|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Jul 20, 2017 18:30:41 GMT -6
I like all of the changes except 11.3.2.4. Shouldn't multiple SRs be allowed if they represent different viewpoints? If only one was allowed, other arguments may be neglected. I wanted to prevent an instance where there's a bunch of parties and varying opinions. If this circumstance did arise, I imagine an amicus curiae brief under 11.3.4.5 could would provide the appropriate mechanism, providing it meets the criteria that it meets the requirements stated therein. That said, this brings to my attention that I need to update this section with more clear and fair time filings (i.e., the time resets automatically after each filing or something to that effect). Do you think this could be an appropriate remedy?
|
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Jul 20, 2017 19:39:50 GMT -6
My concern is that amicus curaie are more limited in what they can do than SRs, so one party may gain an advantage over others if one party had an SR and the others don't.
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Jul 21, 2017 9:10:27 GMT -6
I don't really understand your point. The SR is intended to offer an alternative viewpoint and represent a party-in-interest, namely, the government official whose conduct may contravene the law. Because of the unique circumstance this bill seeks to address, there should only be two parties arguing before the Cort. In the event that there is a dispute as to who should be SR, there is a procedure for the most interested party to appoint the SR. Nevertheless, the less interested party can bring issues via amicus curiae that are pertinent but not argued, lest we run the risk that we have fifty amici all arguing the exact same thing but worded ever so slightly differently, or we have five SRs arguing the same thing with different wording. But, at the risk of argumentum ad absurdum, let's make it so every talossan, regardless of interest, can intervene, so we have 150 parties, in the interest of absolute fairness. I think the bill is incredibly open as it is and already addresses fairness. It's not really unfair if one side happens to get a better litigator than the other side (in any suit for that matter).
Ultimately, there's really only two parties in this type of action: Petition and Special Respondent. There's no third party.
The alternative, of course, is to not pass this bill and, the A-G, if they feel the government acts in a way that contravenes the law, has to once again sue the Government and have their ethics questioned. You know... leave the system as is, lacking any sense of procedure.
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Jul 21, 2017 12:26:49 GMT -6
My apologies. My last post has a bit of snark to it (unintended and the result of heavy studying for the bar next week*), but still inappropriate and unnecessary.
I would ask that you consider the points (snark aside) and, if you feel there is an alternative way to address this, offer modified language that you would find appropriate. I think it would be easier to discuss it if I saw a concrete alternative proposal that I can think through.
(*On another note, how long can I use bar prep as an excuse?)
|
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Jul 21, 2017 13:13:34 GMT -6
I suppose my concerns can be traced back to my very tenuous understanding of the concept of standing (and the legal system in general) and my tendency to think people/groups have standing when they actually don't.
I was envisioning a scenario in which an ambiguity affected multiple ministries (or a ministry and the crown, etc) and the affected parties disagreed on the interpretation (I am not trying to allow many people to submit similar briefs). However, if this is unlikely to occur, we can go with your current version.
I don't have the capacity to draft language right now, since I'm on my phone, but I would propose allowing the court to allow multiple SRs (presuming whoever appointed the SR had appropriate standing) if the additional SR could prove that they had a different view than existing SR(s) and that the ruling will affect the group they are representing.
(Don't worry about snark, I have been guilty of it myself I'm sure)
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Jul 21, 2017 15:39:18 GMT -6
Okay, I made some edits. Please note numbers have changed. 11.3.2.4 – this acknowledges an exception to the one SR rule, and also adds necessary language on “replacing.” 11.3.2.7 – This will allow additional SRs, but requires the interested party to show why. “Preponderance of the evidence” is a legal standard in the US that basically means weighing probabilities (i.e., most likely to be true than not true). It’s kinda the “middle of the road” from the easier standards of proof and the more difficult ones. Also, the Cort may convert a motion to replace the SR into a motion for a co-SR, provided it will serve the interest of justice. The idea is that in an situation where say both SRs share an equal interest, the Cort's hands aren't tied. 11.3.2.8 – Because this would need immediate address, this essentially halts the proceeding and tolls the time limitations (meaning, we stop counting) set forth elsewhere Once it’s resolved, time picks up where it left off (i.e., if we're on day 20, clock stops. If it takes the court two weeks to decide, then the clock resumes when the order is made, so two weeks later becomes day 21). 11.3.2.9. – This allows the other parties to be heard, and gives the interested party the chance to respond. If the response is proper (i.e., it doesn’t raise new issues not previously argued), no surrebuttal. If it does, opposing parties can file a surrebuttal with the court’s permission. 11.3.2.10 – This is to discourage the use of this motion to delay litigation.
Looking over this, I should have devoted the first section to definitions of key terms. Anyway, I think this addresses your concerns. Let me know.
(also, someone please check the numbering. In fact, if someone wants to redoing the numbering so it makes more clear, I'd be grateful! Also, of note, I think this is the most explicit procedure the cort would have, which is both great and concerning; we definitely require something like this for cort procedures. I have ideas I'll introduce next government.)
|
|