View Topic

A couple quick questions.

1. Why is "Acceptance of Cases" capitalized in section 1 if the other parts of the title are not?
2. Why is "Witness" capitalized in section 5?
3. "Whom" is incorrect in section 6, isn't it?

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?

I'm of the opinion that if there are concerns that one Peer and two Skrifa together could be deemed incompetent judges then that's a bigger problem than the scope of this law. We should be able to trust them to receive briefs from people and consider them systematically, as with the rest of the case. Having to ensure compliance mechanisms is a tad worrying. Nevertheless, I think a list of submitted Briefs could be a good thing mentioned with the verdict, though to what detail judges want to talk about them should be up to them. Additionally, should there be some sort of provision to allow for anonymous filing?

Should these documents not be referred to as 'Amicus Curiae Briefs' throughout the law? Amicus Curiae is a 'friend of the court', the third party; their opinions themselves being the briefings. I think it'd also be easier to refer to them as Briefs rather than as Amicus Curiae all the time.

'The Storting itself may also vote to hear a case with a Proviso.' - What does this mean, exactly? What kind of Proviso?

A previous act (I think it was the Judicial Offices Act) had a section at the bottom called something like 'Compliance with present and future law'. Could this act have a similar section citing the Judicial Offices Act and the section of the Fundamental Laws to which it is related to ensure easier navigation between these parts of the law?

A couple quick questions.

1. Why is "Acceptance of Cases" capitalized in section 1 if the other parts of the title are not?
2. Why is "Witness" capitalized in section 5?
3. "Whom" is incorrect in section 6, isn't it?

1-2 were oversights.  However I have no idea if Whom is incorrect or not.

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?

I'm of the opinion that if there are concerns that one Peer and two Skrifa together could be deemed incompetent judges then that's a bigger problem than the scope of this law. We should be able to trust them to receive briefs from people and consider them systematically, as with the rest of the case. Having to ensure compliance mechanisms is a tad worrying. Nevertheless, I think a list of submitted Briefs could be a good thing mentioned with the verdict, though to what detail judges want to talk about them should be up to them. Additionally, should there be some sort of provision to allow for anonymous filing?

Should these documents not be referred to as 'Amicus Curiae Briefs' throughout the law? Amicus Curiae is a 'friend of the court', the third party; their opinions themselves being the briefings. I think it'd also be easier to refer to them as Briefs rather than as Amicus Curiae all the time.

'The Storting itself may also vote to hear a case with a Proviso.' - What does this mean, exactly? What kind of Proviso?

A previous act (I think it was the Judicial Offices Act) had a section at the bottom called something like 'Compliance with present and future law'. Could this act have a similar section citing the Judicial Offices Act and the section of the Fundamental Laws to which it is related to ensure easier navigation between these parts of the law?

Actually Amicus Curiae Briefs are incorrect. It's either Amicus Briefs or Amicus Curiae. I generally use the term Amicus Briefs for plural and Amicus Curiae as singular (due to Amicus Curiae being Latin and I would be unsure of how to make it plural)

Also the Proviso can really be anything, as a Proviso is, "a condition attached to an agreement." It can really be anything the Storting wishes. However keep in mind the Overhusen has veto rights in this case and it's mainly their job to make sure the Proviso isn't something horrible or generally bad. Proviso's can not, obviously, violate the law as well. It's designed to give the Storting some flexibility when it comes to cases, as the Storting is ultimately responsible.

Also the JoA, the companion for this act, mainly included that for when the Criminal Code of Laws were passed and for the Fundamental Laws. Technically it is/was unnecessary due to the fact that it already had those parts in the law, and this also uses the Judicial Offices act, in full, for most parts of this law.

Further I am not concerned about the exact enforceability of the requirement, and the requirement is only to prevent any judges from purposefully not reading a filed Amicus Curiae because of whatever reason. Any Judge is also allowed to inform the people that the judges violated that requirement to which a retrial could occur, as the privateness of the judges area is actually not protected legally.

Title
1. This shall be titled the Acceptance of Cases, Allowance of Amici Curiae Filings, 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.

This is the version of the bill currently at vote in the OH, and it is almost certain to fail.

First, let's try to fix all mistakes, and try to make it shorter, more to-the-point, and address the concerns as I perceive them.

[

Title
1. This shall be titled the 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 affected individuals, the violated law, and anything else that the plaintiff deems necessary.

3. Upon filing a petition the Storting shall vote on whether or not to hear the case. Should a majority be reached in favour of hearing the case, the Judicial Offices Act and all relevant sections of said law shall apply. The Storting itself may also vote to hear a case with a Proviso.

Filing of Amicus Curiae
4. Any citizens of Wintreath may file Amici Briefs with the Court containing their opinions on the case. The court may consider these Briefs  when rendering judgment. The Brief itself must be succinct, and contain a summary of its legal issue at the beginning.

Additional Court Procedures
5. Plaintiffs will be allowed to act as their own attorneys, may speak before the court, pose questions to witnesses, or call witnesses during the trial. If they have an attorney, Section 6 of this act shall become applicable instead.

6. Plaintiffs may hire attorneys to file any relevant briefs on their behalf, as well as representing them before the court, provided they find people willing to act in this capacity. The same will be true for Defendants. As such, during a trial any party that has a lawyer may be called as witness[?]. Furthermore, should an attorney resign, they must make a public statement containing the reasons for doing so. The court may decide whether it wants to continue the case by a vote among the judges after an attorney resigns.

At the [?], this seems to create the requirement that only witnesses who have attorneys may be called before the court? Am I understanding this incorrectly? Because if I understand that correctly, there is no way in hell we're going to find this many lawyers during a case.

I also made quite a few changes to keep the language consistent, fix some errors, and make things more satisfactory for all concerned. Please comment on these changes, specifically members of the Overhusen.

EDIT: I also shortened the title, and switched sections 5 and 6 so that they follow each other in a more sensible way.

Also, the plural for Amicus Curiae is Amici Curiae. Anyone who knows Italian would know this too.

Amicus Curiae is Latin....

Further basically there has to be an upside and a downside to having a lawyer. Downside, you can't talk inside the court. The Upside is that you can be called to answer questions as a witness.

I know it's Latin. Of the languages which stem from Latin, Italian is the most similar to it. Amici is Latin.

Why should the trial conclude prematurely if a lawyer resigns? 

In some cases the defendant may wish to find another lawyer, in such cases it may take a while to find anyone willing to represent them. Therefore the case is ended in order to allow one of the people to find a lawyer. Due to the nature of our system, in which new justices are brought in every month on a case, it's better to not have it to where we have an incomplete case for a long time.

Basically it's a protection mechanism for the party that lost their lawyer and a mechanism to prevent unfinished cases that go on for a long time.

I hope it's not too presumptuous of me to post in this thread so soon after becoming a citizen, but I do enjoy everything to do with court systems.

Firstly, in my mind, it is undoubtedly incorrect to use "amicus curiae" as shorthand for "amicus curiae brief". "Amicus curiae" and "amici curiae" refer exclusively to the person or persons making the brief. If we mean the brief, we should say the brief.

Secondly, I think it is inappropriate for the court to consider amicus briefs in criminal cases. In such cases, they don't serve any purpose beyond being character references, which could just as easily be obtained by the prosecutor and the defendant calling interested parties as witnesses. If the court is hearing a constitutional or public law case, then I believe amicus briefs could certainly help the court determine the legal matters in dispute.

Lastly, I am very uncertain about section 5. It says "As such during the trial any party that has a lawyer may be called as witness." I am not sure about what rights the defendant has in Wintreath, but this would seem to go against the principle that a defendant is entitled not to incriminate himself. If by having a lawyer he is compelled to testify, then that would seem to abrogate that principle.

In the same section, I think the provision that the trial is "dismissed" as soon as a defence lawyer stops being the defence lawyer is a recipe for disaster. I think it is far better to say that the trial will be automatically paused for 24 or 48 hours (without a vote of the judges) in order for the defence to sort out a new lawyer. If the defence gets a new lawyer before the expiry of that time period, then the court should be authorised to start earlier. If the defence doesn't find a lawyer in that period, then the defendant should represent himself until he can find one.

That's my two cents. Or maybe four...

And I agree with you.

I hope it's not too presumptuous of me to post in this thread so soon after becoming a citizen, but I do enjoy everything to do with court systems.

It's fine.

Firstly, in my mind, it is undoubtedly incorrect to use "amicus curiae" as shorthand for "amicus curiae brief". "Amicus curiae" and "amici curiae" refer exclusively to the person or persons making the brief. If we mean the brief, we should say the brief.

well considering that I'm mainly taking a lot of this from other regions that have this sort of thing and working them into the region, along with using Wikipedia.

Secondly, I think it is inappropriate for the court to consider amicus briefs in criminal cases. In such cases, they don't serve any purpose beyond being character references, which could just as easily be obtained by the prosecutor and the defendant calling interested parties as witnesses. If the court is hearing a constitutional or public law case, then I believe amicus briefs could certainly help the court determine the legal matters in dispute.

Well personally I disagree, as in some cases a brief may be useful, I can see your points. However keep in mind Wintreath is not like other regions and our judicial system is very different than most other regions.

Lastly, I am very uncertain about section 5. It says "As such during the trial any party that has a lawyer may be called as witness." I am not sure about what rights the defendant has in Wintreath, but this would seem to go against the principle that a defendant is entitled not to incriminate himself. If by having a lawyer he is compelled to testify, then that would seem to abrogate that principle.

That's technically not a right, or even a thing, in Wintreath. Although it could be done through the Justices. Further if they have a lawyer they can be called to give their version of a story, where they would otherwise be only permitted to answer questions asked to them.

In the same section, I think the provision that the trial is "dismissed" as soon as a defence lawyer stops being the defence lawyer is a recipe for disaster. I think it is far better to say that the trial will be automatically paused for 24 or 48 hours (without a vote of the judges) in order for the defence to sort out a new lawyer. If the defence gets a new lawyer before the expiry of that time period, then the court should be authorised to start earlier. If the defence doesn't find a lawyer in that period, then the defendant should represent himself until he can find one.

Again this isn't really possible in Wintreath. I suggest you read our laws on this. Anyway, people only remain judges for a month for any case, afterwards they are replaced. If we have it paused and it's about to enter another month then it could become trouble. Would the Judges remain their position or would there be new ones?

Essentially this is just to prevent oddities and to keep our system as consistent as possible.

If a case lasts more than a month, then something has gone terribly wrong, in my opinion. I cannot see why anything but the most complicated cases should last much more than two weeks.

At any rate, I am not sure what exactly the problem would be if the case were paused at 29 days, new judges were empanelled at 30 days, and then a new defence lawyer were selected at 31 days. Could not the case continue as normal?

Yes, however I'm merely using systems I have notice work somewhat well in other regions.

Duly noted, however, as you said, Wintreath's system is unique and we should perhaps consider streamlining our features in order to have a more effective judicial system when it is in operation.

To be honest, we've never used it anyway. So we have no idea how it works, although atm we can't even accept cases...and the Storting can also be a court and decides what to do on violations of law in the Fundamental Laws :/