View Topic

Title
1. This act is to be cited as the Judicial Panel Amendment Act.

Amendments
2. Article III, Section 1 of the Fundamental Laws is amended to read as follows:

Upon the acceptance of a petition filed to the Storting, the Monarch is to form the Judicial Panel. A Normal Judicial Panel consists of one Peer of the Overhusen and two Skrifa of the Underhusen, with the Chief Justice being the Peer of the Overhusen. A Special Judicial Panel consists of three Citizens of the Realm that have met the requirements to sit as a Justice as established by law with the citizen having held citizenship the longest being Chief Justice. All members of a Judicial Panel must be selected randomly. The Monarch can not sit on a Judicial Panel, nor can any party to the case.

3. Article III, Section 3 of the Fundamental Laws is amended to read as follows:

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. Such an appeal is considered a final appeal, and must occur after any other appeals as permitted in law have been exhausted. This does not apply to situations covered under other sections of this Article.

4. A new Section, numbered as Section 1, is added to Article III with all following Sections renumbered as appropriate. The new Section reads as follows:

Upon the filing of a case to the Storting, a review is to be conducted to determine the Judicial Panel to occur. The procedures for which are established by the Storting. In the event that no procedure has been established, then all petitions are accepted and the panel is to be a Normal Judicial Panel, except for cases where not enough members of the Storting are available that are not parties to the case in which case a Special Judicial Panel is to be formed.

Part I of my Judicial Reform is here! This adds in two different Judicial Panels (Normal and Special) for cases. The only major change is that Special Panels have been added, and that petitions are now reviewed upon filing (and such review is up to relevant law as passed by the Storting, with none being that a Panel is immediately formed based upon the requirements set forth). It also permits the addition of additional 'appeals' prior to the appeal to the Monarch. It also rewords a few things as well, but beyond that it doesn't change much. 

I'll mention all the Skrifa.

@Katie @Gabrielle @Elbbsas

Darn it I thought I'd looked at this before succumbing to bed rest.

Upon the acceptance of a petition filed to the Storting, the Monarch is to form the Judicial Panel. A Normal Judicial Panel consists of one Peer of the Overhusen and two Skrifa of the Underhusen, with the Chief Justice being the Peer of the Overhusen. A Special Judicial Panel consists of three Citizens of the Realm that have met the requirements to sit as a Justice as established by law with the citizen having held citizenship the longest being Chief Justice. All members of a Judicial Panel must be selected randomly. The Monarch can not sit on a Judicial Panel, nor can any party to the case.

Since references to Judicial Panels for the rest of this paragraph are non-specific ("a"), should this "the" be an "a"?
I'm unsure, but does "Peer of the Overhusen" / "Skrifa of the Underhusen" have the same meaning as "Overhusen Peer" / "Underhusen Skrifa"? I'm asking this of the citizens of Wintreath too, since if the shorter version doesn't detract from the meaning, it might increase readability. Disregard this if not.

I don't think Wintreath's style would allow this, but I'd recommend putting the second and third sentences as their own lines with some sort of bullet pointing.
- Like so.
- See?
And then the remainder continues. But again, I don't think this is Wintreath's style.

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 and to delegate these authorities to other officials or offices. Such an appeal is considered a final appeal, and must occur after any other appeals as permitted in law have been exhausted. This does not apply to situations covered under other sections of this Article.

Unnecessary words.

Upon the filing of a case to the Storting, a review is to be conducted to determine the Judicial Panel to occur. The procedures for which are established by the Storting. In the event that no procedure has been established, then all petitions are accepted and the panel is to be a Normal Judicial Panel, except for cases where not enough members of the Storting are available that are not parties to the case in which case a Special Judicial Panel is to be formed.

Possibly rephrase this as "no procedures are established"? It matches the previous sentence. Alternatively: "no procedures have been established." This assumes the plurality of the "procedures" in the previous sentence was intended. If that's the case, the previous sentence should be rephrased as "The procedure for which is established/will be established by the Storting."
Sentence length reduces readability. Rephrase as its own sentence, like... "In cases where (not enough/insufficient) members of the Storting are available who are not parties involved in the case (to form a Normal Judicial Panel), a Special Judicial Panel will be formed."
What is the deadline for the Storting's procedures? What are these procedures intended to look like? Apologies if this has already been answered (and yes I did see Chanku has a Procedural Code planned, but I'd like a basic summary).

So, out of curiosity, when is a Normal Panel convened and when is a Special Panel convened?

@Chanku, @Elbbsas, @Katie, @Gabrielle, I need a motion for this act.

I motion to extend debate. I agree with Wintermoot in that I'd like to know what the procedures look like before we go any further.

Do we have a second?

I second.

Motion passes, debate extended by 48 hours.

Unfortunately, the plans that these coincide with (a new Judicial Procedure act and an accompanying procedure set for handling things when filed) are going to take a while. Part of the nature of it, is that I'm trying to ensure that it lacks many obvious flaws and to ensure things are written properly, so that we don't have to return to this exact conversation a few months to a year down the line. The second part will, similarly take a while because of a similar reason, but also because it fundamentally is new procedure so I would prefer to take my time so that it doesn't have to be revisited.

Very well, would you like to table this?

@Chanku, @Katie, @Elbbsas, @Gabrielle, I cannot, in accordance with the Procedural Rules, say that the active discussion requirement was met. As such, I can only entertain motions to table and motions to vote. I do need a motion too, I am afraid.

I move to table. We can always reintroduce this and voting takes more effort.

Do we have a second?

I second. While I understand where you're coming from, Chanku, I'm just not comfortable doing this piece by piece.