View Topic

Title
1. This shall be titled the Acceptance of the case of Chanku L. Kestar v. Gabriel "Pengu" Penguon
Accepted Case
2. The case filed by Chanku L. Kestar against Gabriel Penguon (Listed as Pengu), shall be accepted
3. The title Styling as stated in Section 4.1 of the Judicial Offices act shall be considered null for this case, and Section 4 of this act shall take it's place.
4. When a Court is formed and a case brought before it, the case is to be named as follows:
[CASE NUMBER] [PLAINTIFF NAME]v[DEFENDANT NAME]-[CHIEF JUSTICE][DATE]
The public record kept by the court must then outline the name and charge of the defendant, the name of the Chief Justice, the name of the Plaintiff and the names of the Associate Judges. This record shall be updated to list witnesses called and by whom.

The following was provided in the Citizen's Platform by the Plaintiff.

Petitioner: Chanku L. Kestar
Type of Petition: Violation of Legal Proceedings of the Underhusen
Defendants: Pengu
Violations of Law: Violation of Article 12(e) of the Procedural Rules of the Underhusen.
Relevant Law:

(e) The Speaker must select a Speaker Pro Tempore within one week of being elected. Should the Speaker fail to select a Speaker Pro Tempore then the Speaker Pro Tempore is the candidate that got the second most amount of votes, in the election of the Speaker; should there have been an election with more than one candidate then, in the event of a tie for second place, the Speaker must choose one of the candidates. If the speaker fails to do so the monarch is to choose a Speaker Pro Tempore out of the tied candidates. Furthermore should there have been no other candidates in the election of the speaker, then one will be chosen at random from the members of the Underhusen, excluding the Speaker.

It would have to be something like

Title
1. This shall be titled the Case Acceptance Act
Accepted Case
2. The case filed by Chanku L. Kestar against Gabriel Penguon (Listed as Pengu), shall be accepted
3. The title Styling as stated in Section 3.1 of the Judicial Offices act shall be considered null for this case, and Section 4 of this act shall take it's place.
4. When a Court is formed and a case brought before it, the case is to be named as follows:
[CASE NUMBER] [PLAINTIFF NAME]v[DEFENDANT NAME]-[CHIEF JUSTICE][DATE]
The public record kept by the court must then outline the name and charge of the defendant, the name of the Chief Justice, the name of the Plaintiff and the names of the Associate Judges. This record shall be updated to list witnesses called and by whom.

Note that I also added the Naming section, because I loathe the naming convention used currently

I also got your family name wrong.  Whoopsie.  Also, the relevant portion of the JOA is Section 4.1.  And I modified the name of the thing to be more unique - otherwise we might have multiple "Case Acceptance Acts" with no unique descriptions.

So I suppose all that's left is to vote?

Give as thorough an answer as possible, for the record.

So I suppose all that's left is to vote?

Give as thorough an answer as possible, for the record.

Well, this is technically a bill, so it has the regular 2-5 day debate period, not excepting an expedited vote.  In fact, the current state of the law allows us to totally disregard it, if we choose. 

Like I said in the Citizen's Platform, I consider this stage to be similar to a fact-finding hearing with the express purpose of evaluating the plaintiff's claim and deciding whether they have standing for a case.  In this particular instance, I believe that's obvious. 

Personally I feel as if there are little facts to actually find. This is a relatively simple matter. In a court case of more criminal matters, or matters regarding to major portions of law this would be useful, but in this matter it is not.

Therefore I motion to expedite.

Since it's probably going to be Hannah and Laurentus representing the UH in this, perhaps we might want to see if Hannah feels up to the task, with her illness and all. In an actual case I realize we wouldn't have that luxury.

<Chanku> you do realize that for the court case you would be one of the judges...right?
<HannahB> Yes
<Chanku> Are you fine with that?
<HannahB> Yes

She's cool

Edit: damn it.

...sorry

I will say in future case purposes, much like the Speaker shouldn't have the luxury of being able to expedite, I don't believe the Plaintiff of a case should have that authority either.  Nothing against Chanku on this, but I think both the Plaintiff and Defendant, if one or both are in the UH, should have that authority relinquished in the case of a trial.  The Plaintiff especially as it can rub people the wrong way if the person presenting the case is able to push it quickly to a vote without having to present barely anything.

And I support that reasoning.

I agree with what Pengu said, it simply makes sense that those involved with a case shouldn't have much sway in how it's handled.

True,  however for this time I believe that it would be appropriate to do this. Especially considering the nature of the case, which allows us to get feedback quicker than we normally would.

While I understand that this isn't actually a serious case, what it represents is pretty damn serious, so I say we treat it exactly as we would a revocation.

That's the only way we're going to test the court system with any semblance of accuracy.

Indeed.

Test or not, simple or complex, this needs to be treated as if it was an actual serious case.

The best feedback we can get is if we play it to its fullest extent.