View Topic

Title
1) This Act shall be cited as the Judicial Reform Amendment Act.

Provisions
2) Article I Section 17 shall be amended as follows:

17. The Storting shall have the authority to create and revise the rules of judicial proceedings for judicial panels.

3) Article III Section 1 shall be amended as follows:

1. Upon the filing of cases within the Storting, the Monarch shall select at random a Peer of the Overhusen and two Skrifa of the Underhusen who are not the plaintiff or defendant to serve as judges in a judicial panel. The Peer shall serve as Chief Judge, and the Skrifa shall serve as Associate Judges.  The Monarch is ineligible to serve on judicial panels.

4) The following shall be added as Article III Section 3:

3. Rulings may be appealed to the Monarch, who shall decide to vacate, modify, or uphold the ruling of the judicial panel. The Monarch shall have the authority to define procedures and rules for hearing and deciding upon appeals, as well as to delegate these authorities to other officials or offices.

5) The following shall be added as Article III Section 4:

4. Any revocation of Citizenship as a result of a sentence which is conferred or upheld by the Monarch may be overturned by an Act of the Storting if the person whose Citizenship is being revoked requests that it consider doing so within 7 days of the appeal ruling. In the event a revocation is overturned, the initial judicial panel shall determine an alternative sentence. The Storting shall have the authority to define procedures and rules for requesting a sentence of revocation be overturned.

6) Article VI Section 4 shall be amended as follows:

4. The Winter Nomad and all subordinate administrative officials shall be responsible for protecting Wintreath properties from any content which is illegal, violates the terms of service of the provider of the Wintreath property, or otherwise brings harm to the region or community. Actions taken under this responsibility shall supersede the Declaration of Rights.

Couldn't the original topic just be brought back with those changes in the main post? 

Just add a section that prohibits the plaintiff or the defendant from serving as judges, and I'll be happy.

Just add a section that prohibits the plaintiff or the defendant from serving as judges, and I'll be happy.

Wasn't that covered under section 3?

3) Article III Section 1 shall be amended as follows:

1. Upon the filing of cases within the Storting, the Monarch shall select at random a Peer of the Overhusen and two Skrifa of the Underhusen who are not parties to the case and is not the Monarch to serve as judges in a judicial panel. The Peer shall serve as Chief Judge, and the Skrifa shall serve as Associate Judges.

While it might be useful to be more specific... I would say the more general definition here might actually be more useful, as "parties" could cover more than the plaintiff and defendant, which could be helpful in certain conditions...

Remove Section 6 please. I can not, and will not, support such a bill due to the nature of section 6.

I have already had this debate with Chanku and some others, so I won't rehash that...but I urge the Storting to attempt to pass the proposal with all its provisions. I continue to believe that Section 6 will provide an important tool to resolve disturbances in the community as soon as possible, especially in cases where final resolution of the disputes behind those disturbances will have to wait on a court case. I honestly believe any fear over this section is overhyped and unjustified when put against the past two years of history.

Just add a section that prohibits the plaintiff or the defendant from serving as judges, and I'll be happy.

Wasn't that covered under section 3?

3) Article III Section 1 shall be amended as follows:

1. Upon the filing of cases within the Storting, the Monarch shall select at random a Peer of the Overhusen and two Skrifa of the Underhusen who are not parties to the case and is not the Monarch to serve as judges in a judicial panel. The Peer shall serve as Chief Judge, and the Skrifa shall serve as Associate Judges.

While it might be useful to be more specific... I would say the more general definition here might actually be more useful, as "parties" could cover more than the plaintiff and defendant, which could be helpful in certain conditions...

I agree, I was hoping that "parties" would cover the plaintiff, defendant, judges, and any witnesses.

For posterity I'd like to state that I have no problem with the current state of the Amendment, in fact if it went to a vote I would likely currently vote in favour of it.

"A party to" is a bit broad for my tastes.

Would you care to suggest an alternative?

I'm with Hannah in that right now I don't mind the state of it, and it looks fine enough to me.  However, specificity is always a good thing as well.  if something is too vague, we've seen what the result can be.

Why not be specific and say that neither the defendant nor plaintiff may serve as judges, because I can't think who else, besides the monarch, would be excluded.

Why not be specific and say that neither the defendant nor plaintiff may serve as judges, because I can't think who else, besides the monarch, would be excluded.

People that, while they may not be the defendant/plaintiff, would be considered "too close to the case?"  In other words, Skrifa that you know are going to side with their "buddy" or side against the person they may have a personal vendetta against...that kind of thing.

Of course, extending to that may open some dangerous doors on how we even define that statement.

Exactly, we can't go that far, because everyone knows everyone here. You'll never have a case if you want to be that broad.

Case in point, I make no secret of finding Point Breeze, Pengu, Colberius X, Taulover, Sapphiron, Aragonn or HannahB's company quite enjoyable here, so to exclude me as a judge in a case with any of these people would be mad, because many others would be able to claim such a bond of friendship too.

That's why I really only think the defendant and plaintiff should be excluded. I'm not entirel sure I agree that the monarch should be excluded.

Indeed. 

And people are going to start cherry-picking on what they find to be too close anyways.

It's been done in the sense of a member picking at the fact that we have a full Riksrad cabinet in the UH.

What's to stop people from crying foul with, say, Riksrad members being in government positions, in the UH, AND being judges to court cases?

Someone is always going to find bias in something, and broading the definition so that someone can do just that is going to hurt us in the long run.  Best to keep it nice and straight on point so that there's no room for error.

Keeping it to strictly saying something like "and two Skrifa of the Underhusen who are neither the Plaintiff or Defendant" seems really like the most logical thing.  If we WANT to extend the definition to more parties for clarification we can....but as I said, that's opening some dangerous doors if we decide to do that.