Civil Trials act of 2014

So then we have to have two trials to resolve a personal dispute which probably should have just been worked out between them. Sounds like a waste of the court's time to me.
 
Didn't this issue come up with a case of Flemingovia v Grosse. Where Grosse was told to apologise and he refused to do so. Or he made a statement that was not an apology and basically just refused to go along with the verdict. Something like that, correct me if I am wrong!

I agree that it would not be prudent to have two court cases over the same incident.

What about if we said that the failure to abide by the court's proceedings would automatically be considered contempt of court with the following penalty: x,y,z at the courts discretion. The court would not need to hear a new case completely, but need only wait for the given date and then (if the civil remedy was not carried out) impose the contempt of court penalty on the particular user.

I'm tired. I apologise if that is more nonsensical than usual.
 
Penalties imposed for contempt could be things like:

Removal of PM privileges until the contempt is resolved.
Signature or avatar limits
Flood control set to one post per 5 minutes

etc. These would not be permanent punishments, but rather imposed until the person apologised or otherwise came out of contempt with the court.
 
Didn't this issue come up with a case of Flemingovia v Grosse. Where Grosse was told to apologise and he refused to do so. Or he made a statement that was not an apology and basically just refused to go along with the verdict.
Click to expand...

I have no recollection of this. I am sure grosse would not be so ill-mannered.
 
Crushing Our Enemies:
So then we have to have two trials to resolve a personal dispute which probably should have just been worked out between them. Sounds like a waste of the court's time to me.
Click to expand...
in the UK at least, you do not need a trial for contempt of court.

Judge: "please address the court"

Accused "stuff you, your fartiness. I am not saying anything"

Judge: "you are in contempt. Go to jail until you are willing to do what I say"

End of
 
In Flem v Grosse (the only civil trial in TNP history) I ruled that Grosse was not guilty, because there had been no demonstration that Flemingovia's reputation had been harmed by Grosse, merely a demonstration that Grosse had made untrue statements about Flem.

Civil trials are about personal problems. They shouldn't require the court to work them out. We're all over 13 here.
 
Op updated. New draft. Shorter, more simple and more inline with the way the current law is written.

Updated Amendment Language:

Article 5. The Court

1. The Court will try all criminal and civil 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. Civil complaints may be submitted directly to the court for its consideration and ajudication without input or needing to be submitted to the Attorney General's office.
3. In order for the Court to make a ruling in civil matters the court will only require a preponderance of evidence in order to make a decision.
4. The Court will consist of at least three Justices, who will select a Chief Justice among themselves.
5. The Chief Justice will administer the rules of the Court. Where no rules exist, the Chief Justice may use their discretion.
6. The official opinion of the Court in any trial,including civil trials, or review will be binding on all affected parties, including Government bodies and officials.
7. Justices will be elected by the Regional Assembly by a plurality vote every four months.
Click to expand...

I would also like to attach two riders to this bill to amend the Criminal code and the Penal code:

Criminal Code amendment:

1.10 Contempt of Court

"Contempt of Court" is defined as: The failure to abide by the decision of the court or acting in any manner that attempts to willfully disrupt court and trial proceedings.
For this section "decision" is defined as: ruling, opinion, direction, sentencing, or summary punishment made by the Court.
Click to expand...

Penal Code amendment:
9. Contempt of Court will be punished by removal of any basic rights from the person being held in contempt until such a time they agree to fulfill the Courts order or for whatever duration the Court sees fit.
Click to expand...
 
Anyone wish to discuss meaningful changes to the region?

Reinstitution of Civil trial

Streamlining it by eliminating the AG (so theyre free to pursue criminal cases) aggrieved indivduals can submit complaints straight directly to the court for its consideration.

Adding contempt of court to the criminal and penal code so if someone is found liable/culpable in a civil trial and tries to get out of not performing the court ordered remedy or blantantly refuses the court can slap a contempt charge on them and take whatever basic rights the court sees fit (punishing non-compliance in civil sentencing)
 
You will want to reword the contempt definition to specify summary punishment, just as adspam can be punished by summary ejection. That is the only way to avoid needing a criminal trial to prove contempt.

I still don't see how this would be at all beneficial. Disagreements between individuals cannot be resolved by force, which is all a civil trial is, and if someone has done something egregious enough to another individual that it deserves punishment rather than reconciliation, that thing ought to be in the criminal code.

I don't understand the hangup on "criminal trials are only govt vs individual!" Maybe IRL that's so, but this isn't RL. We can absolutely criminalize people treating each other shittily.
 
Treating people shitty will be punished by ejection and banning, and removal of any basic rights for whatever duration the Court sees fit.

Oh no! Then we wouldnt have any TNPers left. :P
 
Crushing Our Enemies:
In Flem v Grosse (the only civil trial in TNP history) I ruled that Grosse was not guilty, because there had been no demonstration that Flemingovia's reputation had been harmed by Grosse, merely a demonstration that Grosse had made untrue statements about Flem.

Civil trials are about personal problems. They shouldn't require the court to work them out. We're all over 13 here.
Click to expand...


Hmm..Perhaps he said prior to the trial that he wouldn't accept a guilty verdict even if you gave one.

i'm 8 btw
 
This is a regressive piece of legislation that is looking to bring back a civil jurisdiction that has in the past consistently proven to be not only useless, but highly problematic.

I recommend that our newer members take a look at the debates that lead to the repeal, in early 2014, of the previous civil jurisdiction the court had. Here are a couple of threads: thread 1, thread 2.

Getting rid of civil trials was a huge step forward for our judicial system. Let's not take steps back now. I am strongly against this bill.
 
I voted for repeal. As I said in my op on my first draft. I was not/am not philosophically opposed to the ideas of civil trial. I was against the way in which they were conducted.

If contempt was written into the criminal code (as my riders make it so) in this flem vs gross case that is sighted. If gross wouldnt have complied with the court ruling and gave flem the restitution the court ordered (an apology or whatever it was) he would have found himself in contempt and the court would have ordered whatever basic rights stripped until grosse decided to offer up a sincere apology and comply with the court order.
 
SillyString:
I think the safer inference is that most RA members are not interested in actively legislating, but probably support improving things as long as others do the work. :P
Click to expand...
Which begs the question Who is John Galt?.

Here's the problem with any legislation (or anything constructive, for that matter) - most people sit back and do nothing because they always presume that someone else will do all the work. And then those who actually do all the work catch only abuse for it. :cheese:

And ultimately, those who actually do something will realise that no one cares and they will throw up their hands and join the ranks of the do nothings. And it is then the question Who is John Galt? gets answered.

Other than that, I am more than happy to sit back, do nothing and nom on some popcorn from this point on. :jack:
 
PaulWallLibertarian42:
I voted for repeal. As I said in my op on my first draft. I was not/am not philosophically opposed to the ideas of civil trial. I was against the way in which they were conducted.

If contempt was written into the criminal code (as my riders make it so) in this flem vs gross case that is sighted. If gross wouldnt have complied with the court ruling and gave flem the restitution the court ordered (an apology or whatever it was) he would have found himself in contempt and the court would have ordered whatever basic rights stripped until grosse decided to offer up a sincere apology and comply with the court order.
Click to expand...
The debates I linked to highlight that it was not just the implementation of civil trials that was ineffective. Civil trials are a problematic concept in general in NS. They are unnecessary and, when used, constistenly cause serious issues for no apparent gain.

As for contempt, the current version of the Court rules has effective provisions covering that area.

Once again, civil trials are a bad idea. We've already seen that once and made the right decision to get rid of them. We don't need to bring them back.
 
Wouldnt the current court rules be strengthened if there was a statute in the criminal code that can be sited? The adopted court rules and this proposed contempt charge added to the legal code could and should work hand in hand together.
 
Crushing Our Enemies:
Court: You have lost this civil case. I rule that you must apologize to the plaintiff and avoid addressing them on the RMB for four months.

Defendant: No, I'm not going to do any of that.

Court: But you see, here in the legal code it says "penalties imposed by the court in civil trials shall be legally binding and enforceable."

Defendant: Ok, but I'm still not going to do it.
Click to expand...
With the proposed contempt of court charges (which the court already has rules for and Im sure could amend to include "voluntary" civil punishment - if the time were to come to that)

Court: All right, I find you in contempt of court and order <insert basic right(s) here> stripped until such a time you comply and aplogize. And if you dont comply and bother them on the RMB in the next 4 months you'll find yourself in contempt again.

Defendant: Ah Man! *Has rights stripped til they aplogize*
 
I move this to formal debate with my updated bill language and the 2 contempt of court riders.

I note 2 strong againsts CoE and R3n. Others have not seemed to make their intentions clear or are on the fence. As such, Id like the opportunity for the full membership of the RA to have a chance to vote their conscious; Aye. Nay. Or Abstain on the matter.

Thank you in advace for your consideration Mr. Speaker.
 
I am in support of civil trials.
The court is powerful enough to make sure that verdicts are followed.


I support this legislation.
 
PaulWallLibertarian42:
I move this to formal debate with my updated bill language and the 2 contempt of court riders.

I note 2 strong againsts CoE and R3n. Others have not seemed to make their intentions clear or are on the fence. As such, Id like the opportunity for the full membership of the RA to have a chance to vote their conscious; Aye. Nay. Or Abstain on the matter.

Thank you in advace for your consideration Mr. Speaker.
Click to expand...
This bill shall be in formal debate for five days, as usual.

I'm intepreting this request as a request for a vote of seven days? I think given the importance of an omnibus amendment of this nature I wouldn't mind providing the full seven days for a vote.

Personal Opinion time: Personally I don't really care if civil trials are reinstated. I question however the ability of the court to enforce rulings in a civil dispute.
 
We can enforce anything we wish to, just as we can in criminal trials.

Our only restriction is game mechanics. All else is an artificial imaginary construct.
 
With contempt added. They should be able to enforce them by finding the defendent contemptious and stripping any basic rights they seem fit until the defendent complies with the ruling.

So either do as the court says, fufill their order/directions to aplogize or whatever the court deigns resonable or be in contempt. Those are your two options if found liable in s civil suit. Comply or be in contempt and face contempt punishment. Id rather comply with the court and do as they say rather then have basic rights stripped for non-compliance. But thats just me.

Thank you Mr. Speaker for forwarding this to Formal Debate.
 
I strongly oppose this going to vote unless an implementation clause is added that indicates that no part of it will go into effect unless all parts go into effect. That will avoid a scenario wherein more than half but less than two thirds vote aye, and only the legal code portions pass. That is standard in any bill that proposes to edit more than one document.

As for the contempt addition, I agree with r3n: the issue here is not *how* civil trials are implemented, it is that they are implemented at all. Civil trials are a huge waste of resources to resolve petty disputes between individuals. Unless a crime has been committed, the government should not be punishing people.
 
I am hesitent to do so. Even if the amendment to reinstate civil trial fails by 2/3rds vote if there is simple majority support. I would like to see the contempt charges criminalized. I have read the court rules and contempt so far is administrativly punished only. There are no provisions for criminally punishing someone in contempt. (As contempt isnt a criminal offense as of yet)

Section 2: General Conduct
All indictments, requests for review, briefs, Court decisions, and other official filings must be presented using an established template, if one exists.
All parties in any matter before the court must conduct themselves in an appropriate, legal, and civil manner.
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.
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.
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.
Any finding of contempt will be immediately rescinded should the Regional Assembly object to that finding by majority vote.
Click to expand...
Bolding mine.

So as it seems the current court rules only allow administrative punishment -- the person to not have motions heard in court -- bascially the court treats them as invisible until they stop being contemptious. In addition to the court making administrative punishment for contempt id like to see them be able to level criminal punishments such as stripping basic rights until such a time a person stops being contemptious.

A criminal code/penal code amendment and administrative court rules can go hand in hand and work in harmony together. Would make someone think twice before being contemptious. Have their motions ignored administrativly per the adopted court rules and have rights stripped criminally.

Rather civil trials get reinstated or not..id like to see criminal contempt charges on the books to compliment the adopted court rules in the matter.
 
One problem in the past, and not addressed here, is that the types of claims that would be brought as civil claims has to be defined first. A wide open undefined process is unworkable because it leaves the Court with nothing to use as a standard to determine if a civil claim has been proven.

Then there is the question of remedies. Remedies in civil cases cannot be criminal penalties in another guise. And no one has come up with a reasonable set of remedies that can be available in a civil case. (And by the way, by the very nature of the beast, guilt or innocence are not findings that are appropriate in civil cases. One side or the other could be found civilly liable, but again the lack of predefined standards so as to give notice to all as to what could cause one to be civilly liable makes such a process unworkable.)

If one is looking to have civil proceedings for mediation of disputes, then once again, it needs to say so, and the types of claims that can be mediated, and what can be the outcome of such mediation needs to be defined beforehand by law.

The absence of previously adopted definitions of claims and remedies would mortally wound any attempt at civil trials.
 
You have not included my suggested language for summary punishment.

As such, your implementation still requires separate criminal trials for all contempt accusations.
 
I echo Grosse's objections, as well as standly staunchly against *any* civil trial system, however it is implemented.

In the absence of defined and enumerated definitions of civil offenses, the court is essentially shooting in the dark when it comes to deciding civil cases.

EDIT: As a reminder, I say this as the only person in TNP history who has ever had to decide a civil case.
 
To quote Flemingovia:

in the UK at least, you do not need a trial for contempt of court.

Judge: "please address the court"

Accused "stuff you, your fartiness. I am not saying anything"

Judge: "you are in contempt. Go to jail until you are willing to do what I say"

End of
Click to expand...

We can enforce anything we wish to, just as we can in criminal trials.

Our only restriction is game mechanics. All else is an artificial imaginary construct.
Click to expand...

I do not think a 2nd trial would be nessicary to prove contempt. A judge/justice has the authority/ability they can just place someone in contempt if they feel the person is contemptious and not following the courts direction, including not abiding by the courts decision and following the courts summary punishment recomendation.

""Contempt of Court" is defined as: The failure to abide by the decision of the court"

And then court decisions is futher defined to cover summary punishment et. Al.

"For this section "decision" is defined as: ruling, opinion, direction, sentencing, or summary punishment made by the Court."

Do failure to abide by the court decision could mean not abiding by a direction the court has gave you, a ruling, an opinion, and not abiding by the sentencing/summary punishment.

So if the court orders someone to render an aplogy within say 10 days. And they don't do it. The court can make a judical ruling and declare that person in contempt (kinda like revoking someones bail or probation on a violation) and order basic rights stripped until such a time they decide to render said aplogy/whatever the remedy was. Without needing to have another contempt hearing.
 
The court cannot do that when contempt is listed in the criminal code, unless summary punishment is allowed - just like with adspam.
 
6. Adspam prohibited by the Delegate may be punished by adspam suppression and summary ejection and/or banning from the region.

How would that work for the court?

"Contempt of court prohibited by the Court" "punished by basic rights being restricted and or summary ejection until such a time the person stops being contemptious and/or for whatever duration the court sees fit?"

Former Chief Justice SillyString what is your hypothetical solution to include summary punishment in said law change proposal?
 
PWL, the term " summary" means "no court case required, no trial, just we see it, we punish it"." That is why adspammers can be ejected without a trial - the law allows *summary* ejection. Ejection is not the only thing that can be summary, though. Anything can.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top