 |
| |
|
|
Epistax
|
 |
of Bananas
May 2001
time: 00:21
|
|
Greetings from the court. This thread is to tell you that we are now open for business (only to find people camping out in front of the door).
The court justices that were nominated were all accepted by the public: Captain, jdjdjd, notyoueither, Trip, Epistax.
For those who are unfamiliar with the process
quote:
The Court cannot act on any issue until a non-judicial citizen of the nation brings forth an Issue to The Court. Issues to The Court should be posted publicly and must involve a dispute that The Court is empowered to rule upon. |
1. The complaint is made...
a) Judge is PMed or otherwise legally notified by plaintiff.
b) Senior Justice Appointed
c) Senior Justice PMs plaintiff and defendant
d) Senior posts in court thread to acknowledge case
2. The court decides whether to hear the case or not... (
a) Senior Justice gathers information
b) Assess validity (general court, 3/5)
c) Repeat if not enough is known
3. Administrative details are settled. Schedule and so forth...
a) Availability of all persons and methods
b) IRC vs Thread, Day / Time
c) Notifications
4. Hearing is held...
a) Creation of thread or start of IRC chat by Senior Justice
b) Plaintiff's Side
b2) Last chance for case to be thrown out
c) Defendant's Side
d/e) Justice offers questions, People ask to the heard, anyone may speak once allowed.
f) Senior justice ends at discretion
5. Deliberation...
a) Senior Justice arranges a private chat or otherwise private meeting with other active judges of the case.
b) A majority vote or as needed by the COL are reached. In the case of a tie, abstaining judges must side.
6. Judgment decided...
a) Senior Justice sees to reports being written and published
7. Appeals are heard...
a) If three judges wish to rehear the case, process can restart at 1.
Feel free to rip this apart. I know I will 
Purpose:
quote:
The Court is constituted to rule upon: contested disputes involving legal interpretation, validity of polls, violations of the Constitution, or any other legal dispute of national importance. |
We will gladly accept suggestions for where the COL stops ( available at http://apolyton.net/forums/showthre...&threadid=56100 ).
Note: This thread is not to be topped
Note: We do not currently have a senior justice
Cases:
1. On the acceptance of the amendment 'Integration of Minister of the Economy'.
If abstains are accepted as against yea, the amendment fails to reach the 66% needed. Otherwise it passes. Timeline will represent that abstains should be discarded. Opponents to not yet have a speaker.
poll: http://apolyton.net/forums/showthre...344&perpage=25&
Status: Pending
2. On the legality of an offical poll by jdd2007 brought against by civman2000
The plaintiff, civman2000, has brought it to the attention of the court that a poll created by jdd2007 violates the COL articles III and IV by creating an official poll laking clarity and denying the right of a citizen to vote.
poll: http://apolyton.net/forums/showthre...&threadid=56957
case link: http://apolyton.net/forums/showthre...&threadid=57036
Status: Dead
* We are having a justice meeting soon to determine a method to trials. Feel free to discuss and develop arguments.
PLEASE do not post anything on any specific case in here. PM any member of the justice to get the attention of the court. If you see a typgraphical error here, feel free to PM me, Epistax.
Last edited by Epistax on 29-07-2002 at 22:51
|
|
| |
|
|
|
BigRed515
|
|
As far as procedural matters go, I do have one suggestion.
Now, I'm not in court as often as Togas, but I have enough experience with legal matters to think that having some sort of fixed format for each side's arguments in a case would be a really good idea.
After you work out all the PM stuff about the court buissness, but before the court actually posts the thread, both sides of the case should format their arguments in an easily-readable way that will make the cases more accessible to the average person while also fixing things like what the exact charges in the claim are, the exact parts of the COL or Consitution violated, and the exact requests of the claim so far as the resolution of the case goes (what is wrong, what was broken, how the person wants it fixed). The other side should submit a mirror form so that both arguments are clear and the conflicting points/interpretations can be easily identified.
I think this would be good in cutting down the length of the courtroom threads, by ensuring that one side couldn;t come up with a new charge in the middle of the argument, doubling the length of the thread as the new point was covered and recovered.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
notyoueither
|
 |
of naught
Aug 2001
time: 22:21
|
|
This might make things easier to follow.
code:
1. The complaint is made...
a) Judge is PMed or otherwise legally notified by complainant.
b) Senior Justice Appointed (by interest or turn)
c) Senior Justice PMs complainant and respondent
d) Senior posts in court thread to acknowledge case
2. The court decides whether to hear the case or not...
a) Senior Justice gathers information
b) Assess validity (general court, 3/5)
c) Repeat if not enough is known
3. Administrative details are settled. Schedule and so forth...
a) Availability of all persons and methods
b) IRC vs Thread, Day / Time
c) Notifications
4. Hearing is held...
a) Creation of thread or start of IRC chat by Senior Justice
b) Complainant's Side
b2) Last chance for case to be thrown out
c) Respondent's Side
d/e) Justices ask questions, People ask to the heard, anyone may speak once allowed.
f) Senior justice ends at discretion
5. Deliberation...
a) Senior Justice arranges a private chat or otherwise private meeting with other active judges of the case.
b) A majority vote or as needed by the COL are reached. In the case of a tie, abstaining judges must side.
6. Judgment decided...
a) Senior Justice sees to reports being written and published
7. Appeals are heard...
a) If three judges wish to rehear the case, process can restart at 1.
/Edit. I have changed plaintif to Complainant and defendant to Respondent. It should be very uncommon that any one should be accused of misdeeds. I feel that the word 'defendant' is too charged to be used casually. Where ideas are concerned, no one need defend themselves. Witness jdd's recent distress.
OTOH, from time to time, the term 'defendant' may be appropriate. We should be careful in it's application though.
4 d/e also edited. Justices ask questions...
Last edited by notyoueither on 28-07-2002 at 09:47
|
|
| |
|
|
|
jdjdjd
|
 |
of España
May 2002
time: 00:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by notyoueither
This might make things easier to follow.
code:
1. The complaint is made...
a) Judge is PMed or otherwise legally notified by complainant.
b) Senior Justice Appointed (by interest or turn)
c) Senior Justice PMs complainant and respondent
d) Senior posts in court thread to acknowledge case
|
Just to point out that the word "interest" does not mean that the Justice has interest in the case, such as a witness, pltf, or defendant, or that it involves him in some way; but that the case appears to be a valid case the Justice believes should be heard.
If I am wrong in that interpretation, then it should be changed.
quote:
/Edit. I have changed plaintif to Complainant and defendant to Respondent. It should be very uncommon that any one should be accused of misdeeds. I feel that the word 'defendant' is too charged to be used casually. Where ideas are concerned, no one need defend themselves. Witness jdd's recent distress.
|
pltf and defendant are legal terms used in civil cases, pltf is one who brings forth a complaint, and defendant is one who must defend the complaint. They are acceptable terms. I agree we should not use terms like suspect, accused, victim; as they imply a crime has been perpetrated, and of course this is not a criminal court.
Anyway, I wish I had been available more to assist in creating these rules, they are excellent.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
kring
|
 |
Wichita,KS,USA
Dec 2001
time: 23:21
|
|
I would disagree about there being no case just because there isn't a voice for the plaintiff/defendant. The issue is valid. In real courts, a city atty., the DA's office, the state Atty. General office; one of this would be the plaintiff. I realize we don't have one. This is a great case because we need to know how abstains are to be handled in all elections, not just ones where they prevent a majority. Check out the thread about abstain voting. I have always voted abstain as supporting neither side or saying that you didn't like the options presented. If you say that abstain votes don't count for the majority issue (in other words whether or not a majority is reached), then there is no point in having an abstain. What happens if you have a situation where the abstains win with 2/3 vote (or whatever is needed in that poll if different). Do we discount those 2/3 votes and just go with the yes/no votes? Same principle applies, whether it is only 1 abstain vote, or a 2/3 majority vote.
For the record, I support that amendment, but I don't see it getting 2/3 of the vote.
I would do it, but my plate is plenty full enough as it is.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
panag
|
 |
MY WORDS ARE BACKED WITH BIO-CHEMICAL WEAPONS
Oct 2000
time: 07:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by notyoueither
skywalker, this is a discussion thread, not the official court thread. Look in the topped thread.
Yes panag, having all 5 for most cases would be a good idea. |
hi ,
the reason to have 5 would be so that they can do more work , and have a more or less better view , when its 3 against 2 the court shoul look at that , when its 5 against 0 , its clear , when its 4 against 1 its something intresting
anyway , the original idea was for at least 5 , .....
have a nice day
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Epistax
|
|
of Bananas
May 2001
time: 00:21
|
|
Case #2 will be held in a case-thread starting 4:00 PM EST <> 9:00 PM GMT on Friday the 9th of August, 2002.
The case-thread will last however long is necessary for the justices to come to a decision on the matter as stated in Case #2.
The rules for the case-thread will be in the first post to the thread. A quick overview:
The plaintiff gives the first post after the senior justice opens the thread to the case. The plaintiff may use as many posts as necessary to present their side, however their argument should be as condensed as possible.
After the plaintiff has signaled that he/she is done, the respondent may post as many posts as necessary to counter the plaintiff, again as condensed as possible.
When the defense has signaled they are done, Justices may ask questions. If people other than the defendant and plaintiff wish to speak, they must get permission from the Senior Justice. This Q/A section could last from a few hours, to days, depending on many factors.
At any time, the Senior Justice may close the case, and fall into deliberations with other justices. All messages after the closing of the case will be ignored.
Current justices involved include Epistax (senior), notyoueither, and jdjdjd. Any justices prepared for the case may decide to take part.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Togas
|
 |
California
Jun 2002
time: 21:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by BigRed515
As far as procedural matters go, I do have one suggestion.
After you work out all the PM stuff about the court buissness, but before the court actually posts the thread, both sides of the case should format their arguments in an easily-readable way that will make the cases more accessible to the average person while also fixing things like what the exact charges in the claim are, the exact parts of the COL or Consitution violated, and the exact requests of the claim so far as the resolution of the case goes (what is wrong, what was broken, how the person wants it fixed). The other side should submit a mirror form so that both arguments are clear and the conflicting points/interpretations can be easily identified.
I think this would be good in cutting down the length of the courtroom threads, by ensuring that one side couldn;t come up with a new charge in the middle of the argument, doubling the length of the thread as the new point was covered and recovered. |
I missed this previous post but BigRed is right (wish I would have brought this up sooner)...
The first hearing involving the Integration of the Minister of Economy will be held this weekend and I feel as though I'm going in blind. I know why I believe this poll is valid and should, therefore, be adopted, but I do not know what my opponent will be arguing, so the real "argument" is going to happen in rebuttal.
For future consideration, both arguments should be posted a couple days prior to the thread being opened for argument. This is how we do it in the real world. Both sides know the other side's arguments and legal support. No surprises. Both sides also know what areas they do not need to argue over. Things go efficiently and focus only on the areas of disputed interpretation.
--Togas
|
|
| |
|
| |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
26-07-2002 18:57
Great to see it going at last!
|