NOLITE IN IVRE PIGRARI Act (NoPig Act)

[Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun]

WHEREAS the Ziu holds that it is detrimental to Talossa's justice system that courts are allowed not to give reason for dismissal of an appeal and not to react at all, and;
WHEREAS this endangers the course of a fair trial, and;
WHEREAS we want everybody to get a fair trial, and;
WHEREAS the Uppermost Court must, under Org.XVI.6., already supply plaintiffs with a written statement as to why it does not want to hear a case, and that other courts need not seems insensible, now;

THEREFORE the Ziu enacts:

that Title G, Section 4, Subsection 2 of the Lexhatx be changed followingly:

4.2., which currently reads:
Appeals or other actions brought before the Uppermost Cort shall be heard within 90 calendar days from the date of assignment by the Clerk of Courts. Should this time elapse and no decision be rendered as to whether the Uppermost Cort will hear the matter brought before it, the court will have implied unwillingness to hear the case and the decision of the lower court shall be upheld without prejudice. Parties may then re-file their appeal a final time after waiting an additional 90 days. If the court declines to hear, or fails to respond within 90 days, the decision of the lower court shall be upheld and no further appeal shall be permitted.

shall henceforth read:

4.2. Appeals or other actions brought before any national court shall be heard within 90 calendar days from the date of assignment by the Clerk of Courts.
4.2.1. The court, if it decides not to hear the case or appeal, shall issue a written statement justifying its decision within the time frame given in 4.2.
4.2.2. The disappointed appellant may, after a waiting period of 90 days after the appeal's dismissal, file the appeal a second time under the same conditions as outlined in subsection 2. However, if the court decides not to hear the case, stating its reasons for deciding so, no further appeal shall be permitted.
4.2.3. If any court fails to respond within 90 calendar days from the date of assignment by the Clerk of Courts, then the Ministry of Justice, headed by the Attorney-General, shall carry out an investigation ex officio and submit her results to the Ziu for discussion of the matter and possible disciplinary action.
4.2.4. Should the Ministry of Justice find that her investigations lead to the failure of a judge who has, within one year before, failed to comply with 4.2. and 4.2.1., she shall carry out the investigation according to subsubsection 4.2.3. and, altogether with her results, submit a bill for the Ziu to consider disposing of the judge.
4.2.5. The Ministry of Justice must present her findings to the Ziu no later than two months after a court's failure to respond has come to her attention. She may ask for an additional month for matters of great complexity.

Uréu q'estadra så: Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun (MC / MRPT)

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

I'd love to be added as co-sponsor, first of all, to demonstrate that I am really committed to getting a solid version of this passed into law. If that's acceptable to you?

[Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun]

Why, of course it is more than acceptable to me! But if you want to change it, why not help me change it first, so that you can see your name under an act that you can support to one hundred percent? I can add your name now, nevertheless, if you insist.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

I'd suggest that we change the focus of our language here a bit. I think we should be amending Title D as well as Title G.

In D, I think it would be ideal to create a new subsubsection 2.5.1 (D.2.5 is the subsection describing the A-G's job). This 2.5.1 would be the new affirmative duty to track and report judicial absences. I also think it could be tasked (while we doing this) with tracking and reporting judicial malfeasance. If a judge just drops off the face of the planet in the middle of a case, pending appeal, or abuses his power in some way, the A-G (or his appointed officer) would be responsible for making available a process for reporting this mal- or non-feasance. And after it was reported, the A-G would have the option to officially report the matter to the Ziu.

This also lets us simplify our changes to G. We can just add a requirement into the current language, stating, "Judges shall be required to submit an explanation for their refusal to hear a repeal to the appellant, in writing."

[Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun]

WHEREAS the Ziu holds that it is detrimental to Talossa's justice system that courts are allowed not to give reason for dismissal of an appeal and not to react at all, and;
WHEREAS this endangers the course of a fair trial, and;
WHEREAS we want everybody to get a fair trial, and;
WHEREAS the Uppermost Court must, under Org.XVI.6., already supply plaintiffs with a written statement as to why it does not want to hear a case, and that other courts need not seems insensible, now;

THEREFORE the Ziu enacts:

that a new subsection shall be created in Title D, Section 2 of the Lexhatx, reading:

2.5.1. The Ministry of Justice shall be charged with the investigation of judicial malfeasance and non-feasance. This specifically applies to the failure of a judge to comply with title G, section 4, subsection 2 and subsubsection 4.2.1. of this body of law.
    2.5.1.1. The Ministry of Justice shall submit her investigation's results to the Ziu for further consideration. She shall furthermore supply the judge with a call to order, if the Ministry of Justice considers that malfeasance or non-feasance has taken place.
    2.5.1.2. Should the Ministry of Justice find that her investigations lead to the failure of a judge who has, within one year before, failed to comply with G.4.2. and G.4.2.1., she shall carry out the investigation according to D.2.5.1. and shall, altogether with her results, submit a bill for the Ziu to consider disposing of the judge.
    2.5.1.3. Instead of a bill that disposes of the judge, the Ministry of Justice or the Ziu may decide on suspending the judge.
    2.5.1.4. The Ministry of Justice must present her investigative findings to the Ziu no later than two months after a court's failure to respond has come to her attention. She may ask for an additional month for matters of great complexity.

and FURTHERMORE that title G, section 4, subsection 2 of the Lexhatx be changed followingly:

4.2., which currently reads:
Appeals or other actions brought before the Uppermost Cort shall be heard within 90 calendar days from the date of assignment by the Clerk of Courts. Should this time elapse and no decision be rendered as to whether the Uppermost Cort will hear the matter brought before it, the court will have implied unwillingness to hear the case and the decision of the lower court shall be upheld without prejudice. Parties may then re-file their appeal a final time after waiting an additional 90 days. If the court declines to hear, or fails to respond within 90 days, the decision of the lower court shall be upheld and no further appeal shall be permitted.

shall henceforth read:

4.2. Appeals or other actions brought before any national court shall be heard within 90 calendar days from the date of assignment by the Clerk of Courts.
    4.2.1. The court, if it decides not to hear the case or appeal, shall issue a written statement justifying its decision within the time frame given in 4.2.
    4.2.2. The disappointed appellant may, after a waiting period of 90 days after the appeal's dismissal, file the appeal a second time under the same conditions as outlined in subsection 2. However, if the court decides not to hear the case, stating its reasons for deciding so, no further appeal shall be permitted.

Uréu q'estadra så: Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun (MC / MRPT)

---

Sir Alexandreu Davinescu, what do you think of it now? I am somehow unhappy with the section D, I feel it to be a bit sloppy yet.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

I agree, the changes to D could be cleaned up a bit. Here's a suggestion, building from what you have. I made some of the references less specific and loosened up some of the requirements... that way these duties and requirements can expand to meet any future growing need, but at the same time won't impose unnecessary amounts of paperwork at the present. And if we do want to add additional features or change this system we're instituting, then we can do so without too much messing around.

2.5.1. The Ministry of Justice shall be charged with monitoring the justice system. This shall include, but not be limited to, the following tasks:

2.5.1.1. The Ministry of Justice shall make freely and publicly available to citizens a procedure by which they may securely and easily report the wrongful actions or failure to act of a judge or other officer of the courts.

2.5.1.2. The Ministry of Justice shall keep records of these reports, and investigate those that seem credible in the Ministry's best judgment. The Ministry shall report the results of its investigations and its recommendations to the Ziu, as it sees fit to do so.

[Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun]

The warnings that might be issued are thus implicitly mentioned? And what about the suspension of a judge?

[Sir C. M. Siervicül]

Mar 5, 2014 7:29:37 GMT -6 Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun said:

The warnings that might be issued are thus implicitly mentioned? And what about the suspension of a judge?

The Justice Ministry has no power to suspend judges -- that would be an inorganic infringement on the independence of the judiciary.

Why does G.4.2.2 allow a second appeal after an appeal is rejected? Current 4.2 allows a second attempt at appealing if the court fails to respond at all the first time, but not if the court affirmatively declined to hear the appeal.

[Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun]

I meant, as I had outlined in my original draft, a suspension by the Ziu instead of a disposition.

You're right, I missed to eliminate that, taking over the old things. I will remove the second appeal thingy.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

Mar 5, 2014 7:29:37 GMT -6 Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun said:

The warnings that might be issued are thus implicitly mentioned?

Yes. The A-G might feel, for example, that justice would be better served by privately warning a Justice, first. Or maybe an immediate report to the Ziu would be best. Let's give the A-G some leeway for judgment.

[Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun]

Okay, let's see:

---

WHEREAS the Ziu holds that it is detrimental to Talossa's justice system that courts are allowed not to give reason for dismissal of an appeal and not to react at all, and;
WHEREAS this endangers the course of a fair trial, and;
WHEREAS we want everybody to get a fair trial, and;
WHEREAS the Uppermost Court must, under Org.XVI.6., already supply plaintiffs with a written statement as to why it does not want to hear a case, and that other courts need not seems insensible, now;

THEREFORE the Ziu enacts:

that a new subsection shall be created in Title D, Section 2 of the Lexhatx, reading:

2.5.1. The Ministry of Justice shall be charged with the with monitoring the justice system. This shall include, but not be limited to, the following tasks:
    2.5.1.1. The Ministry of Justice shall make freely and publicly available to citizens a procedure by which they may securely and easily report the wrongful actions or failure to act of a judge or other officers of the courts.
    2.5.1.2. The Ministry of Justice shall keep records of these reports, and investigate those that seem credible in the Ministry's best judgement. The Ministry shall report the results of her investigations and her recommendations to the Ziu, as she sees fit to do so.
    2.5.1.3. If the Ministry of Justice determines that she will not investigate the matter, she must supply the person(s) bemoaning wrongful actions with a written notification, wherein she states her reasons for refusing to investigate.
    2.5.1.4. The Ministry of Justice may carry out such an investigation of wrongful actions of a judge or an officer of the courts ex officio.

and FURTHERMORE that title G, section 4, subsection 2 of the Lexhatx be changed followingly:

4.2., which currently reads:
Appeals or other actions brought before the Uppermost Cort shall be heard within 90 calendar days from the date of assignment by the Clerk of Courts. Should this time elapse and no decision be rendered as to whether the Uppermost Cort will hear the matter brought before it, the court will have implied unwillingness to hear the case and the decision of the lower court shall be upheld without prejudice. Parties may then re-file their appeal a final time after waiting an additional 90 days. If the court declines to hear, or fails to respond within 90 days, the decision of the lower court shall be upheld and no further appeal shall be permitted.

shall henceforth read:

4.2. Appeals or other actions brought before any national court shall be heard within 90 calendar days from the date of assignment by the Clerk of Courts.
    4.2.1. The court, if it decides not to hear the case or appeal, shall issue a written statement justifying its decision within the time frame given in 4.2.
    4.2.2. If a court does not comply with 4.2. or 4.2.1., it is deemed to have committed a non-feasance and may be subjected to an investigation conducted by the Ministry of Justice, as she is empowered to do so under D.2.5.1.

---

I added the necessity of the Ministry to at least inform complainers of their decision not to investigate. I'd hate to wait for an answer and nothing comes back from the Ministry of Justice.
I also wrote a new 4.2.2., which refers to D.2.5.1. explicitly again. Though it may not be necessary, prevention is better than cure.

[Sir C. M. Siervicül]

In D.2.5.1, why do you refer to the Ministry of Justice with feminine pronouns? It's reminding me of the bit about the turnip and the maiden in Twain's famous essay, "The Awful German Language" (though I'm aware the Ministerium is neuter).

[Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun]

Because, in Talossan, it's "la mhinistrà", with a feminine gender. I wanted a bit of Talossanity in the English version of our laws, too.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

Er, well, English doesn't do that. Talossan English doesn't, either. I have used the plural pronoun "they" as a nod towards the trend away from the default masculine in my prospective language.

Basically, let's keep it consistent with the current use in the legal code, and if you want to change it, change every instance of it. Let's not start trying to jam it in here with this bill.

I see you added on those two additional things here. In my opinion, the ex officio thing is unnecessary and confusing. It is completely implied within the current language, and adding it in here implies that in other places in the law ex officio actions are not authorized. By including it, I think you'd actually work against your own purposes. I do agree with your other point, though. I have shifted the language a bit. What do you think of this?

2.5.1. The Ministry of Justice is solemnly charged with monitoring the justice system. This duty shall include, but not be limited to, the following tasks:

2.5.1.1. The Ministry of Justice shall make freely and publicly available to citizens a procedure by which they may securely and easily report the wrongful actions or failure to act of a judge or other officer of the courts.

2.5.1.2. The Ministry of Justice shall keep records of these reports, and investigate those that seem credible in the Ministry's best judgment. The Ministry shall report the results of its investigations and its recommendations to the Ziu, as it sees fit to do so.

2.5.1.3. The Ministry of Justice shall reply to every complaint with the results of any investigations, notification of any actions, or an explanation of inaction.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

On the other part, I think we again want to keep things from getting too convoluted and crazy. Here is a suggestion for language there. Note I dropped the last provision, because we're leaving it more open-ended: a citizen can petition for an investigation for any purpose, not just this one. We shouldn't limit the reasons why an investigation would be opened. Simpler and clearer is better, and we should avoid referencing other provisions unless it's necessary (so the law is accessible and not convoluted).

4.2. Appeals or other actions brought before any national court shall be heard within 90 calendar days from the date of assignment by the Clerk of Courts.

4.2.1. The court, if it decides not to hear the case or appeal, shall issue a written statement justifying its decision within the time frame given in 4.2.