Court Bulletin Board & General Information

I think the OP of this thread could probably use an update, removing references to the AG's office, and adding links to those templates on the rows of the chart relevant to each one.
 
On that note, perhaps the Court Filings thread OP should also be updated, given it still contains references to the Attorney General. Also, I was under the impression that appeals for ejections and bans are filed as R4Rs in an individual thread in the Court forum, not in the Court Filings section as indicated by the OP of this thread. Has there been a change in policy?
 
Gorundu:
On that note, perhaps the Court Filings thread OP should also be updated, given it still contains references to the Attorney General. Also, I was under the impression that appeals for ejections and bans are filed as R4Rs in an individual thread in the Court forum, not in the Court Filings section as indicated by the OP of this thread. Has there been a change in policy?
Click to expand...

Indeed, the Court Filings thread should be updated.

The question of changes to ejections and bans is something that should perhaps be made clearer, however, the OP is correct in that appeals of ejections and bans should be filed in that thread. Most ejections and bans are not open to challenge by appeal but by judicial review, only those under section 3.4 are subject to appeal. I will give some thought as to how to make the OP clear on that point.
 
The Court has appointed @saintpeter to be Temporary Hearing Officer in relation to the ongoing trial The North Pacific v Ihese and generally for other matters that arise before the current vacancy on the Court is filled.
 
The Court has appointed @Oracle to be Temporary Hearing Officer in relation to the ongoing trial The North Pacific v New Francois and generally for other business until the new Court takes office following the judicial election.
 
It congratulates me to announce that I have been chosen by the Court to serve as Chief Justice for this term.
 
The Court will appoint @Owenstacey to take part in the trial The North Pacific v. St. George as Temporary Hearing Officer for their appointment of Standby Hearing Officer following the recusation of @saintpeter for the case.
The Court will also appoint @Oracle to take part in the trial mentioned before to be Temporary Hearing Officer following the recusation of @Lord Lore for the case.
 
Last edited:
The Court, by unanimous consent of its Justices, has altered the Court Procedures. Added to the Procedures is the following clause—
The Moderating Justice will endeavor to ensure all necessary court documents and processes are provided and completed by all parties prior to ending a trial. If any party has presented incomplete evidence or has neglected a necessary step in the trial process, the Moderating Justice may extend the trial as needed to ensure parties have reasonable and adequate time to complete whatever tasks are needed.
Click to expand...
This clause will be clause 7 of section 2 of chapter 1.
 
The Court has altered the Court Rules and Procedures as follows:

The following is added as Chapter 1, Section 3, Clause 1:

  • The Court may order the preservation of evidence upon the filing of an indictment.
Click to expand...
 
As promised, I just wanted to address recent discussion about r4rs and how they relate to existing court procedure and our r4r template. Due to the recent r4r and concern about how standing is applied to r4rs, I stated that I would review our existing procedures and see if there was a way we could clarify the question with a possible change to procedures or the r4r template. The answer in this case was actually quite simple: we cannot. The template sufficiently addresses all aspects of r4rs and is consistent with the constitution and legal code. Standing as a necessary component of such reviews is in the constitution - you must be an affected party to have standing. The r4r template also asks about compelling regional interest, which is the other necessary condition for the acceptance of r4rs. If standing is not present, this is the provision someone submitting the r4r would need to have apply.

It is my conclusion, and one that the rest of the Court agrees with, that there is no change we can make, no tweak, that can easily settle this question for the justices considering r4rs. The interpretation of the justices reviewing the r4r are what drive the outcome. If the two possible scenarios that allow r4rs to be considered are not determined to have been met, there can be no resolution. Regardless of possible legal solutions (I would note the legal code does not address either r4r requirement currently), the justices considering the question will decide if the basic standards have been met to move forward. If the RA feels that existing law does not adequately address the region's needs when it comes to the question of r4rs, they must provide the remedy.
 
I am pleased to announce the creation of a new index for prior Court rulings. This project has been a long time coming and discussed extensively by multiple iterations of the Court, and it will replace the old one located in our archives. It will also be prominently displayed here in the Court's section of the forum for easy viewing, and soon I hope the relevant part of our Laws link on the menu will direct to it as well. But by far the best part is that it recreates our old method of having links that take you straight to the decision you want to read. On a minor note, some style changes were also adopted, including the renaming of some cases, and greater detail for the officials involved in making these rulings, so that the Court's makeup is always known and the THOs are identified as such. In the event we ever have another dissent, there is now also a format for displaying that along with the rulings as well.
 
In relation the renaming. Could you indicate which have been renamed and what they have been renamed from and to?

It might be an idea to add a table indicating name changes over time to the OP, so that people are not looking at old rulings (or, if looking in more detail, old briefs) that refer to the ruling on XYZ and, on crosschecking with the current index, not find it as the ruling on ABC. Previous name changes were made by SillyString as indicated here.
 
The most significant one was On Judicial Recusals. As the matter was specifically about Justice Funkadelia’s recusal from an ongoing review and not recusals more generally, that title was renamed accordingly. I also renamed the review related to the Reject Fascism law, though that one is newer. I also added to the record the immediately overturned ruling on reviewing RA proposals (part of the infamous nesting r4r), which meant giving it an official name. The rest that were changed were simply cases of adjusting capitalization.
 
The Court has selected me as Chief Justice to finish off the March 2022 term.

In light of a vacancy on the bench, the Court appoints @TlomzKrano as a Temporary Hearing Officer for the duration of the Special Justice Election.
 
I have been selected as the Justice from the Court who will be serving on the Bar Commission for the relevant term.
 
Last edited:
The last posts in the declassified justice archive are from May 2021. Will posts from then until May/June 2022 (roughly six months ago) be released eventually (if they exist)?
 
Comfed:
The last posts in the declassified justice archive are from May 2021. Will posts from then until May/June 2022 (roughly six months ago) be released eventually (if they exist)?
Click to expand...

A quick look shows no threads that have reached the 1 year of age required for automatic declassification within the Courts SubForum.
 
The Court has selected @Vivanco to be appointed as a Bar Commissioner subject to a confirmation vote by the Regional Assembly.

@Lord Dominator been selected as the Justice from the Court who will be serving on the Bar Commission for the relevant term.
 
With the resignation of Dreadton, and the Special Election concluded, the Court has chosen me to serve as Chief Justice for the remainder of the term.
I would like to take the opportunity to wish Dreadton all the best and a speedy recovery.
 
With the election to the Court complete, the Court has made the following appointments for the coming term:
@Lord Dominator has been selected as the Justice from the Court who will be serving on the Bar Commission.
I have been selected as Chief Justice.
 
Your honour;

By unanimity of the Bar Commission, @TlomzKrano have been selected for the position of Court Examiner.
As per the Legal Code Section 3.6.33, we seek the Chief Justice's decision to confirm such position by the appointment.
 
Last edited:
I have received notice of the selection of @TlomzKrano as Court Examiner, and I hereby confirm their appointment. TlomzKrano please take your oath.

Vivanco has also notified me of a mistake. Lord Dominator's term doesn't expire for several months, and as such there is no need to reappoint them to the Bar Commission until July. I apologise for the clerical error.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top