Formal Debate: Revision of the Criminal Code to include Perjury

Status
Not open for further replies.
McMastedonia exits his limousine and approaches the regional assembly. He is wearing a full length coat that is covering a premium slate grey suit. As he arrives in the room he hands his coat to an attendant, removes his gloves and takes a final drag of his cigar.

"Members of the Regional Assembly" he begins "I fully support the bill proposed by the Right Honourable Gentleman, @Deropia. The good gentleman knows from his recent experience as an attorney, that it is crucially important that we pass this bill."

McMasterdonia pauses for a moment to take another drag of his cigar before continuing on. "While others may note that fraud potentially covers this, I would argue that perjury is a clearer deterrent to even the biggest of delinquents that lying under oath during testimony before the Court will not be tolerated."

"The right honourable gentleman Hole India may have thought twice about lying under oath had this been on the books. Though I somewhat doubt it. His faith in his own fiction was stronger than many thought possible. Nonetheless, that is all I have to say on this subject. I commend the Right Honourable Gentleman @Deropia for drafting this bill in good conscience and for faithfully serving the community by bringing forward this reform. I encourage all members of the Regional Assembly to vote FOR this proposal."

McMasterdonia promptly takes his seat in the chamber and returns to smoking his cigar. While the other members of the Regional Assembly are distracted fighting over who will speak next, he quietly takes a flask out of his pocket and takes a sneaky swig. "I cannot get through a debate in this chamber without a bit of liquor" he mutters to himself.
 
Praetor:
A bit quick for formal debate I think.
Click to expand...
The Honourable Mister Speaker, I would like to move to strike this sentence from the official records and censure the Honourable Member for making informal comments in a situation that demands formality.
 
Gorundu:
The Honourable Mister Speaker, I would like to move to strike this sentence from the official records and censure the Honourable Member for making informal comments in a situation that demands formality.
Click to expand...

"Mister Speaker, I rise in support of the motion moved by the Right Honourable @Gorundu to strike the informal remarks made by the Right Honourable Member Mr Praetor. I further urge you, Mr Speaker, to name the member and have them ejected from the Regional Assembly for 24 hours."
 
dinoium9929171558224459.png



The Deputy Attorney General is unfortunately busy at his estate, preparing for the next year. However, he has telegrammed the speaker’s office of his stance on the “perjury bill” so it may be admitted to the Assembly’s record.

* * *​

“Greetings, fellow North Pacificans. The press office of Dino G. Harrison Esq. formally believes that the bill submitted to the consideration of the assembly, which admits a provision to ban the act of perjury, as ‘correct’.

When conducting mine ‘ABC Report’, I had subpoenaed Lashnakia of the region of Force. He, however, lied under oath, answering all of the questions with random snips of the law. Causing me to quote the entire constitution and legal code in court representing the state. I fully have confidence in the Right Honorable Gentlemen's proposal and ask for my collages to do the same.
Click to expand...

P.S. I’ve never seen us have a separate “formal debate” thread before so I decided to give it a try to do something similar to McM. For the OOC record, I do actually support this bill.
 
Praetor:
:eyeroll:
Click to expand...
"The Honourable Mister Speaker, this is further proof that the Honourable Member Mister Praetor cannot maintain the necessary decorum for this discussion, and therefore I rise in support of the Honourable Member Mister @mcmasterdonia and his motion to eject the member from the Regional Assembly for 24 hours, in addition to censuring."
 
Hear hear! Mr. Speaker, I concur with Delegate McMasterdonia and Minister Gorundu, it is clear that formal debate has begun and these quick remarks and animated facial expressions are not appropriate. I too join the call for censure and temporary removal from the Assembly of the gentleman. I would also ask that Mr. Speaker apply the same consequences to additional improper speaking from others in the Assembly, should the need arise. I would add that it is all too uncommon for bodies such as these to engage in proper debate in times such as these, and the so-called contributions of the honorable guildmaster do not encourage this form of debate, and also that such remarks should be stricken from the record for the sake of preserving the formality required of this extraordinary debate. After all, it is not every day that we are called to engage in separate formal debate from the debate that is already ongoing.

As for the bill under discussion, it also has earned my support. While the outcome of the vote may not actually change the ability to prosecute what is understood as perjury, as we do have sufficient language in our prohibition of fraud, but it is perfectly reasonable to highlight perjury in particular and to enshrine this in the Legal Code. Were it in my power as King of the North, I would decree this be done immediately. As it is not, I must instead urge all of you in the strongest of terms to cast your vote for this proposal. It is sensible, it is reasonable, it is, I daresay, indisputably the right move. I congratulate the honorable Deropia for this simple but reasonable proposal and wish him success in seeing it passed.
 
The dishonorable Justice Dee arrives inebriated from the Stranger's Bar.

"While I'm sure all of you have your wonderful reasons for supporting this, I think you're all forgetting a critical aspect here. Namely, my workload. I hold here that increasing the potential workload of the right mostly-honorable Justices is not anything a reasonable region should do. Therefore, no support for this from myself.

OOC: Support I guess
 
Old. Potentially senile. But storied in his execution of decorum and duty.

"Order!" I say to the assembly present.

"I say to the Honorable Fellows of the Assembly, ORDER!" I bang my gavel twice for good measure.

"To the Right Honorable Gentlemen Mister @Praetor ," I begin to say while facing my body in his general direction, "When you step foot into this hallowed hall, you step foot into a place of worship. A place where your every action and every word becomes account to the public record of the respected citizenry and Assembly. By the rights afforded to me by my honorable office, I am hereby reprimanding and reminding you to maintain in good faith, an air of professionalism and decorum when you have entered this honorable place! Should the vernacular that you use be continued to be construed as gobbledygook, you will force my hand in the hastening of your untimely departure from this hallowed chamber of the Assembly of the Region of Right Fellows!"

"To the Assembly of the Region of Right Honorable Fellows, I hereby commence general continuance of this formal debate, on the topic of revising the Criminal Code to include Perjury. Let the Honorable Fellows of the Assembly of the Region maintain composure and proper decorum when you press for the Right Fellows of the chamber to either support or strike down this amendment to our Criminal Code as written by Honorable Fellow Mister @Deropia ."
 
Last edited:
Yeah no. That's not how this works. You think the Speaker would know the laws in relation to the Regional Assembly—although, we have already seen that's not really the case.
 
Praetor:
Yeah no. That's not how this works. You think the Speaker would know the laws in relation to the Regional Assembly—although, we have already seen that's not really the case.
Click to expand...
You know when I agree with @Praetor on something somebody's fucked up royal and it ain't Praetor who done did that.

the fuck is going on lol
 
Last edited:
OOC: To be fair I quite enjoy the idea of this ‘Format Debate’. Though, I don’t think we were prepared for such idea nor can it be properly executed, especially since many people are still confused about its concept. Plus, I prefer this format debate style be in the debate thread as a whole with an announcement stating that it is in format debate. Think of it as a roleplay legislative thread almost.
 
Last edited:
Dinoium:
OOC: To be fair I quite enjoy the idea of this ‘Format Debate’. Though, I don’t think we were prepared for such idea nor can it be properly executed, especially since many people are still confused about its concept. Plus, I prefer this format debate style be in the debate thread as a whole with an announcement stating that it is in format debate. Think of it as a roleplay legislative thread almost.
Click to expand...

OOC: I also don't think this was the intention of the Speaker, my reply was just for fun really and to point out the silliness of a separate thread :P
 
"The Honourable Mister Speaker, may I make my opinion known on the matter? I suspect that this debate sparked after the submitting of false evidence by Whole India to the Glorious Court of the North Pacific. I personally believe that perjury should indeed be made a crime. Lying under oath is despicable and disgusting, and people who do so must face retributions for their actions. I also believe that perjury should carry somewhat comparable consequences with fraud, though perhaps lighter than fraud, as perjury is in a sense a judicial fraud.
 
@Yukkira , To the Right Honorable Speaker, Formal Debate on this bill was started on December 30, 2019. Under Rule 1.4, formal Debate cannot last longer than 5 days This means formal debate ended on or about January 4, 2019. Does the speaker intend for this bill to go to vote?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top