View Topic

Title
1. This is to be cited as the Judicial Offices Interim Amendment Act

Amendments
2. Section 2.3 of the Judicial Offices Act is amended to read as follows:

A Peer or a Skifra of the Storting may not hold more than one judicial position at any one time if the combined number of members from both houses exceeds 14. If the combined number of members from both houses is less than 14, a Peer of Skifra may hold two judicial positions at any one time. No Peer or Skrifa may hold two Judicial Positions within a panel on the same case.

3. Section 6.2 is hereby repealed.
4. A new Section, numbered Section 7 is added, which reads as follows:

Dismissal

5. A new Subsection, numbered Section 7.1 is added, which reads as follows:

Any Justice may, at any time after the start of a case, start a vote on the dismissal of a case. If a majority of the Justices agree, the Chief Justice is to dismiss the case, and the case is to be terminated as if it were never filed. Dismissal may be for a lack of standing, lack of jurisdiction, lack of justiciability, or anything else the court finds necessary and proper. The Defendant may also request a dismissal on similar grounds at any time prior to the decision to withdraw for a verdict.

A Peer or a Skifra of the Storting may not hold more than one judicial position at any one time if the combined number of members from both houses exceeds 14. If the combined number of members from both houses is less than 14, a Peer of Skifra may hold two judicial positions at any one time. No Skrifa or Peer may hold two Judicial Positions within a panel on the same case.

I believe you meant to say a Peer or Skrifa.

A Peer or a Skifra of the Storting may not hold more than one judicial position at any one time if the combined number of members from both houses exceeds 14. If the combined number of members from both houses is less than 14, a Peer of Skifra may hold two judicial positions at any one time. No Skrifa or Peer may hold two Judicial Positions within a panel on the same case.

I believe you meant to say a Peer or Skrifa.

I've adopted this change, albeit it is mostly for being consistent with the rest of the act.

Now with the belief that I have solved all the grammatical errors, I also endorse this bill.

So in regards to this bill, I just want to clarify that we select judges based upon case? So if there were two cases, two panels of judges would be selected, rather than one panel overseeing both cases?

IMO, I would prefer if we could look into some kind of permanent judicial branch staffed with legal experts. I think selecting this panel from the skrifa is kind of a toss up, as the people composing the storting may not be legislative/legal experts at a given time. The judicial branch likely wouldn't see much activity -- but that's kind of the point. It's supposed to be an independent selection of legal experts who know what they're doing and can step in as a last resort. I know it's likely this has been brought up before, so I'm open to hearing reasons why we haven't adopted this in the past.

What is the point of repealing 6.2? Was it not accomplished, or simply outdated? If it's just outdated, I would prefer that we leave that clause in, it doesn't hurt in any way, and I think it's important to have that kind of record/bookkeeping in our laws.

In regards to dismissal, I would caution against at any time. If someone were to commit a crime for example, and the judges panel was composed of their friends, this rule could be easily abused to dismiss the case right after it's even presented. I would prefer some kind of window, such as after initial evidence is presented.

Also--are cases accepted immediately? If a case is obviously fraudulent, I could see a possibility in which someone determines not to take the case on at all, which would hopefully cut down on unnecessary cases/cases with no grounds. But if a case is accepted, I think it's worth hearing the evidence before simply moving past the case. I also think it would be cool if there could be some kind of referendum to force the judges to try the case if there is a significant amount of public opinion for the case to hold the judges accountable, but IDK about that idea specifically. Lastly, I'm not so sure if a case is 'to be terminated as it was never filed'. I think a record of that case should still be around, with a reasoning of why a case was terminated, to help serve as future precedent, or whatever. Maybe I'm being picky with the wordchoice, but I feel like given the current condition, I could sue a whole bunch of people and take them to court over ridiculous/fake reasons, and no one would be able to do anything about it, because they would likely be 'terminated' and there would be no record of it occurring at all.

So in regards to this bill, I just want to clarify that we select judges based upon case? So if there were two cases, two panels of judges would be selected, rather than one panel overseeing both cases?

IMO, I would prefer if we could look into some kind of permanent judicial branch staffed with legal experts. I think selecting this panel from the skrifa is kind of a toss up, as the people composing the storting may not be legislative/legal experts at a given time. The judicial branch likely wouldn't see much activity -- but that's kind of the point. It's supposed to be an independent selection of legal experts who know what they're doing and can step in as a last resort. I know it's likely this has been brought up before, so I'm open to hearing reasons why we haven't adopted this in the past.

What is the point of repealing 6.2? Was it not accomplished, or simply outdated? If it's just outdated, I would prefer that we leave that clause in, it doesn't hurt in any way, and I think it's important to have that kind of record/bookkeeping in our laws.

In regards to dismissal, I would caution against at any time. If someone were to commit a crime for example, and the judges panel was composed of their friends, this rule could be easily abused to dismiss the case right after it's even presented. I would prefer some kind of window, such as after initial evidence is presented.

Also--are cases accepted immediately? If a case is obviously fraudulent, I could see a possibility in which someone determines not to take the case on at all, which would hopefully cut down on unnecessary cases/cases with no grounds. But if a case is accepted, I think it's worth hearing the evidence before simply moving past the case. I also think it would be cool if there could be some kind of referendum to force the judges to try the case if there is a significant amount of public opinion for the case to hold the judges accountable, but IDK about that idea specifically. Lastly, I'm not so sure if a case is 'to be terminated as it was never filed'. I think a record of that case should still be around, with a reasoning of why a case was terminated, to help serve as future precedent, or whatever. Maybe I'm being picky with the wordchoice, but I feel like given the current condition, I could sue a whole bunch of people and take them to court over ridiculous/fake reasons, and no one would be able to do anything about it, because they would likely be 'terminated' and there would be no record of it occurring at all.

Section 6.2 is entirely outdated and was meant to be removed, but never was. Next cases are accepted immediately after filing -- upon recognition by the Monarch. There is currently no provision for dismissal of a case or otherwise limiting cases brought before the Panel. As to the 'termination as if it were never filed.' doesn't mean the record would be deleted, but the Panel would be dissolved immediately and it would be treated as no filing ever occurred legally. The forum posts would still exist. The current situation requires a panel to sit for a few days and then withdraw only to render a Not Guilty verdict for a fraudulent case.

Also I would note that under the procedure of the JoA, evidence is presented by the Applicant at the time of the request and after that, the only person who speaks before the court continuously is the Defense. The Applicant must be called before the court to provide additional evidence and what have you.

Finally, a permanent court -- or any form of Standing Court -- is not going to happen. Such an amendment would be immediately vetoed by Wintermoot thus killing it.

I will also point out the Interim name in the amendment. This amendment is mainly to graft on some things needed by the Judicial System we have, until I can finish up my revisions (whenever that is).

I would be fine with keeping 6.2 in the bill. I think leaving it in is good for establishing a record of what happened and I don't think there's any harm in leaving it in, but it's not something I will hold this bill up over.

Re:  If a majority of the Justices agree, the Chief Justice is to dismiss the case, and the case is to be terminated as if it were never filed.

I now understand the intent behind the wording, but can we just take the last part out? I don't like having 'as if it were never filed' because I think that's just strange...like would we be able to refer to the attempt to file that charge in the future? What if a case was dismissed initially, but then a later case was brought up and we wanted to reference the previous attempt somehow? It would be terminated 'as if it were never filed'. I understand I'm being picky with my words right now, but I would prefer it to read:

 If a majority of the Justices agree, the Chief Justice is to dismiss the case, and the case is to be terminated.

If anything, we could add 'without impact to either party' or something like that.

Re: permanent judicial branch: the idea of not having a permanent judicial branch is a little foreign to me (although I haven't been in a bunch of regions either!), but if something like that is not something the community wants, I'm not going to push for it. I think it makes sense to have some kind of sitting panel with qualified judges who are knowledgeable about law, and I wholly agree that this court wouldn't see a lot of activity (it hopefully won't as crimes are bad!), but I think investing in some kind of permanent body could be useful because of the expertise and neutrality it would bring. (Again, if this isn't a road our region wants to or is willing to go down, I'm not going to continue to advocate for it).

I would be fine with keeping 6.2 in the bill. I think leaving it in is good for establishing a record of what happened and I don't think there's any harm in leaving it in, but it's not something I will hold this bill up over.

Re:  If a majority of the Justices agree, the Chief Justice is to dismiss the case, and the case is to be terminated as if it were never filed.

I now understand the intent behind the wording, but can we just take the last part out? I don't like having 'as if it were never filed' because I think that's just strange...like would we be able to refer to the attempt to file that charge in the future? What if a case was dismissed initially, but then a later case was brought up and we wanted to reference the previous attempt somehow? It would be terminated 'as if it were never filed'. I understand I'm being picky with my words right now, but I would prefer it to read:

 If a majority of the Justices agree, the Chief Justice is to dismiss the case, and the case is to be terminated.

If anything, we could add 'without impact to either party' or something like that.

Re: permanent judicial branch: the idea of not having a permanent judicial branch is a little foreign to me (although I haven't been in a bunch of regions either!), but if something like that is not something the community wants, I'm not going to push for it. I think it makes sense to have some kind of sitting panel with qualified judges who are knowledgeable about law, and I wholly agree that this court wouldn't see a lot of activity (it hopefully won't as crimes are bad!), but I think investing in some kind of permanent body could be useful because of the expertise and neutrality it would bring. (Again, if this isn't a road our region wants to or is willing to go down, I'm not going to continue to advocate for it).

Regarding 6.2, it was always meant to be removed and therefore should be removed as it remaining in there causes issues. It removes that avenue complete.y

I won't be removing the "as if it were never filed" as it is in there for good reason. Additionally, it makes sure there is absolutely no conflict with the rest of the law, as Dismissal is therefore not a legal verdict. Where-as your change theoretically can cause conflict.