View Topic

Title
1. This shall be titled the Acceptance of Cases, allowance of Amicus Curiae filing, and additional court procedures act

Procedure for the Acceptance of Court Cases
2. Any citizen may file a petition with the Storting for a trial within the Judicial System of Wintreath. The petition is to include the included individuals, the violated law, and anything else that the Citizen filing wishes to add or deems necessary.

3. Upon filing a petition the Storting shall vote on whether or not to hear the case. Should the vote pass with a simple-majority then the Judicial Offices Act and the relevant sections of this law shall apply. The Storting itself may also vote to hear a case with a Proviso.

Filing of Amicus Curiae
4. Any Wintreath Citizen may file an Amicus Curiae with the Court containing their opinions on the case. The court shall consider this when deciding the case.

Additional Court Procedures
5. A person may file on behalf of another, as long as they are acting as lawyer for that person. A person may also act as the defendant's lawyer if they have the agreement of the defendant and they wish to do so. As such during the trial any party that has a lawyer may be called as Witness. Further should a lawyer stop acting as a one they must make a public post, after which the court may dismiss the case until the party finds a new lawyer or they may continue. This is to be done by a vote between the Judges.

6. The person whom has filed the request shall be allowed to speak, ask questions to witnesses, or call a witness during the trial not to exceed the limit set upon the Defendant by the Judicial Offices Act, Section 3.1. If the plaintiff has a lawyer as defined in Section 5, then this section shall apply to the  lawyer instead.

Drafted by Chanku, I bring to the attention of The Underhusen, the following proposal.

WhileI like this act, and think it is well set out, I do have one small concern:

Should the act not perhaps outline, a limit to the amount of issues any one individual can raise in a given time period, in order to prevent someone from spamming the Storting, which while annoying in itself could also be used to undermine this act in certain circumstances...  so in order to prevent any debate over what would constitute someone abusing this system, would it not be easier to set something up just now?

Or should this instead be added as an amendment to the "Code of Criminal Laws"?

Or am I just way off base here

I believe it would be most appropriate as an amendment to the Code of Criminal Laws. Perhaps something along the lines of "Vexatious Litigation", or it could just be called spam (if one wishes to be lazy) but I prefer the former.

WhileI like this act, and think it is well set out, I do have one small concern:

Should the act not perhaps outline, a limit to the amount of issues any one individual can raise in a given time period, in order to prevent someone from spamming the Storting, which while annoying in itself could also be used to undermine this act in certain circumstances...  so in order to prevent any debate over what would constitute someone abusing this system, would it not be easier to set something up just now?

Or should this instead be added as an amendment to the "Code of Criminal Laws"?

Or am I just way off base here

This merely just adds a few extra bits of procedure and codifies the acceptance process. It also adds the explicit allowance of Lawyers and the allowance of Amicus Briefs. So it's not appropriate for this law really.

Also it would not be appropriate for a Code of Criminal Laws amendment, as it's more of a civil issue. Further this act isn't stone, and may be amended if necessary. To be honest we should probably draft a Civil Code.

I don't like the current court system, but that's beside the point of this act, so this act has my approval.

We can discuss other amendments and drafts for other codes elsewhere, though.

Is everyone satisfied with the state of this bill?

OK I am really not trying to be a nag or anything, and I apologize in advance if that's what I am. I'd just rather speak my mind and be wrong than say nothing at all, that way I learn more.

So that being said, I am confused about section 6:

6. The person whom has filed the request shall be allowed to speak, ask questions to witnesses, or call a witness during the trial. If they have a lawyer then Section 5 of this law shall apply to the lawyer instead.

Where it says "then section 5 on this law shall apply to the lawyer instead." is where I am confused, does section 5 not just outline what a lawyer is and how they work.

5. A person may file on behalf of another, as long as they are acting as lawyer for that person. A person may also act as the defendant's lawyer if they have the agreement of the defendant and they wish to do so. As such during the trial any party that has a lawyer may be called as Witness. Further should a lawyer stop acting as a one they must make a public post, after which the court may dismiss the case until the party finds a new lawyer or they may continue. This is to be done by a vote between the Judges.

I assume then statement is meant to say that section 5 will apply to the lawyer the person chose, but then the "instead." isn't necessary. If the the statement is attempting to say that the lawyer can speak, ask questions to witnesses, excetera: then it doesn't work as section 5 never mentions a lawyer can do that. Only that the lawyer can call who they represent as witness. And if it it assumed as obvious that a lawyer can do those things then why define that the person that filed the request can do them in section 6?

Sorry, I know this is really pedantic. But I am actually confused about this, and if I am confused just now it is likely someone else might be confused in future if it is passed in it's current form.

Yeah that phrase was bad. It should say something like

If the person has a lawyer as defined in Section 5, then this section shall apply to the  lawyer instead.

That being said, if I'm not being to presumptuous, I'll make that small change in the OP. I thought the word "plaintiff" would be the correct phrase for that little bit, but do correct me if I'm wrong.

And with that this bill definitely has my full support.

Also this section 6 should be rewritten as follows

The person whom has filed the request shall be allowed to speak, ask questions to witnesses, or call a witness during the trial not to exceed the limit set upon the Defendant by the Judicial Offices Act, Section 3.1. If the plaintiff has a lawyer as defined in Section 5, then this section shall apply to the  lawyer instead.

It is done.

Just as a formality: I'll say I am satisfied with the state of the bill

With that, I'll close the topic and introduce it for a vote, then. It's been longer than 48 hours, actually.

Alright, now we can either motion to vote, table or extend debate.

I motion to vote. Is there a second?

I second the motion.