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 of Wintreath 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 citizen of Wintreath 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. If they have a lawyer then Section 5 of this law shall apply to the lawyer instead.

A simple thing to allow lawyers, have an law explicitly for the acceptance of law cases, to add a few additional procedures during court proceedings, such as the allowance of lawyers, and to allow filing of Amicus Curiae/Amicus Briefs.

Sounds good to me, but it would be fairly useless without first designing a progressive warning system, since that has continually been a problem.

The court can theoretically do that itself. Although a Warning system on the forum would be out of the scope of law...

Establishing who gives a warning is within the scope of law.

Additionally, this doesn't explicitly mention how many judges there will be, or who these judges will be. I'm guessing it's the Storting, but nowhere is that stated.

Those are already covered in the Judicial Offices Act and the Fundamental Laws, Article III section 3.

Ah, so this is meant to serve with that act? Understood.

Yes. It's meant to add a few additional procedures and abilities, along with allowing for cases to actually be accepted and allowing Amicus Briefs to be filed.

Because of the delay of Laurentus, I have decided to correct this act myself.

Can I play devil's advocate here for a minute?  If every citizen were to submit an Amicus brief, and the court was obliged to consider all of them, I feel that it would have the effect of a filibuster on a trial. Perhaps we could have a right to *petition* for an Amicus brief, and the court will consider the merits and standing of the individuals petitioning. That way only relevant opinions are considered and defendants can't unnecessarily delay proceedings by having their allies call witness after witness and brief after brief.

That's not how Amicus Curaie work in most of NS. While granted we are an exception when it comes to the rest of NS (Our judicial system, or Bicameral Legislature, the Sunshine policy, us allowing Gov, ect.) the petition would only work against the purpose of a Amicus Brief.

Further it seems you are confused about how it works. People in trials (The defendant and plaintiff) don't call Amicus Briefs, they are filed by outside parties. Quite literally they would primarily have to read it and discuss it. Further witnesses are limited to 3 per day, unless the Monarch decides to raise it :/ (According to the Judicial Offices Act).

@Point Breeze more info on Amicus Briefs

Exactly - people outside the trial, possibly not even connected to it, would file endless briefs, and each person that files a brief (theoretically every citizen) is entitled to call their three witnesses.

@Point Breeze
That's not how this works, or is even able to be READ. So where the hell you are getting that I have no idea. Each citizen would only file one, and NONE of those citizens are given any right to call witnesses, because as you said it, they are not related to the case. Neither the Judicial Offices Act nor this act would grant them that ability. This merely grants them the authority to file an Amicus Brief, which then must be read by the justices prior to deciding the case, and my be cited in the final verdict.

If you are being confused by Section 5 and 6. Which if it is read, only applies to the person filing the initial court request. An Amicus Curiae (or Amicus Brief) is only one document and is not, in any way, a request.

@Point Breeze
This merely grants them the authority to file an Amicus Brief, which then must be read by the justices prior to deciding the case, and my be cited in the final verdict.

Oh look, I submitted a 100,000 word novel as evidence. All the justices are required to read it... Get fucked, law... Because then 8 other people do the same goddamn thing.

Also, your response to PB was really quite rude, Chanku... You insulted him and generally responded angrily... Whether your anger was truly directed at him or something else is irrelevant but you must keep yourself cool and collected, please...

Also technically it would be near impossible to enforce because the decision by the judges are done in private, so they can only read a few on one side or the other and say the read them all, only the judges on the team would actually know

(Also keep in mind that I am rather passionate about law.)

I was mistaken, I thought filing a brief gave one the right to call witnesses and present on behalf of someone. Even so, as Reon stated, nefarious citizens intending to derail a trial can submit huge briefs and the judges would have to consider them.

If we're going to even pretend to follow the intent of the law, I would say that an analysis of the briefs (ALL THE BRIEFS)  and their merits should be included in the judges' opinions at the closing of a case, which would require much more than a simple reading.

If you're concerned about the competency of judges to fulfill their duties, maybe a compliance mechanism is needed?  Perhaps declassifying judges' communications at the end of the trial?