[Private] Templates - AGORA Act alterations and new templates

Zyvetskistaahn

Zyvetskistaahn

TNPer
-
-
-
TNP Nation
Zyvetskistaahn
Discord
zyvet.
Given the passage of the AGORA Act, some changes to the template for requests for review are needed to reflect the slight changes around jurisdiction and the more significant change to standing that follows from the loss of the AG. I think that it would probably be helpful, given that all indictments will now have to be filed by individuals, to establish an indictment template along the broad lines of the one currently in use.

i think that establishing templates for the notices we need to send to Defendants in criminal trials would also be of use.
 
I have produced an altered R4R template, it is aimed a replacing the parts dealing with the AG and their inherent standing with a question aimed at the new "compelling regional interest" jurisdiction, as indicated below.
Reviews of laws or government policies and actions must be made by request of an affected party unless there is a compelling regional interest in resolving it.
Click to expand...

In a certain sense this is coming to a conclusion as to what the new jurisdiction allows us to look at, but I think that it is necessary to come to some view given that it is not helpful to simply keep an outdated template. Thoughts?

1. What law, government policy, or action (taken by a government official) do you request that the Court review?

2. What portions of the Constitution, Bill of Rights, Legal Code, or other legal document do you believe has been violated by the above? How so?

3. Are there any prior rulings of the Court that support your request for review? Which ones, and how?

4. Please establish your standing by detailing how you, personally, have been adversely affected. If you are requesting a review of a governmental action, you must include how any rights or freedoms of yours have been violated.

5. Is there a compelling regional interest in resolving your request? If so, explain why it is in the interest of the region as whole for your request to be decided now.

6. Do you have any further information you wish to submit to the Court with your request?
 
I also present a template for indictments:


Code: 
[center][b]Indictment[/b][/center]

I bring forward the following charge(s) holding that all the below is true and honest to the best of my belief.

[b]Name of Complainant:

Name(s) of Accused:

Date(s) of Alleged Crime(s):

Crime:

Specifics of Crime(s):

Summary of Events:

Evidence:
[/b]
 
Last edited:
Wonderess:
I also present a template for indictments:


Code: 
[center][b]Statement of Indictment[/b][/center]

I bring forward the following charge(s) holding that all the below is true and honest.

[b]Name of Complainant:

Name(s) of Accused:

Date(s) of Alleged Offense(s):

Specific Crime(s):

Summary of Events:

Evidence:

Comments:[/b]
Click to expand...

I would be minded to omit “Statement of” from the heading, simply “Indictment” would suffice and be more in keeping with prior practice (variable though that is). I think that there should also be uniformity in language, so that “crime” is used in place of “offense”.

I wonder if there would be an advantage to distinguishing between crime and the specifics of it. In that there can be a number of different specific crimes in the same broad species. Gross Misconduct, for instance, can committed by violation of different oaths or differing levels of intent, so one could have the same crime but with differing specifics:

Crime: Gross Misconduct
Specific of Crime: The Defendant violated a legally mandated sworn oath, namely their oath of office as Delegate, willfully, in that they abused their power by ejecting and banning a number of nations from The North Pacific in a manner not authorised by law
Click to expand...

Crime: Gross Misconduct
Specific of Crime: The Defendant violated a legally mandated sworn oath, namely their citizenship oath, through negligence, in that failed to obey the law by sending a telegram bearing the Coat of Arms of The North Pacific contrary to law.
Click to expand...

I would prefer if all charges were in this form, so that it is clear precisely how the crime is said to have been committed in connection with crimes that have a range of ways in which they can be committed. My reservation is as to whether it would actually be used in the manner I anticipate and not simply result in repetition of the Legal Code clause.

I also think that the comment section should be excluded or clarified. It was added by the Attorney General at the time when they were obligated to bring charges when a complaint was made to them, so that they could bring the charges but also recommend that they be dismissed. Since the Attorney was relieved of that obligation, the section has generally been included as a pro forma simply stating “The Office of the Attorney General concludes that enough evidence exists to justify these charges and recommends that this case be tried as speedily and fairly as possible.”

While I am not averse to allowing a section for an individual to make argument on why the charge should be accepted (presumably no one will argue for dismissal given no one is obligated to bring a charge), I think that it should be clear that that is the purpose of the section, as opposed to allowing a free ranging comment on the charge or the crime.

I think that a different form of indictment should be made for use by the Delegate, so as to allow for requests for approval of ejections and bans to be incorporated.
 
I updated the rubric. I got rid of the comment section as the specific section really is the argument as to why the crime is a crime at all. The comment section would just cause confusion and arbitrary things to be posted in my view.
 
Save that, having reviewed again, I would add "to the best of my belief" to the declaration at the start of the indictment, I am content with both templates, subject to further comment from LRW.
 
I have drafted a form of request for approval for ejection/ban for use by the Delegate and a form of indictment for use by the Delegate which incorporates such requests.

Code: 
[b]Request for Approval[/b]

I request that the Court approve the <ejection/banning/ejection and banning> of the below nation and holding that all the below is true and honest to the best of my belief.

[b]Name(s) of Nation:

Reasons for seeking approval (how does the nation pose a clear security threat and why is their removal is necessary for the protection of the region):

If the nation has already been ejected or banned, when was this action taken:

If this request is made prior to criminal charges being brought, what charges are expected to be brought:

Evidence:[/b]

Code: 
[b]Indictment and Request for Approval[/b]

I bring forward the following charge(s) and request that the Court approve the <ejection/banning/ejection and banning> of the below nation holding that all the below is true and honest to the best of my belief.

[b]Name of Complainant:

Name(s) of Accused:

Date(s) of Alleged Crime(s):

Crime:

Specifics of Crime(s):

Summary of Events:

Reasons for seeking approval (how does the nation pose a clear security threat and why is their removal is necessary for the protection of the region):

If the nation has already been ejected or banned, when was this action taken:

Evidence:[/b]
 
Why would we need both forms? I would think that the Delegate would have to charge them with a crime in order to request their removal anyhow.
 
The law expressly permits requests for approval pending charges being brought. Additionally, requests may be made during trial, which would not be accompanied by fresh indictment, or could be made following an indictment but before decision on it (for instance if a nation, having been charged, then presented as a threat to security in reaction to the charge).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top