Creation of a Magistracy Act

[Cjara B]

Now,
First off I would like to say that I’m not making any claim to a real understanding of the OrgLaw, but I do think I understand the points up for discussion, to a degree.

So then I don’t understand the abjection to having to appeal to the King. It seems to me with a remembrance of history that the government is capable of removing a King if a real need arises, and the current one is capable and has a full working understanding of Talossan Law on all levels. Pretty much it’s not like the King should be treated as a Non entity, and that it's not like trusting in His brain power or whatever is a bad idea.

And within the current system a province has the ability to build an individually tailored provincial government which would then have the power to build a governing judicial system.
Pretty much I don’t see any need for the change, The only problem is as has been pointed out that the ‘judges’ setup as now stands lends it’s self to very little to do, as well as severely limiting the amount of participation in the most currently active part of the kingdom.

Seems like a solution would be giving the guys more to do not less. Keep them active, Maybe we need some sort of law saying the Courts need to at least have some sort of a hearing or something every month; Solomon I think did something like holding an open court date for any grievances to be presided over… Keep them busy and they don’t get board and wonder off…

[Deleted]

Presidents can be changed. Does that mean the appeals process should be abolished and let people convicted of a crime go directly from trial to asking for a pardon? Nobody is treating the King like a "non entity" the issue is, shouldn't there be a way to appeal a court action through judicial means BEFORE resorting to a request for clemency? That's an issue more of fairness to the accused rather than how nice the King is (and he is a nice guy!).

Regarding your idea to keep the Court active....what if there is no business on which they need to conduct a hearing each month? Holding an open court for disputes or grievances is one possibility. But do we need to reduce the Uppermost Cort into Judge Judy just so we can avoid changing the system a little?

While not being permitted to be legislators means Justices are excluded from one of the most active components of our society, does that mean we should give the Justices busy work or we should be focusing on how to make Talossa thrive in areas other than the legislature?

[Owen Edwards]

A request for clemency is based on an acceptance of guilt, in the correct judgement of a court; an appeal is, well...an APPEAL AGAINST the judgement of a court.

Furthermore, since the Govt vs Chancery case started, so just over a third of a year, we've had two tabled cases, one potential case and one inquiry by MinDef. Let's say those four items extrapolate to 10 a year; but even if it's more like 6, that's 6 cases failing to be dealt with, and even if the other Justices were more active and spent an inordinate amount of time co-ordinating to deal with cases, those 6 issues could be more quickly and more efficiently dealt with at the first instance by a single judge.

Anything the good Senator - whose facetiousness did not mask the fact that his complaints only tangentially applied to this Act - would like to do about the inactive Justices, he can do; and there are various methods of looking at the issue. But knocking down this Bill doesn't "keep them on the hook"; it damages our judicial system.

[Deleted]

Ultimately, I am voting PER on this measure for a very simple reason. Whether we consider the underlying problem that we need new justices or that we need a lower court, experience has proven to us that 3 Justices needing to work together on every judicial matter does not work.

Perhaps 3 new Justices would work, perhaps they would fall into inactivity as well and we'd be having this same discussion in one year.

Trying to force 3 citizens to be active by giving them busy work won't work. So what are we left with? The possibility of forming a lower court. Perhaps it is a concept that will fail. But the change is statutory, so it can be repealed. But the concept is strong and stands a good chance of success.

[Owen Edwards]

Tim:

Thanks for the support. By the by, any assistance wanted with establishing provincial courts, just get in touch.