|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on May 23, 2019 18:42:01 GMT -6
Caveat to your private citizen probably wouldn't have standing to sue under US precedent. Also, it could be a "political question" that the courts wouldn't touch under the same. Unless we adopted India's no holds bar to standing (like, it's kinda insane).
|
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on May 23, 2019 19:00:38 GMT -6
Shockingly and against my longstanding and repeated objections, Roman prosecutions are allowed in Talossan courts. I think it is a terrible idea for the same reason that I think you should require a cause of action before bringing charges, but it has roughly the same standing and precedent into Talossan law as submitting questions of interpretation ex nihilo.
|
|
Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN
Seneschal
the new Jim Hacker
Posts: 6,635
Talossan Since: 6-25-2004
Dame Since: 9-8-2012
Motto: Expulseascâ, reveneascâ
Baron Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
Duke Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
|
Post by Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN on May 23, 2019 19:22:31 GMT -6
Shockingly and against my longstanding and repeated objections, Roman prosecutions are allowed in Talossan courts. I think it is a terrible idea for the same reason that I think you should require a cause of action before bringing charges, but it has roughly the same standing and precedent into Talossan law as submitting questions of interpretation ex nihilo. We're getting off topic - maybe this should go in a general Legal Reform thread - but what you call Roman prosecutions and we call private prosecutions are legal but extremely rare in New Zealand, and they've actually had good outcomes on occasions. I am not minded to abolish them in this country considering that the gap in legal knowledge between the State and a random citizen off the street is not that great. |
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on May 23, 2019 20:00:22 GMT -6
This seems odd to me. Is this permitted by statute or convention? I must concede, we don't have this practice in NY, so it's a bit foreign to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on May 23, 2019 20:12:42 GMT -6
In any event, from my limited understanding, private prosections are a criminal law thing. We're not talking criminal acts but a civil suit. Perhaps you can supply a link in Talossa to the contrary. I don't think private prosections speak to the issue of standing it a private citizens right to act in the role of A-G in a civil suit.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on May 24, 2019 0:02:35 GMT -6
Shockingly and against my longstanding and repeated objections, Roman prosecutions are allowed in Talossan courts. I think it is a terrible idea for the same reason that I think you should require a cause of action before bringing charges, but it has roughly the same standing and precedent into Talossan law as submitting questions of interpretation ex nihilo. We're getting off topic - maybe this should go in a general Legal Reform thread - but what you call Roman prosecutions and we call private prosecutions are legal but extremely rare in New Zealand, and they've actually had good outcomes on occasions. I am not minded to abolish them in this country considering that the gap in legal knowledge between the State and a random citizen off the street is not that great. well, it's not a question of knowledge, more question of how easily abused the whole thing is. I'm one of like three people who pays attention to our law in detail, and I try to basically never mention this option to anyone since I'm worried about that. in fact, I'm so worried I'm not even going to explain further what I mean. Suffice to say that I'm going to bring back my bill about conflicts of interest and go after this stuff. Is there general agreement about our approach, then? Work to persuade, then override if that fails? |
|
Istefan Perþonest
Cunstaval to Fiôvâ; Regent of the University of Talossa
Posts: 1,024
Talossan Since: 2-21-1998
|
Post by Istefan Perþonest on May 24, 2019 6:04:44 GMT -6
This seems odd to me. Is this permitted by statute or convention? I must concede, we don't have this practice in NY, so it's a bit foreign to me. As a historical matter, the common law assumes private prosecutions; they were the standard method of prosecution in 18th Century England. They remain legal in (at least) Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the US states of Texas and Virginia. |
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on May 24, 2019 8:48:59 GMT -6
We're getting off topic - maybe this should go in a general Legal Reform thread - but what you call Roman prosecutions and we call private prosecutions are legal b uput extremely rare in New Zealand, and they've actually had good outcomes on occasions. I am not minded to abolish them in this country considering that the gap in legal knowledge between the State and a random citizen off the street is not that great. well, it's not a question of knowledge, more question of how easily abused the whole thing is. I'm one of like three people who pays attention to our law in detail, and I try to basically never mention this option to anyone since I'm worried about that. in fact, I'm so worried I'm not even going to explain further what I mean. Suffice to say that I'm going to bring back my bill about conflicts of interest and go after this stuff. Is there general agreement about our approach, then? Work to persuade, then override if that fails? I'm apprehensive that this is still good law considering the Org Law requires criminal prosecution from "the Crown." But I can see how the common law could okay it or the Crown could sign off on it. I'm open to legislation end it. That said, again, that is for criminal prosecution, something not relevant here. So this is a bit of a red herring. We've now had an extensive discussion on the holiday issue that. I don't know what else can be said to John to change his mind. The Ziu should override his veto. That would, of course, raise the issue of mootness in a potential suit. But that could be overlooked considering the likelihood of escaping judicial review (at least the issue of advisory opinions). I also am not aware of any conflicts that would prevent any of the four justices from hearing the matter. John will be provided with the petition beforehand. Perhaps that will persuade him. But if not, I'll go forward with filing it. |
|
King John
King of Talossa
Posts: 2,415
Talossan Since: 5-7-2005
Knight Since: 11-30-2005
Motto: COR UNUM
King Since: 3-14-2007
|
Post by King John on May 24, 2019 13:49:41 GMT -6
Here's Article 3 section 2 in toto: "The King is the symbolic head of the nation. The nation democratically grants the King and his successors certain Royal Powers: The right to declare national holidays, grant titles of nobility, make the annual Speech From the Throne on the 26th of December (or at other times when events warrant), to veto bills (or Prime Dictates), to issue Writs of Dissolution and Warrants of Prorogation for the Cosâ, to grant pardons and commute sentences, to confer awards and decorations, to appoint the Seneschál after elections, and to appoint Governors of Territories upon the advice of the Seneschál."
That's quite a list of powers the Crown has, and most of them are very clearly the Crown's own characteristic powers, and not simply things the Crown can do and the Ziu can do too if it feels like it. My position is that the first of those enumerated Crown powers, like all the others on the list, is solely vested in the Crown.
The other question of course is whether the statutory category of "holidays the Government will observe" falls under the Organic category of "national holidays". It seems to me pretty clear that the OrgLaw intended the King to be in charge of this kind of ceremonial stuff. I could be wrong.
These are interesting questions, and ones we can probably find a way to settle amicably. I'd be happy to litigate, and let the Cort decide. Or I'd be happy simply as King to declare the same list of national holidays passed recently in the vetoed Bill.
— John R
|
|
|
|
Post by Gödafrïeu Válcadác’h on May 25, 2019 9:06:28 GMT -6
Reasonable people can disagree on difficult issues, and they should be able to chat about it and consider it before charging into legal action. If His Maj wanted to "chat" about questions of Organicity, the time to do so was before refusing assent to a Bill which had overwhelming support from both Houses of the Ziu. He's entitled to throw his two bence into the Hopper at any time. Once again, the King uses his torpedo-powers. You are welcome to use the Hopper, John. |
|
|
|
Post by Gödafrïeu Válcadác’h on May 25, 2019 9:07:48 GMT -6
With respect to 53RZ3, El Regeu en volt. — John R What is your response to everything else? GV, Scribe |
|
|
|
Post by Gödafrïeu Válcadác’h on Jun 3, 2019 18:55:28 GMT -6
Crickets.
|
|
