 |
| |
|
|
Kramerman
|
 |
UT, Austin - The live music capital of the world
Jun 2002
time: 23:21
|
|
quote:
I think the case, once it has passed the minimum standards of merit (2? Judges), should be presented by the accusor in a clear, fixed format so that the charges are fixed and easily understandable by all. The accused should also respond in a mirror format to the claim, to make it simple on the judges when they compare the arguments. After the claim and response are read by the judges, they should ask questions for clarification, etc, only on points brought up in the claims. |
I like this system alot. I think it would be more time efficient then the one we got so far. However, I think this must be done in the public view, so the citizenry can see the arguements, exactly as the judges see them. And if the citizens make remarks, they do it on another thread so it shouldn't interfere with a court's impartiality in the matter. Again, though, i like the general idea and want to hear what others think about it too.
Captain, you raise some good questions, please posts some good answers! this bill is going to be pretty complex, from the looks of it....
|
|
| |
|
|
|
jdjdjd
|
 |
of España
May 2002
time: 00:21
|
|
OK, I read through everything and also the polls Godking created. I have revised the proposed amendment and reformatted it further for ease of reading. I think it is a good compromise.
Any thoughts?
quote:
"This amendment will hereby set the rules of impeachment and removal from office for all officials of the governement in an elected or appointed post, and limited to these positions, President, Vice President, Justice of the High Court, and Minister, incuding any Minister position currently described in the Code of Laws and any Minister position created in the future. This amendment shall override any prior rules on Impeachment and the Removal of an official from office mentioned in the Code of Laws presently.
1. Impeachment:
a. Any citizen may bring the case of impeachment of an official to a member of the High Court by PM. "Any citizen" is defined to include the President, Vice President, Minister or Justice.
b. The High Court will review the allegations made and by vote of a simple majority can approve the case is "with merit" and impeach (indict) the official. They do not determine the guilt or innocense of an official, just whether the accusations made are proper and impeachable.
c. The Full Court (all five members) will decide this issue, unless one of the members is being impeached. In such a case where a judge is being impeached, the remaining four Justices and the Vice President will become the Full Court, and will review the case.
2. Removal from office:
a. Once impeachment has been approved by the Court, the matter then goes to trial (which will be in a thread).
b. The party who started the impeachment process will present the facts and evidence against the official including all specific allegations.
c. The defendant will then have a chance to answer these allegations. The defendant will have three days to respond once the allegations are posted by the complainant.
d. Both parties must post their arguments for the public to see, this will be in a thread on the matter started by the High Court.
e. After the arguments are presented, the public then can debate the topic in the thread, and may request that the Court hold a public forum for arguments (a chat). The chat will be moderated by at least one member of the High Court. There will be a three day time limit to this thread after the defendant files his answer and the chat must occur within that period of time.
f. The general populace will then review the case and vote for removal from office of the defendant in a poll. This requires a 2/3 vote. This poll will last for three days.
g. If for valid reason, the defendant did not file his answer timely, he will be able to make a case for filing late to the court, which they can grant if the lateness is within reason as agreed upon by a simple majority of the Full Court. This is the only means by which a case can be reopened and re-presented to the public.
h. No appeals of the people's decision can be made, except as stated in "g", above.
3. Offenses:
a. An official can be impeached only if they have violated the Code of Laws in place at the time of the violation.
b. The Code of Laws can never be amended retroactively and be made to apply to an act committed prior to the amendment.
4. Other:
a.. While impeachment and removal from office procedings are pending, the official will remain in power.
b. If the President is removed from office, the Vice President will immediately assume his duties.
c. If a Vice President or Minister is removed from office, the President will appoint a replacement, who will serve the remainder of the removed official's term.
d. If a Justice is removed from office, then the President will appoint a replacement to serve out the remainder of the removed Justice's term. If the remaining term is for longer than one (1)month, a confirming poll will be placed to the people, as described in the Amendment creating the High Court.
e. Other procedural and housekeeping matters will be created by the High Court as need requires in order to carry out this amendment.
f. If the people feel the High Court has shirked their duty by failing to impeach the official, the people can post their own poll for impeachment. If 2/3's of the people agree to bypass the court, and impeach the official, then trial will commence as stated above in "2. Removal from office".
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Togas
|
 |
California
Jun 2002
time: 21:21
|
|
Just my final thoughts before passage...
It appears to be ready to go, I would just like to ask that two things be done:
1) Get rid of these "High Court" references. We do not have a low court or a high court. We just have "The Court." The phrase "High Court" comes from use in the real world where there are lower and higher courts.
2) The "High Court" and "Full Court" thing is confusing. How about changing this:
quote:
Originally posted by jdjdjd
b. The High Court will review the allegations made and by vote of a simple majority can approve the case is "with merit" and impeach (indict) the official. They do not determine the guilt or innocense of an official, just whether the accusations made are proper and impeachable.
c. The Full Court (all five members) will decide this issue, unless one of the members is being impeached. In such a case where a judge is being impeached, the remaining four Justices and the Vice President will become the Full Court, and will review the case.
|
To This:
b. The court will review the allegations made and by a vote of at least 3 Justicies determine if there are proper and legal grounds to hold an impeachment hearing. If so, then the accusation shall be deemed "with merit", the official shall be impeached (indicted), and the court shall proceed as directed in section 2. If the accusations are found to be without legal merit, or if at least 3 Justices cannot find that there is merit to continue, the allegations shall be dismissed.
c. Should a member of The Court be the subject of impeachment then he shall not take part in the decision by The Court. The Vice President shall sit in his place for the sole determination of if the impeachment has merit, and shall be considered a "Justice" for that vote only.
... of course, mine is longer and more lawyerly. But I do think it's clearer.
--Togas
|
|
| |
|
|
|
jdjdjd
|
|
of España
May 2002
time: 00:21
|
|
I did it now anyway.....revised proposed amendment...
quote:
"This amendment will hereby set the rules of impeachment and removal from office for all officials of the governement in an elected or appointed post, and limited to these positions, President, Vice President, Justice of The Court, and Minister, incuding any Minister position currently described in the Code of Laws and any Minister position created in the future. This amendment shall override any prior rules on Impeachment and the Removal of an official from office mentioned in the Code of Laws presently.
1. Impeachment:
a. Any citizen may bring the case of impeachment of an official to a member of The Court by PM. "Any citizen" is defined to include the President, Vice President, Minister or Justice.
b. The Court will review the allegations made and by a vote of at least three Justices determine if there are proper and legal grounds to hold an impeachment hearing. If so, then the accusation shall be deemed "with merit", the official shall be impeached (indicted), and The Court shall proceed as directed in section 2. If the accusations are found to be without legal merit, or if at least three Justices cannot find that there is merit to continue, the allegations shall be dismissed.
c. Should a member of The Court be the subject of impeachment then he shall not take part in the decision by The Court. The Vice President shall sit in his place for the sole determination of whether the impeachment has merit, and shall be considered a "Justice" for that vote only.
2. Removal from office:
a. Once impeachment has been approved by The Court, the matter then goes to trial (which will be in a thread).
b. The party who started the impeachment process will present the facts and evidence against the official including all specific allegations.
c. The defendant will then have a chance to answer these allegations. The defendant will have three days to respond once the allegations are posted by the complainant.
d. Both parties must post their arguments for the public to see, this will be in a thread on the matter started by The Court.
e. After the arguments are presented, the public then can debate the topic in the thread, and may request that The Court hold a public forum for arguments (a chat). The chat will be moderated by at least one member of The Court. There will be a three day time limit to this thread after the defendant files his answer and the chat must occur within that period of time.
f. The general populace will then review the case and vote for removal from office of the defendant in a poll. This requires a 2/3 vote. This poll will last for three days.
g. If for valid reason, the defendant did not file his answer timely, he will be able to make a case for filing late to the court, which they can grant if the lateness is within reason as agreed upon by a simple majority of the Full Court. This is the only means by which a case can be reopened and re-presented to the public.
h. No appeals of the people's decision can be made, except as stated in "g", above.
3. Offenses:
a. An official can be impeached only if they have violated the Code of Laws in place at the time of the violation.
b. The Code of Laws can never be amended retroactively and be made to apply to an act committed prior to the amendment.
4. Other:
a.. While impeachment and removal from office procedings are pending, the official will remain in power.
b. If the President is removed from office, the Vice President will immediately assume his duties.
c. If a Vice President or Minister is removed from office, the President will appoint a replacement, who will serve the remainder of the removed official's term.
d. If a Justice is removed from office, then the President will appoint a replacement to serve out the remainder of the removed Justice's term. If the remaining term is for longer than one (1)month, a confirming poll will be placed to the people, as described in the Amendment creating the High Court.
e. Other procedural and housekeeping matters will be created by The Court as need requires in order to carry out this amendment.
f. If the people feel The Court has shirked their duty by failing to impeach the official, the people can post their own poll for impeachment. If 2/3's of the people agree to bypass the court, and impeach the official, then trial will commence as stated above in "2. Removal from office".
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
jdjdjd
|
|
of España
May 2002
time: 00:21
|
|
I have updated this to clarify 2b. (see 2 a-c) The court should summarize the case, but complainant and respondent should have a chance to post their arguments in full, so that misinterpretation by the court is eliminated.
As for 1b, since this is merely a review by the court to make sure allegations warrant impeachment, a defendant does not need to respond. The court is judging if the case is valid, not the guilt or innocense of the party. Its like an indictment, where defense is not presented, only the case against. So, I left 1b unchanged.
quote:
"This amendment will hereby set the rules of impeachment and removal from office for all officials of the governement in an elected or appointed post, and limited to these positions, President, Vice President, Justice of The Court, and Minister, incuding any Minister position currently described in the Code of Laws and any Minister position created in the future. This amendment shall override any prior rules on Impeachment and the Removal of an official from office mentioned in the Code of Laws presently.
1. Impeachment:
a. Any citizen may bring the case of impeachment of an official to a member of The Court by PM. "Any citizen" is defined to include the President, Vice President, Minister or Justice.
b. The Court will review the allegations made and by a vote of at least three Justices determine if there are proper and legal grounds to hold an impeachment hearing. If so, then the accusation shall be deemed "with merit", the official shall be impeached (indicted), and The Court shall proceed as directed in section 2. If the accusations are found to be without legal merit, or if at least three Justices cannot find that there is merit to continue, the allegations shall be dismissed.
c. Should a member of The Court be the subject of impeachment then he shall not take part in the decision by The Court. The Vice President shall sit in his place for the sole determination of whether the impeachment has merit, and shall be considered a "Justice" for that vote only.
2. Removal from office:
a. Once impeachment has been approved by The Court, the matter then goes to trial (which will be in a thread started by The Court). This thread will have an outline of the facts presented by the complainant and the response by the defendant.
b. The party who started the impeachment process will have a chance to elaborate on the summary and present the facts and evidence against the official including all specific allegations.
c. The defendant will have a chance to answer these allegations and elaborate on his defense. The defendant will have three days to respond once the allegations are posted by the complainant.
d. Both parties must post their arguments for the public to see, this will be in a thread on the matter started by The Court.
e. After the arguments are presented, the public then can debate the topic in the thread, and may request that The Court hold a public forum for arguments (a chat). The chat will be moderated by at least one member of The Court. There will be a three day time limit to this thread after the defendant files his answer and the chat must occur within that period of time.
f. The general populace will then review the case and vote for removal from office of the defendant in a poll. This requires a 2/3 vote. This poll will last for three days.
g. If for valid reason, the defendant did not file his answer timely, he will be able to make a case for filing late to the court, which they can grant if the lateness is within reason as agreed upon by a simple majority of the Full Court. This is the only means by which a case can be reopened and re-presented to the public.
h. No appeals of the people's decision can be made, except as stated in "g", above.
3. Offenses:
a. An official can be impeached only if they have violated the Code of Laws in place at the time of the violation.
b. The Code of Laws can never be amended retroactively and be made to apply to an act committed prior to the amendment.
4. Other:
a.. While impeachment and removal from office procedings are pending, the official will remain in power.
b. If the President is removed from office, the Vice President will immediately assume his duties.
c. If a Vice President or Minister is removed from office, the President will appoint a replacement, who will serve the remainder of the removed official's term.
d. If a Justice is removed from office, then the President will appoint a replacement to serve out the remainder of the removed Justice's term. If the remaining term is for longer than one (1)month, a confirming poll will be placed to the people, as described in the Amendment creating the High Court.
e. Other procedural and housekeeping matters will be created by The Court as need requires in order to carry out this amendment.
f. If the people feel The Court has shirked their duty by failing to impeach the official, the people can post their own poll for impeachment. If 2/3's of the people agree to bypass the court, and impeach the official, then trial will commence as stated above in "2. Removal from office".
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Captain
|
 |
by Divine Right
May 2001
time: 00:21
|
|
quote:
As for 1b, since this is merely a review by the court to make sure allegations warrant impeachment, a defendant does not need to respond. The court is judging if the case is valid, not the guilt or innocense of the party. Its like an indictment, where defense is not presented, only the case against. So, I left 1b unchanged.
|
But the Court IS judging the guilt or innocence of the party. That's what indictment means. It means to charge with wrongdoing.
The complainant/plaintiff who brings up the accusation is also "indicting" in the sense that they are charging them with wrongdoing. The accusor says "This person is guilty". But this charge is just that, an accusation and everyone knows it. A Court indictment is more than an accusation, it is a ruling. It says "this person IS guilty" because they move on to removal trial. Otherwise, if not guilty, we would not proceed to removal trial. This is precisely why we NEED to hear from the defendent. We are not assessing only the legal grounds, we are assessing whether the charge is true. If a Court indicts, it means it agrees with the accusation. If it "charges with wrongdoing", it says it believes the accusation is true. Without hearing from the defendent, this is very vulnerable to one-sidedness and failure to get at the truth.
Remember, since we do not have a D.A. or Prosecutor, the Court "charging with wrongdoing" is not the same as the police (or citizen) "charging with wrongdoing".
An indictment by the Court MUST have a response from the defendent beforehand. While I am not sure how the Courts do it in real life, I personally would not ever charge someone with wrongdoing without hearing from the accused party. That is NOT fair at all. As a judge or jury, I would like to get the facts before proceeding and that includes hearing both sides of the story. Then, if I was convinced, I would indict (charge with wrongdoing).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
jdjdjd
|
|
of España
May 2002
time: 00:21
|
|
I am under the impression that the court is not determining guilt but determining whether there is reasonable cause to proceed to removal from office. The intent, I thought, was to discard with the frivilous cases that have no merit. The court will not decide the innocense or guilt, just that there are grounds to continue, it is up to the people to decide if the official is in violation, acting as the jury in this case.
In a normal indictment, it is just voting to say yes the prosecutor has prima facia case, i.e. enough evidence to bring it to a jury.
Togas expertise (as a lawyer) would be appreciated in this area as maybe I understand it incorrectly. As would anyone else's opinion.
In any event, since we are talking about just whether to allow defendant to provide opinion, I would be willing to concede.
But as the proposed amendment states, the court is just to say if the case has merit, and not to decide guilt or innocense. Going forward, impeaching, does not state that the official is guilty of any violation, just that there are grounds to move to the next step.
If nothing new by Friday, I will update and look to post the poll.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
jdjdjd
|
|
of España
May 2002
time: 00:21
|
|
sorry, this was an error, that happens when you have too many browsers opened at once.
Last edited by jdjdjd on 08-08-2002 at 00:34
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:21.
Apolyton Time is 00:21. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
25-07-2002 09:22
. I would vote for it, thats for sure, though i have a feeling we're forgetting something, its that same feeling you get when you think you left something behind on a trip. Oh well, im sure someone willl catch it if this be the case.
.
|