[PASSED] Regional Bar and Standing Act

As promised in my campaign, I would like to present an act which will establish a regional bar for our judicial system, as well as establish a new form of universal standing. Included in this bill is also a provision to make it easier for criminal charges to be dropped so that we don't have to go through that scenario where the government wants to drop a case but we have to go through the vote anyway and rely on the prosecutor to drop the case.

Regional Bar and Standing Act:

Chapter 3 of the Legal Code is amended as follows:

Section 3.3 Regional Bar of The North Pacific:

11. All prosecutors in criminal trials must be members of the regional bar.
12. Any citizen who is not currently serving a judicially-imposed sentence may apply for admission to the regional bar. Any citizen who is given a judicially-imposed sentence while a member of the regional bar will have their admission to the regional bar revoked.
13. The regional bar will be governed by the Bar Commission, which consists of three citizens, one a Justice of the Court elected by a majority of the Court, one appointed by the Delegate, and one appointed by the Court and confirmed by a majority of the Regional Assembly. The citizens appointed by the Delegate and the Court may not be elected government officials, but will otherwise be exempt from constitutional restrictions on holding multiple government offices for purposes of their appointment to the Bar Commission.
14. The term of a Bar Commissioner will be six months, beginning on the day they take the Oath of Office. The Delegate and the Court do not have the power to remove Bar Commissioners.
15. Applicants to the regional bar must be evaluated by the Bar Commission for acceptability and must demonstrate adequate and reasonable knowledge of the Constitution, Bill of Rights, Legal Code of The North Pacific, and prior judicial rulings on requests for review.
16. A standard procedure for passing the bar evaluation, and for managing membership of the bar, will be established by majority agreement of the Bar Commission.

Click to expand...

Section 3.4: Criminal Trial Procedure:

17. A standard procedure for all criminal trials will be established by majority agreement of the Court.
18. Any person may present criminal charges to the Court. If the charges are accepted, the Delegate will appoint a prosecutor to manage the prosecution of the case. If the Delegate is the accused or unavailable, the next available person in the Line of Succession will appoint a prosecutor to manage prosecution of the case.
19. Any member of the regional bar may be appointed as a prosecutor and will be exempt from constitutional restrictions on holding multiple government offices for purposes of their appointment as a prosecutor.
20. The Delegate and other officials who may have appointed a prosecutor do not have the power to remove a prosecutor.
21. No one may prosecute or appoint prosecutors to a case in which they are the defendant or part of the defense.
22. If the original prosecutor is unable to see a case to completion, another prosecutor will be selected by the same procedure as the original prosecutor.
23. If the prosecutor discontinues management of the prosecution of a criminal case, then the complainant may, at their discretion, request another prosecutor be selected or withdraw the complaint.
24. If the complainant has not withdrawn the complaint within 7 days of the prosecutor discontinuing management of the case, the complaint will be considered withdrawn.
25. For the purposes of this section, "managing the prosecution of a case" includes but is not limited to:

• acting as the prosecutor for the duration of all stages of the criminal trial heard for the case;
• and representing the prosecution in any separate judicial review hearings arising from the criminal trial.

26. When the management of the prosecution of a case is completed, all records associated with that prosecution will be transferred to the Court.

Click to expand...

Section 3.5 Pre-Sentencing Ejections and Bans:

27. The Delegate may eject and/or ban a particular nation from the region pending criminal charges against them, or prior to the conclusion of an ongoing criminal trial in which they are the defendant, only when that nation poses a clear security threat and their removal is necessary for the protection of the region.
28. The Delegate must seek the approval of the Court for any such ejection or ban. Where possible, this approval must be sought prior to the nation's removal from the region. Otherwise, it must be sought within one day of the action.
29. If the ejection or ban is performed during a criminal trial against that nation, approval will be at the discretion of the justice moderating the trial. Otherwise, any single justice may approve or deny the Delegate's request.
30. Any nation ejected or banned under this section may file an appeal of the decision. These appeals may not be denied, and must be decided by the full court.
31. The Delegate must immediately provide any nation ejected or banned under this section with a link to the Courtroom and inform them of their right to file an appeal.
32. If criminal charges are not brought against a nation ejected or banned under this section, or if the criminal charges are rejected by the Court, or if the nation is not found Guilty at the conclusion of the trial, any ban against that nation which was imposed under this section must be revoked.

Click to expand...

Section 3.6 The Court Examiner:

33. Whenever the position is vacant, the Bar Commission shall select from among the members of the regional bar by a majority vote, and the Chief Justice shall appoint, a Court Examiner. Citizens will be exempt from constitutional restrictions on holding multiple government offices for purposes of their appointment as Court Examiner.
34. The Court Examiner will have standing in all cases of judicial review brought before the Court.
35. The term of the Court Examiner will last until the end of the next regular Judicial election.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

My logic here is pretty straightforward. Hopefully citizens with an interest in regional law will be tested and confirmed to be capable to prosecute or defend in a trial. If there's a higher standard for our litigants, hopefully we will see fewer errors and botched cases. The Court has some flexibility to come up with a good way to test litigants, whether it's the classic bar exam or a solid Q&A session, and the region can judge for themselves if the justices have established a good procedure for it. I like that the Court has more things to do in its spare time, and that we have an area where our potential justice candidates can stand out in elections. The nitty gritty of the bar and its rules, I feel, ought to be in the Court's standard procedure, though if any of you feel we should spell it out in greater length, I welcome your thoughts. I have left it possible for people opting to defend themselves to avoid having to be part of the bar.

I think the provision making it easier to drop charges speaks for itself. Once a prosecutor has been appointed by the RA, they still retain the ability to decline to press charges or not, as the entire process up to that point has run its course. I don't think it makes much sense for the prosecutor, in managing the case, to simply be turned away by a last minute effort to drop charges - I think the prosecutor has room for some judgment here, and may conclude it's best to drop charges if the complainant wishes to do so. I do recognize that this may not go far enough for some people, and some may be thinking of a certain past incident where charges were dropped despite the AG wishing to move forward - I can definitely be swayed on this, if you feel we should not leave it up to the prosecutor once they get going to carry on with the case or not if the complainant decides to stop.

Finally, there's universal standing. In the interest of keeping this limited and controlled, it is limited to a single individual, chosen by the members of the bar. The idea is for the term to last as long as any iteration of the Court does, though the examiner can be replaced at any time. The Court provides a check on frivolous calls for new elections, and the Court can decide how to conduct these elections similarly to the Electoral Commission. I figure someone will raise an issue with the fact this position is not directly selected by the RA. I did consider RA confirmation, but I reasoned that prosecutor selections potentially have greater consequences than the examiner. After all, it is the justices who decide the outcome of r4rs - the examiner is just able to get reviews going that anyone else may otherwise not have been able to, and the only real way for this to go wrong that I can see is the examiner goes a little nuts with filing the r4rs, and justices always have the discretion in accepting or rejecting them. Standing is typically the reason for rejection, but it need not be the only one.

I look forward to hearing your thoughts on this bill.

This seems largely reasonable on first glance. However, there are a few questions I have that I'm hoping you can provide some greater insight to:

1) Unless I'm mistaken as to the definition of the word "litigant", I believe the proposed clause 3.3.11 conflicts with clause 3.4.17, which states any citizen may be appointed as prosecutor. Assuming that your intent is to only allow members of the bar to be prosecutors, one of the reasons previously cited for establishing a regional bar is to avoid a dragged-out prosecutor confirmation process, but the RA confirmation of prosecutors has been kept in this draft. What do you think is the purpose served by the confirmation if the appointee's legal knowledge has already been evaluated by virtue of being in the regional bar?

2) Is the Court Examiner intended to be a government official? Looking at the draft provisions it appears they wouldn't count as one, but I want to check if that is your intention, since it would insulate them from being recalled by the RA. On a related note, I'm wondering what the rationale is for only allowing the Court to replace the Court Examiner, but not the members of the regional bar that elected them originally.

3) This is not so much a question but I feel like clause 33 and 35 can be combined into one clause that says "The members of the regional bar shall elect a Court Examiner from among themselves by a majority vote at the start of each Judicial term." (or "at the end of each Judicial election" if you prefer)

Aye

I am glad to see this proposal brought forward and intend to support it.

I would agree with Gorundu that, at the moment, clauses 11 and 17 would conflict with each other. I think that clause 11 would also conflict with clause 23. It would seem to me that clause 17 should be amended to be “any member of the regional bar may be appointed […]”. Clause 23 is a bit more difficult to resolve, it may need a new clause to the effect that “Where the complainant is not a member of the regional bar, they must be represented by a member of the regional bar”.

In relation to the Court Examiner, I would be inclined to find a way to have them be a government official. I appreciate that having a gatekeeper for universal standing is important and that, given they won’t have the wider role the Attorney General once did, there is not as much need to have them be elected, but I do think that they should remain subject to the Assembly’s control by recall. The simplest mechanism I would see as achieving that aim would be to have the Chief Justice appoint whoever wins the election as Examiner. Presumably, the inclination will be to exempt the role from the multiple branch restriction and I would not disagree with that.

How will the region handle the period between when this law pass, people actually start to apply, and when the court gets around to making the examination and appointments?
Is there an examination ready?

Dreadton:

How will the region handle the period between when this law pass, people actually start to apply, and when the court gets around to making the examination and appointments?
Is there an examination ready?

Click to expand...

Strictly, this doesn’t require an examination, so long as the Court is satisfied that an applicant has demonstrated “adequate and reasonable knowledge of [the law]”. The Court could make an interim rule that was not based on an examination to cover that period, such as a less formal Q&A session with the Court, as Pallaith suggests, or an assessment of prior legal writing (briefs, arguments as a prosecutor or defence counsel, etc). Indeed, the Court could make that the permanent system or use that sort of thing alongside an examination, the Court has quite a free hand under the draft.

EDIT: fixed missing quotation mark.

The Court Examiner sounds a little like an AG, but elected by fewer people - though I don’t really see that as an issue. (May I suggest the alternative title of “Solicitor General”?)

@Gorundu and @Zyvetskistaahn I take your points about perceived conflict in the clauses you outlined. I felt that any citizen being eligible to be a prosecutor was fine leaving as is because it demonstrates that there are no other restrictions for the role outside of the one that precedes it, that all litigants must be members of the bar. I don’t think it’s worth creating the impression of conflict or figuring out if there is in fact one, it’s easily changed so I will do so.

I thank Zyvet for pointing out another conflict, regarding the prosecuting of a case by the complainant as a last resort. That is incompatible with the bar system, and needs to be addressed.

To expand a bit more for Gorundu, I didn’t want to change up the prosecution system with this bill beyond the obvious fix I outlined, but obviously this is an opportunity to do that as well.The bar system wasn’t strictly designed to eliminate the prosecutor confirmation process, it was designed to professionalize the prosecutors. If we can rely on that, it does eliminate much of what the RA questioning would be about. But I can see the RA still wanting to probe for biases or experience that someone has toward a case regardless of their legal knowledge. And they may be concerned with questions or character or relationships with the parties involved. That is to say, there are other reasons the RA may want to go through this process aside from whether the person is sufficiently knowledgeable.

Off the top of my head, we could simply have the delegate pick people from the bar, but one big concern people had when we lost the AG was that appointed prosecutors could be corrupted or it was too much power for the delegate. On the other hand, if we had the Court do it, would that concern be alleviated? The easier it is, the more trust you have to have that officials will do what they’re supposed to do. I’m willing to shake this up though if you don’t like the lengthy confirmation method. I just assumed the RA didn’t want to move away from that, even if they don’t like the time it takes.

The examiner being a government official - yes it was not designed to be one. I didn’t see the point - what exactly is this person doing outside of possibly submitting r4rs like any other citizen could? What is the need for recalling this person? Unlike the EC, the members of the bar are not making government policy, they’re waiting to be picked to serve in a role (at which point they do take oaths). I understand what it means if someone isn’t a government official, and that the RA wouldn’t easily be able to pluck them out of their office, but why does this role need to be a government official? I would also note that they can be effectively recalled from their role as long as any member of the bar asks for a new vote. This is not something only the Court can do, as Gorundu suggested - the Court’s okay is a check on excessive use of the examiner vote. But the vote is still what decides who the examiner is.

I believe Zyvet’s response covers what I would say to @Dreadton - we have a purposely flexible way for the Court to decide who passes the bar. The first time this is set up they can make it possible for us to have bar-qualified litigants in case we find ourselves going to court before a procedure is finished and people are applying for the bar.

@Pathoal the similarity to the AG can’t be helped - the AG had universal standing. We wanted to bring it back, so I came up with a role that would have that standing. Of course the AG was also our prosecutor and now we have more of those, so the old AG duties are split. But you should recognize the role yes. The funny thing is, when I played around with names for this role, solicitor general did come to mind. However, aside from not wanting to echo the dearly departed AG, I would note that the solicitor general is the government’s advocate to the Supreme Court. That’s not what the examiner is doing. There’s slight overlap in some of what the solicitor general does, but not much, and I don’t want to use a name just because it sounds fancy.

Pallaith:

The examiner being a government official - yes it was not designed to be one. I didn’t see the point - what exactly is this person doing outside of possibly submitting r4rs like any other citizen could? What is the need for recalling this person? Unlike the EC, the members of the bar are not making government policy, they’re waiting to be picked to serve in a role (at which point they do take oaths). I understand what it means if someone isn’t a government official, and that the RA wouldn’t easily be able to pluck them out of their office, but why does this role need to be a government official? I would also note that they can be effectively recalled from their role as long as any member of the bar asks for a new vote. This is not something only the Court can do, as Gorundu suggested - the Court’s okay is a check on excessive use of the examiner vote. But the vote is still what decides who the examiner is.

Click to expand...

I do not expect there would be many recalls, but the same is true for generally for our officials. My view is that there is a regional interest in universal standing and how it is used which suggests they should be a governmental official. They are like a government official (in having a power and role prescribed by law) and fulfil what, to my mind, is a governmental role.

As regards why the Assembly may wish to recall them, universal standing can be used to increase the power of the Court at the expense of the Assembly, in such a scenario the Court’s check allows it to maintain a favourable position for itself. It could also be used in a manner which is abusive of the Court’s processes, for instance to bring repeated requests until the Examiner secures the answer they wish; were the Examiner to be a government official, conduct of that nature could also be contrary to their oath and amount to gross misconduct. Some of these issues will be guarded against by the system of election but I do not see the issue in the extra checks that would come from making them a government official.

These sorts scenarios will be very rare but they are not unthinkable. The example I would give would be the nesting doll r4r. In that debacle, the Court (in one of the decisions) was said to have wrongly set itself above judicial review and it was a further request for review backed by the then AG that reversed that decision, a Court with a friendly Examiner would not be subject to the same check; I also contended (and to this day remain of the view) that the AG used their standing to abuse the Court’s process.

Clearly, the Examiner will not be the most dangerous role out there, but I think it comes with a responsibility and a power that makes it something that should come with an oath, the additional liability that comes with that, and accountability to the Assembly.

Oh sorry I thought this was a vote thread

Pallaith:

To expand a bit more for Gorundu, I didn’t want to change up the prosecution system with this bill beyond the obvious fix I outlined, but obviously this is an opportunity to do that as well.The bar system wasn’t strictly designed to eliminate the prosecutor confirmation process, it was designed to professionalize the prosecutors. If we can rely on that, it does eliminate much of what the RA questioning would be about. But I can see the RA still wanting to probe for biases or experience that someone has toward a case regardless of their legal knowledge. And they may be concerned with questions or character or relationships with the parties involved. That is to say, there are other reasons the RA may want to go through this process aside from whether the person is sufficiently knowledgeable.

Off the top of my head, we could simply have the delegate pick people from the bar, but one big concern people had when we lost the AG was that appointed prosecutors could be corrupted or it was too much power for the delegate. On the other hand, if we had the Court do it, would that concern be alleviated? The easier it is, the more trust you have to have that officials will do what they’re supposed to do. I’m willing to shake this up though if you don’t like the lengthy confirmation method. I just assumed the RA didn’t want to move away from that, even if they don’t like the time it takes.

Click to expand...

As you have rightly pointed out, the regional bar eliminates some of the need for RA confirmation, but not all. That said, I do believe it would decrease the usefulness of the RA confirmation significantly. The reason I'm comfortable with removing the confirmation is because recourse still exists if the appointee does turn out to have problems - the RA can exercise its power of recall. In fact, perhaps provisions should be made so that if a prosecutor is recalled, the trial should be restarted with a clean slate.

I'm definitely open to another method of appointing the prosecutor. The Court, as you have suggested, could be an option, although I'm not sure if that poses a potential conflict of interest since the Court also makes their judgment in part based on the prosecutor's case. Another idea I have is for the regional bar to choose, which would take the power out of one person/a small group of people, and thus make it easier to avoid biases.

Pallaith:

The examiner being a government official - yes it was not designed to be one. I didn’t see the point - what exactly is this person doing outside of possibly submitting r4rs like any other citizen could? What is the need for recalling this person? Unlike the EC, the members of the bar are not making government policy, they’re waiting to be picked to serve in a role (at which point they do take oaths). I understand what it means if someone isn’t a government official, and that the RA wouldn’t easily be able to pluck them out of their office, but why does this role need to be a government official? I would also note that they can be effectively recalled from their role as long as any member of the bar asks for a new vote. This is not something only the Court can do, as Gorundu suggested - the Court’s okay is a check on excessive use of the examiner vote. But the vote is still what decides who the examiner is.

Click to expand...

I'm indifferent towards whether the Examiner should be a government official. I do recognise their power is very limited. I do realise I incorrectly suggested that only the Court can replace the Examiner - what I meant was that calling an election for a new Examiner requires Court approval. This seems to me to be a potential conflict of interest, since the Court can use that to indirectly influence what requests they want to receive from the Examiner. I am simply of the opinion that the bar itself would be much better positioned to recall an Examiner and elect a new one should it be necessary.

Zyvetskistaahn:

I do not expect there would be many recalls, but the same is true for generally for our officials. My view is that there is a regional interest in universal standing and how it is used which suggests they should be a governmental official. They are like a government official (in having a power and role prescribed by law) and fulfil what, to my mind, is a governmental role.

As regards why the Assembly may wish to recall them, universal standing can be used to increase the power of the Court at the expense of the Assembly, in such a scenario the Court’s check allows it to maintain a favourable position for itself. It could also be used in a manner which is abusive of the Court’s processes, for instance to bring repeated requests until the Examiner secures the answer they wish; were the Examiner to be a government official, conduct of that nature could also be contrary to their oath and amount to gross misconduct. Some of these issues will be guarded against by the system of election but I do not see the issue in the extra checks that would come from making them a government official.

These sorts scenarios will be very rare but they are not unthinkable. The example I would give would be the nesting doll r4r. In that debacle, the Court (in one of the decisions) was said to have wrongly set itself above judicial review and it was a further request for review backed by the then AG that reversed that decision, a Court with a friendly Examiner would not be subject to the same check; I also contended (and to this day remain of the view) that the AG used their standing to abuse the Court’s process.

Clearly, the Examiner will not be the most dangerous role out there, but I think it comes with a responsibility and a power that makes it something that should come with an oath, the additional liability that comes with that, and accountability to the Assembly.

Click to expand...

The thing is, it doesn't matter what r4r the examiner puts forward, because standing is not the only reason the Court can decline to hear a r4r. And just because the Court hears it doesn't mean the outcome is guaranteed - it would be hard to be so clearly abusing universal standing that the RA would want to recall you, while the Court just what, acts helpless to do anything about it? I understand your scenario is acknowledged to be unlikely, but I think it's even unlikelier than even you think. It honestly isn't a big deal making them a government official, though obviously we would have to write in yet another carveout for holding multiple offices. It just...really strikes me as completely unnecessary. I would sooner make a deputy minister a government official than the examiner to be honest.

You invoked the nesting doll r4r. We don't need universal standing for someone to submit an r4r on a questionable Court decision. The AG was not the only one who could have filed that - whether you consider compelling regional interest, or just the original submitter of the r4r, there were other ways. And I definitely disagree it was an abuse of power - but since you did bring it up, maybe we need to revisit that in greater detail, and you can unpack that claim, because if we're bringing back universal standing, being able to pinpoint situations where it went wrong is very useful, especially if I am underestimating what the examiner can do.

Gorundu:

As you have rightly pointed out, the regional bar eliminates some of the need for RA confirmation, but not all. That said, I do believe it would decrease the usefulness of the RA confirmation significantly. The reason I'm comfortable with removing the confirmation is because recourse still exists if the appointee does turn out to have problems - the RA can exercise its power of recall. In fact, perhaps provisions should be made so that if a prosecutor is recalled, the trial should be restarted with a clean slate.

I'm definitely open to another method of appointing the prosecutor. The Court, as you have suggested, could be an option, although I'm not sure if that poses a potential conflict of interest since the Court also makes their judgment in part based on the prosecutor's case. Another idea I have is for the regional bar to choose, which would take the power out of one person/a small group of people, and thus make it easier to avoid biases.

I'm indifferent towards whether the Examiner should be a government official. I do recognise their power is very limited. I do realise I incorrectly suggested that only the Court can replace the Examiner - what I meant was that calling an election for a new Examiner requires Court approval. This seems to me to be a potential conflict of interest, since the Court can use that to indirectly influence what requests they want to receive from the Examiner. I am simply of the opinion that the bar itself would be much better positioned to recall an Examiner and elect a new one should it be necessary.

Click to expand...

Theoretically you could recall a prosecutor. In practice, I have trouble seeing the timeline. I imagine by the time the prosecutor has made a serious blunder that would get them recalled, the trial will be well underway. You'd have to have a sufficiently long trial and a sufficiently early screw up, plus a sufficiently short debate and voting period, for the recall to actually be successful during the trial before it is concluded. You'd have to walk me through what you mean by clean slate too, because replacing the prosecutor already requires going through the appointment and confirmation process a second time, and the trial won't be able to proceed until that is completed.

If the Court selected the prosecutor, that selection takes place before the trial even begins. One way to solve it might be to leave the moderating justice out of the decision. In terms of the bar choosing - I see the bar not as a committee like the EC, but an accreditation. That is, you are part of it so you can be a prosecutor. Nothing in particular comes from being part of it outside of the periodic vote you cast to pick the examiner. Maybe instead of only being appointed by the delegate, they can also volunteer (though they can technically do that now). I thought about drawing lots and having one randomly selected, but it's a recipe for disaster if you rely on a system that calls on someone to be active when they may not be able to step up. Appointing someone means you were able to find someone willing to take the job.

In terms of conflict of interest for the Court approving votes to replace the examiner - I simply wanted there to be a way to stop trolls from constantly changing the examiner out, or doing so frivolously. I can start adding provisions to make it harder for the bar to do a mid-term vote, require a certain number of them or specify conditions, or an overwrite mechanism in case the Court is being biased or whatever, but I think it gets silly pretty quickly. As you can see, I have more faith in the elected Court who have several consequences that can be levied at them over the members of the bar, who are after all just citizens. Maybe bar ethics rules (assuming they are instituted of course) can help the Court kick out unruly and troublesome members of the bar who abuse the mid-term vote option. Maybe that's good enough.

Smh ghost posting things after midnight, we all know nothing good happens after midnight.

anyways, maybe I’m just new, but this seems exceedingly complicated. Why are we creating a bar that is maintained by the court while still making it so that the regional assembly can decide who can and cannot be a prosecutor for cases?

I have other opinions, and I’m going to have a lot of stupid questions, but I need to understand what the actual point of this laws in his few words as possible so that I, and potentially others, can feel that we can be properly part of this conversation, because we’re a little too high Brow right now, I need someone to dumb this down for me. Does anyone have a dumbed down version of what this is? I’ll even take a TL;DR, but frankly, holy jeez. What?

Madeline Valois:

Smh ghost posting things after midnight, we all know nothing good happens after midnight.

anyways, maybe I’m just new, but this seems exceedingly complicated. Why are we creating a bar that is maintained by the court while still making it so that the regional assembly can decide who can and cannot be a prosecutor for cases?

I have other opinions, and I’m going to have a lot of stupid questions, but I need to understand what the actual point of this laws in his few words as possible so that I, and potentially others, can feel that we can be properly part of this conversation, because we’re a little too high Brow right now, I need someone to dumb this down for me. Does anyone have a dumbed down version of what this is? I’ll even take a TL;DR, but frankly, holy jeez. What?

Click to expand...

I will try. Don't worry about your questions being stupid, of all the things to mess with in law, the judicial stuff is some of the densest and dare I say, boring, for most people.

If you want to be a prosecutor or defend someone on trial, you have to be a member of the bar. The test or qualification process, whatever, to get into the bar is written and managed by the Court. The Court also decides qualifications to maintain membership in the bar and how to handle people getting kicked out of it. A majority of the bar pick one person in the bar to be an examiner until the end of the judicial term, and this examiner has universal standing, meaning they can always have standing when filing r4rs (just like the old AG). Anyone in the bar can ask the Court to start a new vote to replace the examiner, but a majority of the Court has to be okay with it.

Now, you ask why. I and many others believe that we have to have better people try and defend cases, and this may weed out some of the less qualified people. It's also a way to get a role with universal standing, something many people feel is missed since we abolished the AG's office. We don't need the bar concept to do the universal standing thing, but that's how I set it up in this draft.

The prosecutor selection system is also fair game, if you think it's contradicted by the bar system (I disagree), or just don't like it. A lot of people have issues with it. Ultimately I am concerned with finding a way to encourage a higher standard for our litigants in trials and seeking a way to bring back universal standing. There's plenty of ways we can do that, and I ran for Delegate in part on a promise that I would work on a solution to these issues that many in our region have been asking for. Maybe the solution is totally revamping the prosecutor selection process. It's also possible you guys are...actually fine with how it works now, and maybe I am overblowing the whole thing? That would be surprising but it would be good to know.

I am not sure that I am comfortable with the only check on the Court Examiner besides the Court being the members of the members of the bar, but maybe it doesn't matter considering how limited the Court Examiner's power is.

Edit: it seems to be that all members of the bar may be government officials, if you define the process of their selection having them be "appointed by [the Court] as permitted by law".

2. Government officials are the constitutionally-mandated elected officials, any officials appointed by them as permitted by law, and members of the Security Council.

Click to expand...

Pathoal:

I am not sure that I am comfortable with the only check on the Court Examiner besides the Court being the members of the members of the bar, but maybe it doesn't matter considering how limited the Court Examiner's power is.

Edit: it seems to be that all members of the bar may be government officials, if you define the process of their selection having them be "appointed by [the Court] as permitted by law".

Click to expand...

The Court wouldn’t appoint people members of the bar. It would recognize their eligibility to join it and confirm their membership to it. It would be more like a minister accepting people into the executive staff.

I hate to make assumptions about how most people feel from only a few voices, but it seems like most of the issues with this proposal are coming from the fact the universal standing is tied to the bar. If I divorced the two, there would be very few scenarios, if any, where the examiner wouldn’t be a government official. Perhaps I’ll do that with the next draft. I also note the existence of another proposal for a bar association that also attempts to tackle the specifics of it rather than leave that up to another body. Is that the way to go? What do you guys think?

Pallaith:

I hate to make assumptions about how most people feel from only a few voices, but it seems like most of the issues with this proposal are coming from the fact the universal standing is tied to the bar. If I divorced the two, there would be very few scenarios, if any, where the examiner wouldn’t be a government official. Perhaps I’ll do that with the next draft.

Click to expand...

It sounds like what you are proposing is... an Attorney General!

Pallaith:

I also note the existence of another proposal for a bar association that also attempts to tackle the specifics of it rather than leave that up to another body. Is that the way to go? What do you guys think?

Click to expand...

I personally prefer not strictly defining the specifics of the Bar Association in law, and I think this bill is superior in that regard. As we have never had anything of the sort I would rather enable the Court to be flexible in creating the new body so it can have more leeway in finding what works.

Universal standing needs to be somewhere and invested in someone. I see no issue with the bill. If the issue is "holding the person accountable" treat the bar like the EC or something.

Pathoal:

It sounds like what you are proposing is... an Attorney General!

I personally prefer not strictly defining the specifics of the Bar Association in law, and I think this bill is superior in that regard. As we have never had anything of the sort I would rather enable the Court to be flexible in creating the new body so it can have more leeway in finding what works.

Click to expand...

The AG was more than just universal standing. In fact I would say the universal standing aspect was one of the more minor aspects of the job, and on its own, not even close to as meaningful or significant as the AG at 100%. I’m just resurrecting that piece of the AG so you would now have two pieces of the AG floating around.

Your agreement on not putting out the whole charter for the thing is noted. That’s generally how I prefer to approach these kinds of laws.

I will say that I've wanted to see something like this since AGORA passed. I don't see anything that I'd raise a stink over, personally. I think a lot of the "I'll represent myself." that's been common in the trials I've been involved in has a lot to do with defendants not knowing who would be willing or able to represent them at trial. This has my support.

I do not support this. I do not think a regional bar should be under the Court and I think this for four reasons. First, looking at the provisions like 3.6.37 it would be more favorable to me if members of a bar were able to replace the Examiner on their own rather than rely on the Court to do it for them, or decide not to. What would be the case if the bar wished to replace the Examiner and the Court decided not to? It would put the relationship between bar and Court in a weird place, and members of the bar may feel a sense of being powerless. The Court would be best I believe if it only had power over criminal cases, civil cases, and judicial review instead of power over a group of people. The Court Examiner is already selected from among the members of the bar so it does not compute with me why the Court is given the responsibility of replacing Examiners. Second, putting a regional bar under the Court could potentially make the Justices' abilities to administrate the bar a focus of future judicial elections. It is my belief that judicial candidates should only be considered based on their legal abilities, experience, and philosophies. I do not think they should be considered based on how well they can handle a bar. Third, I am appreciative of the level of responsibility the Court currently holds. I am not of the belief it needs any more. And Fourth, 3.3.11 and 3.4.17 contradict each other. All litigants in a criminal trial must be members of the bar, yet the RA can confirm anyone to be prosecutor? You can argue that there is an assumption there that the prosecutor that will be confirmed will also be a part of the bar by default because of 3.3.11, but I do not support the use of assumptions in the law. Those two provisions do not mix well together because their wordings give off contradictory meanings.

I also take issue with the added 3.4.22. In the provision it establishes that a complainant may drop charges before a prosecutor is confirmed by the RA, but after a prosecutor is confirmed the case is under the discretion of the Prosecutor. Prosecutors manage the prosecution of cases they accept, but the case is not theirs. The ownership of the case belongs to the one who files it, so it makes sense for the prosecutor to have to respect the petitioner's wishes. The prosecutor manages the legalese of the case, but if the complainant wants to stop then it should stop.

Why are we creating a bar requiring the court to babysit it but the RA still decides who will prosecute?

I can pick who defends me but I can't pick who helps me go after the guy that harmed me? Seeing that the RA has the power to decide who can prosecute is already making me itchy and it is a bit shocking that a region of this size and age has let this just exist for however long it has been there.
Also what's the point of a bar if the RA still has say over who prosecutes?

If we're keeping that but creating a bar, just make the RA pick the defense too, this just looks overly complicated because we didn't totally look at what was in front of us before going "yeah, I'm gonna change this".

Kronos:

I do not support this. I do not think a regional bar should be under the Court and I think this for four reasons. First, looking at the provisions like 3.6.37 it would be more favorable to me if members of a bar were able to replace the Examiner on their own rather than rely on the Court to do it for them, or decide not to. What would be the case if the bar wished to replace the Examiner and the Court decided not to? It would put the relationship between bar and Court in a weird place, and members of the bar may feel a sense of being powerless. The Court would be best I believe if it only had power over criminal cases, civil cases, and judicial review instead of power over a group of people. The Court Examiner is already selected from among the members of the bar so it does not compute with me why the Court is given the responsibility of replacing Examiners. Second, putting a regional bar under the Court could potentially make the Justices' abilities to administrate the bar a focus of future judicial elections. It is my belief that judicial candidates should only be considered based on their legal abilities, experience, and philosophies. I do not think they should be considered based on how well they can handle a bar. Third, I am appreciative of the level of responsibility the Court currently holds. I am not of the belief it needs any more. And Fourth, 3.3.11 and 3.4.17 contradict each other. All litigants in a criminal trial must be members of the bar, yet the RA can confirm anyone to be prosecutor? You can argue that there is an assumption there that the prosecutor that will be confirmed will also be a part of the bar by default because of 3.3.11, but I do not support the use of assumptions in the law. Those two provisions do not mix well together because their wordings give off contradictory meanings.

I also take issue with the added 3.4.22. In the provision it establishes that a complainant may drop charges before a prosecutor is confirmed by the RA, but after a prosecutor is confirmed the case is under the discretion of the Prosecutor. Prosecutors manage the prosecution of cases they accept, but the case is not theirs. The ownership of the case belongs to the one who files it, so it makes sense for the prosecutor to have to respect the petitioner's wishes. The prosecutor manages the legalese of the case, but if the complainant wants to stop then it should stop.

Click to expand...

I appreciate your input. I have addressed the contradiction concern about litigants needing to be on the bar, but citizens being eligible for prosecutors. That is definitely getting fixed. As to the Court responsibilities aspect, you’re right, what should matter most in judicial elections are the decisions and the conduct of the justices. The bar stuff may only tangentially relate to that, but we can’t rule out that management of the bar wouldn’t come up at some point. As for your concern about the dropping of cases - I got to admit, I’m not so sure about that either. I was trying to fix a problem we encountered before, we haven’t had a case that someone attempted to drop after a prosecutor was actually managing the case. That could happen though, and if it does, we shouldn’t have to just rely on a prosecutor respecting the complainant’s wishes.

Madeline Valois:

Why are we creating a bar requiring the court to babysit it but the RA still decides who will prosecute?

I can pick who defends me but I can't pick who helps me go after the guy that harmed me? Seeing that the RA has the power to decide who can prosecute is already making me itchy and it is a bit shocking that a region of this size and age has let this just exist for however long it has been there.
Also what's the point of a bar if the RA still has say over who prosecutes?

If we're keeping that but creating a bar, just make the RA pick the defense too, this just looks overly complicated because we didn't totally look at what was in front of us before going "yeah, I'm gonna change this".

Click to expand...

I actually don’t see the Court as babysitting the bar. They write the rules for the bar but their role, as always, is reactive. Problems with the bar, things members of the bar need, they ask the Court. And if that doesn’t happen, the Court wouldn’t really have to have anything to do with them. Admittedly a lot of that isn’t showing up on the page here, because that would be part of the rules for the bar, which the Court would create.

I have to explain some context to you, because this isn’t an issue with not looking at the law before we changed it. The AGORA Act took months to debate and pass. We had to come up with a new system for handling prosecution, because we abolished the office of the Attorney General. Instead of one elected prosecutor who took all cases, we came up with a “pick as you need them” system. Personally, I would have preferred a simple appointment scheme where the delegate, in consultation with the Speaker or some other official (maybe someone from the Court) would pick a prosecutor, similar to how EC’s were traditionally chosen, or how a THO is picked when all the justices are recused. But there was a lot of concern that gave the delegate too much power. So we have this time consuming, sometimes wasted effort that makes trials take longer.

Prosecutors charge people with violations of the law. That’s a heavy thing. The defense defends the accused. I don’t think it’s weird the processes are different. They were when we had an AG, too. One was an elected government official, the other is whoever got tapped to defend someone. But you do have a fair point about the RA confirmation in this sense - the bar is meant to encourage more professional and skilled litigants, but the RA could always decide against an appointed prosecutor. I can see how at first blush that may seem odd given any of these potential prosecutors should be equally valid. And well there it is - if they say no to one, the next one is also bar qualified. All of the possible prosecutors are qualified so the RA is picking among qualified people, so in a way it doesn’t matter who they pick.

It’s kind of a clunky system but I do believe the AG’s office was an uneven and rough thing itself. This region has always had a strong legal culture, and used to be populated by a lot of legal scholars, lawyers, and law enthusiasts. It’s been tough to maintain that culture in recent years, and the AG’s office suffered a lot as a result. It’s only been in place since the AGORA Act was passed, so about two years now?
———————————————————
To everyone: I think we need to break things down a bit more fundamentally. What are the aspects of this system that we all agree need some work and what are our goals? I hit on the bar system as a way to improve the quality of prosecutors, and wanted to bring back universal standing. It’s clear some of you don’t like the bar mechanism, don’t like using the bar for universal standing, don’t like the interplay between this and the prosecutors, don’t like the prosecutor system period. There’s a lot of ways for us to tackle this. I don’t need to remind you that we’re not married to this proposal. We can amend this thing to the point it barely resembles the first draft.

So don’t get hung up on what this bill looks like right now. Let’s start smaller. What things do you want the law to do for our judicial system? What things should this bill do and not do. I told you my goals, what are yours?

Can we call it Regional Chambers, or Inns of Court or something similar? (If we are to say use English barristers' terminology). Or Regional Law Society. The use of the word bar (in small letters) seems to bring to mind our "official" love of plentiful rum. It's a bit jarring to me to be honest. At least, I would suggest to capitalize it or define it as "called to/up to the Regional Bar".

The use of the word "Bar Association" (for amending 3.5) is slightly better in my mind as most American states as well as common law jurisdictions use that term already.

Pallaith:

Theoretically you could recall a prosecutor. In practice, I have trouble seeing the timeline. I imagine by the time the prosecutor has made a serious blunder that would get them recalled, the trial will be well underway. You'd have to have a sufficiently long trial and a sufficiently early screw up, plus a sufficiently short debate and voting period, for the recall to actually be successful during the trial before it is concluded. You'd have to walk me through what you mean by clean slate too, because replacing the prosecutor already requires going through the appointment and confirmation process a second time, and the trial won't be able to proceed until that is completed.

If the Court selected the prosecutor, that selection takes place before the trial even begins. One way to solve it might be to leave the moderating justice out of the decision. In terms of the bar choosing - I see the bar not as a committee like the EC, but an accreditation. That is, you are part of it so you can be a prosecutor. Nothing in particular comes from being part of it outside of the periodic vote you cast to pick the examiner. Maybe instead of only being appointed by the delegate, they can also volunteer (though they can technically do that now). I thought about drawing lots and having one randomly selected, but it's a recipe for disaster if you rely on a system that calls on someone to be active when they may not be able to step up. Appointing someone means you were able to find someone willing to take the job.

Click to expand...

You make a good point that recalling a prosecutor is difficult considering the timeline. By the clean slate I meant that we could consider adding to the law a provision that requires the trial to be restarted from scratch if a prosecutor does manage to get recalled.

Anyway, I'd like to propose another possibility here to simplify the appointment of a prosecutor - the Delegate appoints the prosecutor, but there is an objection period of say, three days, and if a sufficient number of citizens object to the appointment (probably something like one-third of quorum) during that period, then a vote will take place.

Pallaith:

In terms of conflict of interest for the Court approving votes to replace the examiner - I simply wanted there to be a way to stop trolls from constantly changing the examiner out, or doing so frivolously. I can start adding provisions to make it harder for the bar to do a mid-term vote, require a certain number of them or specify conditions, or an overwrite mechanism in case the Court is being biased or whatever, but I think it gets silly pretty quickly. As you can see, I have more faith in the elected Court who have several consequences that can be levied at them over the members of the bar, who are after all just citizens. Maybe bar ethics rules (assuming they are instituted of course) can help the Court kick out unruly and troublesome members of the bar who abuse the mid-term vote option. Maybe that's good enough.

Click to expand...

After considering the provision more and your reasoning for it, this does seem like the most sensible solution, mainly because the Court's exercise of this power is pretty one-sided. There's not much point in the Court trying to block a change in Court Examiner - if it's because the examiner is being annoying, then the Court would have likely found them annoying too; if it's because the examiner is inactive, then it would be a bad look to try and keep an inactive player in the position.

Pallaith:

If I divorced the two, there would be very few scenarios, if any, where the examiner wouldn’t be a government official.

Click to expand...

Focusing on this, and perhaps I’m misunderstanding something, but if you divorced the current proposal from someone with universal standing wouldn’t you basically be recreating the AG but by literally any other name? (Not even necessarily getting into how that “examiner” is appointed, etc.)

As to the proposal itself, this seems pretty straightforward and common-sense. Really no complaints from me because I think the question of a select group of people who can pick someone with universal standing is probably the way it should be anyways.

I have presented version 2 of this bill (see first post). Here are the changes:

-There is now a Bar Commission that writes the rules and manages the bar, rather than having the Court do it. This commission has 3 members, chosen by all three branches - a Justice, someone appointed by the Delegate, and someone picked by the Court who is confirmed by the RA. The appointed members cannot also be elected government officials.

-I have removed the RA confirmation aspect of the prosecutor appointment. The Delegate now has to pick from the bar, and follow the other restrictions, but otherwise once the person is picked, the trial begins.

-The complainant may drop the charges at any time, and if they do, the case ends, no matter what stage in the process it is

-The complainant can no longer choose to take on prosecuting the case if the prosecutor decides to stop prosecuting. They can ask for a new prosecutor, or drop charges.

-The Court Examiner is now chosen by the Bar Commission, and appointed by the Chief Justice. This makes them a government official. The only way to remove them would be through recall.

-I specified the term ends when the next regular Justice election ends, so as to not trigger a new selection whenever there is a special election.

I think this handles most of the issues many of you had with the bill, but it may have created new ones, so let me know what you think.

11. All litigants in criminal trials must be members of the regional bar, unless they are a defendant who has opted to defend themselves.

Click to expand...

If this includes defence counsel then it's a deal-breaker for me.

I have more thoughts but I will post them... later.

Pathoal:

If this includes defence counsel then it's a deal-breaker for me.

I have more thoughts but I will post them... later.

Click to expand...

It does, would be interested to hear why this is an issue for you.

I motion this to vote.

Yuno:

I motion this to vote.

Click to expand...

Thank you for your enthusiasm, but I just revised this a few hours ago. I would like people to have a chance to see it, especially since at least one person has indicated he has thoughts to share.

I'm not sure I like the Bar Commission idea. I think it just adds too much complexity to the system for me. Though I want to check: the proposal currently provides for life appointment to the position for the two appointed positions?

I don't particularly like the change that complainants can now drop a case at any time either. Just because a specific person first lodged a case doesn't mean there aren't other people interested in the outcome. I don't feel the power to discontinue the case should rest with one individual. I'm fine with the complainant dropping a case after the prosecutor drops it, since that involves two people in agreement.

Pallaith:

It does, would be interested to hear why this is an issue for you.

Click to expand...

People should be free to have anyone represent them in Court. Whether or not they pick someone from the approved lawyers club is their business. I might suggest that Court-appointed defence counsel must come from the Bar.

12. Any citizen who is not currently serving a judicially-imposed sentence may apply for admission to the regional bar. Any citizen who is given a judicially-imposed sentence while a member of the regional bar will have their admission to the regional bar revoked.

Click to expand...

I am somewhat unsure of the need for this, as Court sentences often involve suspension from holding government office in any case.

24. If the complainant has not stated their intent to either manage the prosecution of the case or withdraw the complaint within 7 days of the prosecutor declining the case, the complaint will be considered withdrawn.

Click to expand...

You probably need to update this because the complainant is no longer allowed to simply manage the prosecution of the case themselves per the terms of the bill.

-The complainant may drop the charges at any time, and if they do, the case ends, no matter what stage in the process it is

Click to expand...

So this is how i would abuse this. I know my buddy committed a crime. I file the charges, I get the case opened and started, i drop the charges. My buddy is off and charges cant be refiled.

Dreadton:

So this is how i would abuse this. I know my buddy committed a crime. I file the charges, I get the case opened and started, i drop the charges. My buddy is off and charges cant be refiled.

Click to expand...

I wanted to address this really quickly (I will address your concerns a bit later Comfed). This would depend entirely on when the charges are dropped. Funny thing is, the original wording would have avoided this, so it seems I was at one point cognizant of this possibility but it wasn’t on my mind when I revised the draft. Looks like I’ll have to combine those clauses.

Pallaith:

I wanted to address this really quickly (I will address your concerns a bit later Comfed). This would depend entirely on when the charges are dropped. Funny thing is, the original wording would have avoided this, so it seems I was at one point cognizant of this possibility but it wasn’t on my mind when I revised the draft. Looks like I’ll have to combine those clauses.

Click to expand...

It says at any time and the case must end, with the bill of rights preventing double jeporday, im not sure what you are trying to say here.

Dreadton:

It says at any time and the case must end, with the bill of rights preventing double jeporday, im not sure what you are trying to say here.

Click to expand...

I’m saying that before this change, the wording said they could drop it any time before a prosecutor was confirmed. If the case is dropped early enough then jeopardy doesn’t apply, because the nation isn’t actually in jeopardy. I don’t see why that wouldn’t work the same way as it does in the real world.

Pallaith:

I’m saying that before this change, the wording said they could drop it any time before a prosecutor was confirmed. If the case is dropped early enough then jeopardy doesn’t apply, because the nation isn’t actually in jeopardy. I don’t see why that wouldn’t work the same way as it does in the real world.

Click to expand...

Ok I was saying that the wording you proposed allows for the case to be dropped once the trial begins and requires the court to end the trail, then double jeopardy applies.

I think I have come up with an example that may or may not illustrate Dreadton's point. Let's say that I want to raid Stargate but remain a citizen of the region and not get charged with Treason. I could simply get my friend Raiderpuppetstan to press Treason charges against me after I raided the region, then when the trial reaches sentencing, Raiderpuppetstan could simply drop the charges and the case would be dropped - I would be immune from punishment for my obviously criminal act, and I could also no longer be prosecuted due to double jeopardy.

Pathoal:

I think I have come up with an example that may or may not illustrate Dreadton's point. Let's say that I want to raid Stargate but remain a citizen of the region and not get charged with Treason. I could simply get my friend Raiderpuppetstan to press Treason charges against me after I raided the region, then when the trial reaches sentencing, Raiderpuppetstan could simply drop the charges and the case would be dropped - I would be immune from punishment for my obviously criminal act, and I could also no longer be prosecuted due to double jeopardy.

Click to expand...

I also see what he’s saying. We’re on the same page.