|
|
Post by Eðo Grischun on Apr 18, 2012 19:09:59 GMT -6
WHEREAS we have three inactive Justices on the bench of the Uppermost Cort and this has caused the Justice system to grind slower than the RUMP's turtle,
WHEREAS we would like three active Justices, and a concomitant speed more akin to the cheetah of the distant veldt,
THEREFORE be it enacted that Justice Quedeir Castiglha is hereby removed from office, as per the Organic Law, Article XVI, Section 1.
FURTHERMORE, Baron Castiglha is understood to be a Justice Emeritus in good standing, as per 43RZ15. The Ziu thanks Baron Castiglha for his service, brings to mind his notable actions in the early days of the liberated Kingdom and notes regret that this action needs to be taken.
Noi urent q'estadra sa:
Éovart Grischun (MC-CSPP)
Owen Edwards (MC-CSPP)
Munditenens Tresplet (MC-RUMP)
|
|
|
|
Post by Eðo Grischun on Apr 18, 2012 19:10:28 GMT -6
Just to get a ball rolling on something.
Shoot it down or help me write it.
|
|
Capt. Sir Mick Preston
Capitán of the Zouaves
Posts: 6,511
Talossan Since: 9-21-2006
Knight Since: 10-12-2010
Motto: Cuimhnichibh air na daoine bho'n d'thainig sibh
|
Post by Capt. Sir Mick Preston on Apr 18, 2012 19:20:50 GMT -6
( We already have a method to remove a Judge...
Article XVI: The Courts
Section 1
...The judges, both of the Uppermost and inferior courts, shall be elected in accordance with Article XVI, Section 4, and shall hold their offices for life (or until resignation), and may only be removed by a two-thirds vote in the Cosâ with approval by the King and the Senäts. )
|
|
Owen Edwards
Puisne Justice
Posts: 1,400
Talossan Since: 12-8-2007
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Apr 18, 2012 19:21:17 GMT -6
Well, Sir Fritz is striking out soon anyway unless he becomes active again, so may solve us that problem in a particularly tragic manner. Lord Q hasn't been seriously active in about 5 years, so maybe stick him in. I don't believe it's a petition; I believe it's a binding Act.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2012 19:22:41 GMT -6
Just a thought, and I have pointed this out elsewhere.
Replacing Justices is a symptom of a larger problem.
Right now, being a Justice is a good way to end all activity. You can no longer be an MC or a Senator. Your political life is done which means, you can sit around and wait for a case.
People are not really motivated to become Justices because the legal system is under utilized.
People are also not utilizing the Magistracy. We have the ability to rule on matters right now. But no one is using this remedy.
And lastly, even if we replace one Justice, that will solve very little. The law allows a single Justice to hear cases provided the other Justices agree. As the other Justices are inactive and unresponsive, I doubt we would be able to secure their consent.
So, to free up the UC, we would have to retire all of them, not just one.
|
|
Owen Edwards
Puisne Justice
Posts: 1,400
Talossan Since: 12-8-2007
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Apr 18, 2012 19:24:27 GMT -6
I'd say remove all of them (unless Cresti specifically can be coaxed to activity again), either in three Bills or one.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2012 19:27:42 GMT -6
The Judicial retirement act simply allowed us to grant removed Justices Emeritus status so that we can retire them in a more dignified manner
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2012 19:29:16 GMT -6
I would support a measure to replace the current Court, but I would strongly recommend that same act contain a slate to replace the three as well
|
|
Owen Edwards
Puisne Justice
Posts: 1,400
Talossan Since: 12-8-2007
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Apr 18, 2012 19:29:34 GMT -6
Indeed. So are we having this Bill be a mass retirement or having three separate ones?
|
|
Capt. Sir Mick Preston
Capitán of the Zouaves
Posts: 6,511
Talossan Since: 9-21-2006
Knight Since: 10-12-2010
Motto: Cuimhnichibh air na daoine bho'n d'thainig sibh
|
Post by Capt. Sir Mick Preston on Apr 18, 2012 19:33:18 GMT -6
I would do 3 separate ones. Remove each one independently, so that if one comes back , we only have to repeal one individual act, instead of repealing the act that re-instates all 3, and then retiring the other 2 again.
|
|
Hooligan
Squirrel King of Arms; Cunstaval to Maricopa
Posts: 7,325
Talossan Since: 7-12-2005
Motto: PRIMA CAPIAM POCULA
Baron Since: 11-20-2005
Count Since: 9-8-2012
|
Post by Hooligan on Apr 18, 2012 19:33:32 GMT -6
Well, Sir Fritz is striking out soon anyway unless he becomes active again, so may solve us that problem in a particularly tragic manner. Lord Q hasn't been seriously active in about 5 years, so maybe stick him in. I don't believe it's a petition; I believe it's a binding Act. This is not at issue. His Majesty the King will likely pardon either of these persons if they reach three strikes, as he recently did for Count Danihel Laurieir. Hool |
|
Hooligan
Squirrel King of Arms; Cunstaval to Maricopa
Posts: 7,325
Talossan Since: 7-12-2005
Motto: PRIMA CAPIAM POCULA
Baron Since: 11-20-2005
Count Since: 9-8-2012
|
Post by Hooligan on Apr 18, 2012 19:34:34 GMT -6
I would do 3 separate ones. Remove each one independently, so that if one comes back , we only have to repeal one individual act, instead of repealing the act that re-instates all 3, and then retiring the other 2 again. Well, once retired, a repeal won't put them back. They'd have to be reappointed, and you'd think that other justices would have their seats by then, so it'll be a case of returning too late. Hool |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2012 19:41:34 GMT -6
I would do 3 separate ones. Remove each one independently, so that if one comes back , we only have to repeal one individual act, instead of repealing the act that re-instates all 3, and then retiring the other 2 again. Well, once retired, a repeal won't put them back. They'd have to be reappointed, and you'd think that other justices would have their seats by then, so it'll be a case of returning too late. Hool I would do one act. Remove all three, replace all three. If any return, Lord Hooligan is right, he would have to be reappointed. So, upon return, two options. We can initiate a removal of a new Justice and replace them with one of the former Justices. Or, maybe we can convince someone to resign and allow us to reappoint one of the retired Justices. More than likely, they won't return in the very near future. And by the time they do, hopefully the rest of the Justice system will be functioning a little better. We can always appoint them to a lower court. |
|
Owen Edwards
Puisne Justice
Posts: 1,400
Talossan Since: 12-8-2007
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Apr 18, 2012 19:41:52 GMT -6
That's my instinct too. Let this one retire Lord Q?
"WHEREAS we have three inactive Justices on the bench of the Uppermost Cort and this has caused the Justice system to grind slower than the RUMP's turtle,
WHEREAS we would like three active Justices, and a concomitant speed more akin to the cheetah of the distant veldt,
THEREFORE be it enacted that Justice Quedeir Castighla is hereby removed from office, as per the Organic Law, Article XVI, Section 1.
FURTHERMORE, Baron Castighla is understood to be a Justice Emeritus in good standing, as per 43RZ15. The Ziu thanks Baron Castighla for his service, bring to mind his notable actions in the early days of the liberated Kingdom and note regret that this action needs be taken."
|
|
Owen Edwards
Puisne Justice
Posts: 1,400
Talossan Since: 12-8-2007
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Apr 18, 2012 19:43:55 GMT -6
(My instinct for three Bills chiefly has to do with having the Ziu judge each Justice's removal on their merits. It may seem a moot point, but I don't think it is.)
|
|
