Assembly object to that finding by majority vote.
   I'm not convinced this above clause (RA striking down contempt) is necessary. I think recourse to the full court would be sufficient and preferable.

Chapter 4: Precedent and Appeals

Section 1: Precedent

1. All official Court decisions are legally binding on the Court as a whole as well as each individual Justice.
2. Prior decisions made by the Court, regardless of its composition at the time, must continue to be obeyed by the Court and by each individual Justice until and unless their validity is formally overturned in a new request for review.
   Not sure this is belongs as a Court rule. Shouldn't this be covered by the legal code, or by an implicit common law?
3. The Court is a reactive body. Without any such request, the Court may not proactively overturn previous rulings.
   Again, why is this necessary?
4. No Justice may act contrary to the opinions and decisions of the Court as a whole.
   I like this but it doesn't belong under the Precedent section

Section 2: Appeals

1. The petitioner in a rejected request for review, as well as any of the participating parties in a criminal trial, may appeal a decision made by an individual Justice to the Court as a whole for consideration.
2. The petitioner in an accepted request for review, as well as any of the participating parties in a criminal trial, may file a request asking the Court to order the recusal of any Justice from hearing or ruling on a particular case.
   Why is this clause under the section Appeals?
3. During the proceedings of a matter before the Court, substantive appeals and requests which relate to that matter must be addressed before the proceedings can continue.I'd rather leave this out and give the Court the option to decline to address an appeal/request before the case, substantive or not.

 

[SillyString]

In the case of indictments seeking to impose penalties on a Defendant prior to the conclusion of a trial, including their removal from the region or expulsion from the Regional Assembly, the procedures established by the Legal Code must be followed as stated and will override any conflicting adopted rules and procedures of the Court.

Why the change to the above clause? In fact, why do we need this clause at all?

I think this clause is necessary because of Chapter 3, Section 3.3 of the legal code. It unfortunately provides a very strict procedure to be followed when someone's removal from the region is sought prior to a verdict, and I think it's important for the ACR to acknowledge that its requirements exist (lest they be forgotten by accident and the law broken).

The change in wording is for clarity and maximum flexibility when that is possible within the law. The current wording of the clause is rather clunky.

I'm not convinced we need to define the exact procedure for depositions. Has this been a problem in the past with the current rules?

I'm not sure if it's been a problem, per se, but I think laying out the procedure explicitly is beneficial in two ways. One, it standardizes the process which will make evidence easier to sort through, and two, it provides guidance to inexperienced AGs and defense attorneys as to the central elements of valid depositions. If neither of them has done it before, they might otherwise feel unsure about the best way to proceed, and this would give them a solid footing.

Depositions which deviate from the above procedures may be admitted at the discretion of the Moderating Justice.

If we aren't so specific with the deposition procedure we don't need the above clause.
Possibly. It's in there to guard against, say, one side refusing to state whether or not they have an objection and forcing the deposition to grind to a halt, and I think you're probably right that if we're less specific with the procedure we don't need it. But I still think being specific is a good thing here.

Briefs must be submitted in private to the Moderating Justice, who is responsible for posting all received briefs in the public thread after the period for submitting briefs has ended.

I understand your reasoning here but I'm concerned that it will be perceived as less than transparent. I'd prefer just having it all in the forum thread. I know it's not ideal, but it maintains a sense of transparency throughout the review.

In what ways do you see it as failing in transparency? The Moderating Justice has to post all briefs they receive, and anybody who submitted one that does not appear could file a complaint with the wider court. I think it could do a lot to cut down on some of the back-and-forth and bickering that goes on at the moment.

Justices are required to recuse themselves from any matter within a trial where their individual decision is appealed to the full court, as well as any matter where the majority of the Court orders them to.

I actually think the opposite would be preferable here (justices recuse themselves from an appeal). Otherwise we're going to end up with two justices having to make a decision between the two of them. I don't see why the original justice doesn't have a vote in an appeal. I agree fromt he second half, though (justices must recuse themselves if the full court orders them to).

I think it's a blatant conflict of interest for a justice to have a vote in an appeal of a decision they originally made - the appeal is inherently contesting the correctness of that Justice's actions. There may be some people who are able to put pride aside and examine such an appeal with an unbiased eye, but I don't think that particular trait should be counted upon. It is far more likely for a Justice so questioned to become defensive and refuse to even consider altering course - if you look at the recent trial, there's not an argument in the universe that would have persuaded Romanoffia he made a wrong call (if he did in fact do so).

We won't have two justices, though - the Legal Code mandates the appointment of a Hearing Officer for any matter where there are not three sitting Justices, and that is the purpose of the Standing Hearing Officer named in 1.1.4. They will be available to serve as a Hearing Officer throughout the trial and provide a full three-person bench if any matter arises that requires the recusal of the MJ.

Any finding of contempt will be immediately rescinded should the Regional Assembly object to that finding by majority vote.

I'm not convinced this above clause (RA striking down contempt) is necessary. I think recourse to the full court would be sufficient and preferable.

Well, as written, contempt is only found by the full court and not by any individual justice. I think that's the right approach to take since it puts some restraints on a moderating justice who may overreact to something.

RA override is an unlikely scenario, but still a useful one to have, I think. This whole contempt section is testing the waters a bit, and I think it's a good idea to explicitly give the RA the power to overturn us on this while we test it out (and to hopefully avoid accusations of extralegal powergrabbing or somesuch).

Prior decisions made by the Court, regardless of its composition at the time, must continue to be obeyed by the Court and by each individual Justice until and unless their validity is formally overturned in a new request for review.

Not sure this is belongs as a Court rule. Shouldn't this be covered by the legal code, or by an implicit common law?

I think it would be fully appropriate to have in the Legal Code, but that is sadly not a document we have the unilateral authority to amend. I would also have expected it to be generally understood to be true, but the problem with implicit - that is, unwritten - common law is that not everybody understands the same unwriting. Roman genuinely believed that he as Chief Justice could, by virtue of the discretion clause in the Constitution, unilaterally overturn prior rulings or the court rules themselves. Until something like this makes it into the legal code, I think it's a very good idea to lay it out ourselves.

The Court is a reactive body. Without any such request, the Court may not proactively overturn previous rulings.

Again, why is this necessary?

Similar reason. I think given the context of all of this (online game), there's the potential that a future Court might randomly decide it doesn't want to follow a ruling. For example, it might decide that it doesn't like the ruling on standing/affected party and say something like, "We accept this request for review on the legality of eating cheese, oh and by the way, we've decided to reject the ruling on affected party for fun." I think this clause is a useful reminder that the Court rules on matters that other people bring before it - it does not take things onto its plate.

No Justice may act contrary to the opinions and decisions of the Court as a whole.

I like this but it doesn't belong under the Precedent section

The petitioner in an accepted request for review, as well as any of the participating parties in a criminal trial, may file a request asking the Court to order the recusal of any Justice from hearing or ruling on a particular case.

Why is this clause under the section Appeals?

Mostly these are here because I was struggling with how to classify these parts. I didn't like "Miscellaneous" as a title, but I couldn't see where either of those two might fit in better. If you've got better names than "Precedent" and "Appeals" (best I could do was "The Binding Nature of Law and the Relative Authority of Justices with Respect to the Court" and "Bringing a Matter Before the Full Court" which are not very good at all), I'd love to hear them.

During the proceedings of a matter before the Court, substantive appeals and requests which relate to that matter must be addressed before the proceedings can continue.

I'd rather leave this out and give the Court the option to decline to address an appeal/request before the case, substantive or not.

As we've discussed before, I think that is a terrible idea - it will lead to no verdict ever being legal.

If someone files a request for review on a matter relating to a trial, a matter which substantively affects how a trial proceeds, there are three possibilities:

a) The request is rejected straight up, and the trial proceeds;
b) The request is accepted straight up, and answered, and the trial then proceeds once the answer has been given;
c) The request is accepted and delayed, the trial proceeds and concludes, and then the request is addressed, at which point an appeal is lodged against the verdict that was delivered because the [request affected the proceedings of the case and it would have proceeded differently if it had been answered in time.

The first two are both valid (and allowed for within the wording of "addressed"); the third one is not. If the answer to a request will have a material impact on the trial itself, or can be reasonably expected to have a material impact on the verdict itself, that request must be addressed before the trial continues. We are not a RL court, to have layers and layers of appellate divisions and infinite time to hear the same case over and over again. We are an online court in an online game - reviews on the proceedings of a trial need to be conducted during the trial itself.

I can come up with any number of scenarios that illustrate this point. Say the moderating justice admits some evidence despite the defense's objections, and the defense appeals to the full court with evidence that the admitted evidence was fabricated. Failing to hear that appeal at once and rule on it means that if the court delivers a guilty verdict, and then rules that the evidence against the defendant was, in fact, fabricated, that verdict must be overturned. In contrast, if the appeal is dealt with properly and the evidence excluded, it may be the case that there is still sufficient valid evidence against the defendant for a guilty verdict that will stand up to challenge.

Or, say the prosecution appeals to the full court for the recusal of the moderating justice based on discovering that the MJ is the defendant's RL friend. This is a reasonable case for bias, and declining to hear the appeal until after the conclusion of the trial means that, again, the trial must be thrown out as it violates the BOR (which requires an impartial justice to hear a case).

It would be hugely detrimental to what little functioning we have as a court to take the approach that these scenarios are okay. And as I pointed out to you, there are several previous cases (and even one current one!) where the principle of "pause a, decide b, continue a" has been followed. While precedent should sometimes be ignored, to do so in this case would cause egregious harm to the general good.

 

[Kiwi]

SS and I discussed this on IRC but I'll have a read over it again in due course and see if I can think of anything else.

 

[Ator People]

In the case of indictments seeking to impose penalties on a Defendant prior to the conclusion of a trial, including their removal from the region or expulsion from the Regional Assembly, the procedures established by the Legal Code must be followed as stated and will override any conflicting adopted rules and procedures of the Court.

Why the change to the above clause? In fact, why do we need this clause at all?

I think this clause is necessary because of Chapter 3, Section 3.3 of the legal code. It unfortunately provides a very strict procedure to be followed when someone's removal from the region is sought prior to a verdict, and I think it's important for the ACR to acknowledge that its requirements exist (lest they be forgotten by accident and the law broken).

The change in wording is for clarity and maximum flexibility when that is possible within the law. The current wording of the clause is rather clunky.

Alright, I'm fine with the new language. I just prefer not to change things unnecessarily.

I'm not convinced we need to define the exact procedure for depositions. Has this been a problem in the past with the current rules?

I'm not sure if it's been a problem, per se, but I think laying out the procedure explicitly is beneficial in two ways. One, it standardizes the process which will make evidence easier to sort through, and two, it provides guidance to inexperienced AGs and defense attorneys as to the central elements of valid depositions. If neither of them has done it before, they might otherwise feel unsure about the best way to proceed, and this would give them a solid footing.

I'd rather leave this out then. If there's a problem, let's respond to it, but in general our attorneys are smart enough to be able to handle this themselves and I'd rather not over-legislate this.

Depositions which deviate from the above procedures may be admitted at the discretion of the Moderating Justice.

If we aren't so specific with the deposition procedure we don't need the above clause.
Possibly. It's in there to guard against, say, one side refusing to state whether or not they have an objection and forcing the deposition to grind to a halt, and I think you're probably right that if we're less specific with the procedure we don't need it. But I still think being specific is a good thing here.

See above.

Briefs must be submitted in private to the Moderating Justice, who is responsible for posting all received briefs in the public thread after the period for submitting briefs has ended.

I understand your reasoning here but I'm concerned that it will be perceived as less than transparent. I'd prefer just having it all in the forum thread. I know it's not ideal, but it maintains a sense of transparency throughout the review.

In what ways do you see it as failing in transparency? The Moderating Justice has to post all briefs they receive, and anybody who submitted one that does not appear could file a complaint with the wider court. I think it could do a lot to cut down on some of the back-and-forth and bickering that goes on at the moment.

I don't know that it necessarily lacks in transparency, but it most certainly will be perceived as such. Reviews have always been public on the forum and I don't see any reason to change that. Sure there's some back and forth but a competent justice should be able to keep that to a minimum.

Justices are required to recuse themselves from any matter within a trial where their individual decision is appealed to the full court, as well as any matter where the majority of the Court orders them to.

I actually think the opposite would be preferable here (justices recuse themselves from an appeal). Otherwise we're going to end up with two justices having to make a decision between the two of them. I don't see why the original justice doesn't have a vote in an appeal. I agree fromt he second half, though (justices must recuse themselves if the full court orders them to).

I think it's a blatant conflict of interest for a justice to have a vote in an appeal of a decision they originally made - the appeal is inherently contesting the correctness of that Justice's actions. There may be some people who are able to put pride aside and examine such an appeal with an unbiased eye, but I don't think that particular trait should be counted upon. It is far more likely for a Justice so questioned to become defensive and refuse to even consider altering course - if you look at the recent trial, there's not an argument in the universe that would have persuaded Romanoffia he made a wrong call (if he did in fact do so).

We won't have two justices, though - the Legal Code mandates the appointment of a Hearing Officer for any matter where there are not three sitting Justices, and that is the purpose of the Standing Hearing Officer named in 1.1.4. They will be available to serve as a Hearing Officer throughout the trial and provide a full three-person bench if any matter arises that requires the recusal of the MJ.

Appeals are the opinion of the Court, not some other level of the judiciary. The way I see it, the Court rules as a whole (or at least a majority) with its decisions. Appeals to the full court make sense only to 'confirm' that a particular ruling is the opinion of the majority. It's not a second round to try your luck with another set of justices. Sure, the original justice might not change his/her mind. Fine, but we have two others. And the majority of the Court, as always, will make their decision.

Any finding of contempt will be immediately rescinded should the Regional Assembly object to that finding by majority vote.

I'm not convinced this above clause (RA striking down contempt) is necessary. I think recourse to the full court would be sufficient and preferable.

Well, as written, contempt is only found by the full court and not by any individual justice. I think that's the right approach to take since it puts some restraints on a moderating justice who may overreact to something.

RA override is an unlikely scenario, but still a useful one to have, I think. This whole contempt section is testing the waters a bit, and I think it's a good idea to explicitly give the RA the power to overturn us on this while we test it out (and to hopefully avoid accusations of extralegal powergrabbing or somesuch).

Still not convinced here. If the RA wants oversight for contempt they can pass a law (as I've said I wanted to see in the past). But it's not the judiciary's place to grant them some sort of override power.

Prior decisions made by the Court, regardless of its composition at the time, must continue to be obeyed by the Court and by each individual Justice until and unless their validity is formally overturned in a new request for review.

Not sure this is belongs as a Court rule. Shouldn't this be covered by the legal code, or by an implicit common law?

I think it would be fully appropriate to have in the Legal Code, but that is sadly not a document we have the unilateral authority to amend. I would also have expected it to be generally understood to be true, but the problem with implicit - that is, unwritten - common law is that not everybody understands the same unwriting. Roman genuinely believed that he as Chief Justice could, by virtue of the discretion clause in the Constitution, unilaterally overturn prior rulings or the court rules themselves. Until something like this makes it into the legal code, I think it's a very good idea to lay it out ourselves.

Again, I don't see the need to put this in Court rules. Adding something like this to the rules makes it seem like the Court doesn't have to obey prior decisions now (not sure what that means though...to obey a decision). Anyhow it's needlessly complex. Let the RA legislate on matters such as these if it becomes necessary. It's not our job to define word by word how precedent works.

The Court is a reactive body. Without any such request, the Court may not proactively overturn previous rulings.

Again, why is this necessary?

Similar reason. I think given the context of all of this (online game), there's the potential that a future Court might randomly decide it doesn't want to follow a ruling. For example, it might decide that it doesn't like the ruling on standing/affected party and say something like, "We accept this request for review on the legality of eating cheese, oh and by the way, we've decided to reject the ruling on affected party for fun." I think this clause is a useful reminder that the Court rules on matters that other people bring before it - it does not take things onto its plate.

See above.

No Justice may act contrary to the opinions and decisions of the Court as a whole.

I like this but it doesn't belong under the Precedent section

The petitioner in an accepted request for review, as well as any of the participating parties in a criminal trial, may file a request asking the Court to order the recusal of any Justice from hearing or ruling on a particular case.

Why is this clause under the section Appeals?

Mostly these are here because I was struggling with how to classify these parts. I didn't like "Miscellaneous" as a title, but I couldn't see where either of those two might fit in better. If you've got better names than "Precedent" and "Appeals" (best I could do was "The Binding Nature of Law and the Relative Authority of Justices with Respect to the Court" and "Bringing a Matter Before the Full Court" which are not very good at all), I'd love to hear them.

I'd be fine with a 'General' section, but if we can't move them I'm not opposed to keeping them where they are, though it could cause confusion.

During the proceedings of a matter before the Court, substantive appeals and requests which relate to that matter must be addressed before the proceedings can continue.

I'd rather leave this out and give the Court the option to decline to address an appeal/request before the case, substantive or not.

As we've discussed before, I think that is a terrible idea - it will lead to no verdict ever being legal.

If someone files a request for review on a matter relating to a trial, a matter which substantively affects how a trial proceeds, there are three possibilities:

a) The request is rejected straight up, and the trial proceeds;
b) The request is accepted straight up, and answered, and the trial then proceeds once the answer has been given;
c) The request is accepted and delayed, the trial proceeds and concludes, and then the request is addressed, at which point an appeal is lodged against the verdict that was delivered because the [request affected the proceedings of the case and it would have proceeded differently if it had been answered in time.

The first two are both valid (and allowed for within the wording of "addressed"); the third one is not. If the answer to a request will have a material impact on the trial itself, or can be reasonably expected to have a material impact on the verdict itself, that request must be addressed before the trial continues. We are not a RL court, to have layers and layers of appellate divisions and infinite time to hear the same case over and over again. We are an online court in an online game - reviews on the proceedings of a trial need to be conducted during the trial itself.

I can come up with any number of scenarios that illustrate this point. Say the moderating justice admits some evidence despite the defense's objections, and the defense appeals to the full court with evidence that the admitted evidence was fabricated. Failing to hear that appeal at once and rule on it means that if the court delivers a guilty verdict, and then rules that the evidence against the defendant was, in fact, fabricated, that verdict must be overturned. In contrast, if the appeal is dealt with properly and the evidence excluded, it may be the case that there is still sufficient valid evidence against the defendant for a guilty verdict that will stand up to challenge.

Or, say the prosecution appeals to the full court for the recusal of the moderating justice based on discovering that the MJ is the defendant's RL friend. This is a reasonable case for bias, and declining to hear the appeal until after the conclusion of the trial means that, again, the trial must be thrown out as it violates the BOR (which requires an impartial justice to hear a case).

It would be hugely detrimental to what little functioning we have as a court to take the approach that these scenarios are okay. And as I pointed out to you, there are several previous cases (and even one current one!) where the principle of "pause a, decide b, continue a" has been followed. While precedent should sometimes be ignored, to do so in this case would cause egregious harm to the general good.

I understand your opinion on this. And I understood Roman's. I don't agree completely with either. I think the Court can and should decide on a case by case basis whether a request for review ought to be handled before, after, or during a trial. I don't want to tie the hands of the Court here and prevent what should be a decision made with judicial prudence.

 

[SillyString]

I'd rather leave this out then. If there's a problem, let's respond to it, but in general our attorneys are smart enough to be able to handle this themselves and I'd rather not over-legislate this.

Let me work up some new language that's more general.

I don't know that it necessarily lacks in transparency, but it most certainly will be perceived as such. Reviews have always been public on the forum and I don't see any reason to change that. Sure there's some back and forth but a competent justice should be able to keep that to a minimum.

Reviews will still be public - they'll be filed publicly, all briefs will be made public, and the decision will be rendered publicly. It'll just be cleaner.

Kiwi, any thoughts? I can live with removing this part if you agree with Ator.

Appeals are the opinion of the Court, not some other level of the judiciary. The way I see it, the Court rules as a whole (or at least a majority) with its decisions. Appeals to the full court make sense only to 'confirm' that a particular ruling is the opinion of the majority. It's not a second round to try your luck with another set of justices. Sure, the original justice might not change his/her mind. Fine, but we have two others. And the majority of the Court, as always, will make their decision.

Hmm, I see what you mean - you're looking at it as more of a "please confirm if this is the Court's position", whereas I was looking at is as "was this decision correct?" I think you're in the right here, though, and the remaining justices can order the one in question to recuse themselves in any case where that's the best option.

Still not convinced here. If the RA wants oversight for contempt they can pass a law (as I've said I wanted to see in the past). But it's not the judiciary's place to grant them some sort of override power.

It can be. It's our rules - we can grant whatever power we want, and we can freely take that power away. I think including this here will allow us greater flexibility overall, and will allow us to tweak the system and make sure everything is working without the RA feeling a pressing need to legislate an override. If we don't build in our own safeguards, I think we're more at risk for the RA deciding to do so on its own - and theirs will be way less flexible in the future than the ones we can institute and amend by the agreement of two members of the court.

Again, I don't see the need to put this in Court rules. Adding something like this to the rules makes it seem like the Court doesn't have to obey prior decisions now (not sure what that means though...to obey a decision). Anyhow it's needlessly complex. Let the RA legislate on matters such as these if it becomes necessary. It's not our job to define word by word how precedent works.

Obey a decision can mean many things, but one of the key ones is continuing to interpret and apply laws in the way they were previously ruled on. As we can see from Roman's actions during the trial (as well as several of the things he said), he thought it was 100% within his power to completely ignore Court rules and rulings because he was the Chief Justice. In his opinion, it didn't matter that the Court had ruled that dismissals cannot be with prejudice or that the Court rules allow appeals to the full Court - he didn't want them and so he declared he could unilaterally overturn them. I think including this part specifically will help provide a more solid guard against that kind of nonsense in the future. It's us explicitly laying out our expectations for ourselves, and for future Courts. These are not things the RA needs to legislate on, not when we can accomplish them so painlessly (and remove them later if we decide we don't like them).

I understand your opinion on this. And I understood Roman's. I don't agree completely with either. I think the Court can and should decide on a case by case basis whether a request for review ought to be handled before, after, or during a trial. I don't want to tie the hands of the Court here and prevent what should be a decision made with judicial prudence.

I don't think this does bind the Court's hands in any unreasonable way. Substantive matters should by their very nature be addressed (either dismissed or accepted and answered) as they arise, and non-substantive matters can be dismissed, accepted and answered, or postponed at the discretion of the Moderating Justice. This clause only obligates the Court to act according to best practices.

 

[Kiwi]

Reviews will still be public - they'll be filed publicly, all briefs will be made public, and the decision will be rendered publicly. It'll just be cleaner.

Kiwi, any thoughts? I can live with removing this part if you agree with Ator.

I had not actually caught onto this particular change. I think the change is well intentioned but I think if we asked the RA how they would prefer it, I think people would rather file their briefs publicly themselves. I can see your logic but we have not had a huge problem with submitters causing issues with briefs.

P.S. I apologise for my brevity but I'm in the middle of exams until late next week.

 

[SillyString]

Okay, here's my suggested changes.

1. When conducting a deposition, counsel for each party must be present along with the witness being questioned.
2. Opposing counsel will have the opportunity to object to questions posed to the witness. If an objection is made, the questioning party will have the opportunity to withdraw the question or defend against the objection. The witness will answer all questions which are not withdrawn.
3. At the completion of a deposition, each party must submit a complete copy to the Moderating Justice in private for review. The Justice will review all objections and publish an official record version of the deposition in the trial thread, with appropriate edits in accordance with any sustained objections.

1. Briefs must be submitted in private to the Moderating Justice, who is responsible for posting all received briefs in the public thread after the period for submitting briefs has ended.

1. Justices are required to recuse themselves from any matter where the majority of the Court orders them to.

Any other comments, before I motion to vote?

 

[Kiwi]

Looks fine to me Astapants.

 

[SillyString]

Excellent. Then I say we vote, and I vote aye!

 

[Ator People]

I'll vote aye as well.

 

[Kiwi]

Apologies - I also vote aye.

 

[SillyString]

Phenomenal! I'll go post these then.

 

[SillyString]

Oops, Punk noticed a minor error:

11. Witness statements must be sent directly to the Moderating Justice by the witness before the scheduled end of discovery. The Moderating Justice will post the statement in the trial thread.

That clause still references the now-deleted discovery period.

I motion we change that to "the scheduled end of Evidence Submission."

 

[Ator People]

Fine with me.