View Topic

Having passed the Underhusen, the Representation Rights and Procedure Act is now presented to the Overhusen for its consideration. Peers may vote aye, nay, or abstain. Passage will require a majority of Peers voting in support of it.

1. Title
  1.1 This shall be called the Representation Rights and Procedure Act
2. Definitions
  2.1 For the purpose of this document Representation shall be defined as any Wintrean who has been 
        asked to represent the prosecutor or defendant in a legal case.  They will be defined as a lawyer.
  2.2 For the purpose of this document Prosecution shall be defined as any Wintrean, or any entity in 
       wintreath, that is pressing charges against another Wintrean or entity
  2.3 For the purpose of this document Defense shall be defined as any Wintrean or any entity in wintreath,
       that has legal charges against them.
3. Representation
  3.1 Selection of Representation
    3.1.1 Representation may be selected before or during a legal case
    3.1.2 Cases against Wintreath or any Wintrean entity
      3.1.2.1 The monarch, or the head of the entity, may either select a lawyer or may appoint someone to
                 select one.
  3.2 Representation lasts the duration of the case, until a new court is called, or the lawyer is dismissed
  3.3 Benefits and Stipulations of representation
    3.3.1 A person may be called upon as a witness to testify in court
    3.3.2  A person may not speak in the case, unless they are called upon as a witness or is are directly
             asked by the court.
  3.4 Ethics of Representation
    3.4.1 Lawyers must act in the best interest of the client to the best of their abilities regardless of
            personal opinion.
4. Rights and Responsibilities
  4.1 Clients
    4.1.1 Rights of Clients
      4.1.1.1 A Wintrean has the right to representation if they choose so.
      4.1.1.2 A client has the right to dismiss their representation should the lawyer violate the law during
                 the period of being the client’s representation, and/or defy the Client’s morals.
  4.2 Lawyers
    4.2.1 Rights of Lawyers
      4.2.1.1 Any Wintrean has the right to represent someone or an entity, should they choose.
      4.2.1.2 A lawyer may dismiss themselves from the case if there are: Conflicts of Interest, the client
                violates the lawyer’s morals, during the trial, the client has tampered with evidence or they feel
                like they are inadequately representing the client.
    4.2.2 Responsibilities of Lawyers
      4.2.2.1 If a lawyer should dismiss themselves they must provide a replacement unless the client informs
                the court that they do not require a replacement lawyer, or if a judge thinks that a replacement
                is not necessary and/or could not be found.
      4.2.2.2 If a client has tampered with evidence then the lawyer must inform the court.
  4.3 The Judges and Court
    4.3.1 Rights of the Court
      4.3.1.1 The court may dismiss a Lawyer if: their client Tampers with evidence, if the lawyer breaches
                 the Responsibilities and Ethics of a lawyer, and/or seeks to misrepresent their client to aid the
                 prosecution or defense, which ever the representation in question is not on. 
    4.3.2 Responsibilities of the Court
      4.3.2.1 The court must notify the lawyer a minimum 24-hours before they must leave the case and the
                 client a minimum of 12-hours before their representation must leave the case. The court and
                 lawyer does not have to provide a replacement.
5. Enforceability
  5.1 If any provision of this Act becomes illegal, invalid, or unenforceable, that shall not affect the legality,
       validity, or enforceability of any other provision of this Act.

Nay.

I'm honestly mystified why this is before is at this stage. The point of the Storting, and in particular the Underhusen with it's ability to amend, is to craft finely-honed legislation that's been well-debated and well thought-out, not to race legislation through as quickly as possible. While I support the initial idea and praise Chanku for coming up with it, I'm also disturbed that several members of the Underhusen raised valid objections to actual wording/grammar/formatting/verbosity issues, and yet those objections were largely ignored and the Act was pushed to a vote.

This situation is just all. too. familiar.

I... What? This is a bit... Uh, yeah.

Nay.

Despite actually helping to write this and such after seeing some of the things said in the discussion Underhusen thread for this and such I too, vote nay. The Underhusen's mode of option should not be to amend once it's put in but to put in once amended.