Anachronism in the Court Procedures Act
Eyes Only

---

While no Law Clerk has been selected for this legal question, I will use this thread to document and explain the process through which I consider the question, so that there will be a record to be subsequently released, in compliance with the Sunshine Act.

I ruled the question justiciable on 22 October 2017, and allowed until October 25 for the submission of amicus curiae briefs. Given the relationship between this question and Roavin v. Cormac, and the fact that it asks for reconciliation of a contradiction, rather than interpretation of the law, it is my hope that this question will be addressed in a shorter time than usual.

As of this moment, my basic outline is as follows:

• History of the Court (focus on the reform that changed it from a multi-member Court to a single-member Court)
  
• Examination of Intent (interview whoever was Chair at the time, and whoever drafted the reform bill)
  
• Opinion of the Court (reconcile the contradiction)
  

I appointed Aav Whitehall as Law Clerk for this case, on 06 November 2017. In line with that, here are the initial assignments for us:

For Aav:

• Use ORCS to run a quick check on past cases where the Court addressed contradictions between laws.

For Kris:

• Contact those who drafted the Court Procedures Act and ask for their testimony (CC Aav).
  

I'd like to see an initial deadline of tomorrow night, if that's alright with you. This is a short list, for now, because what matters is to get our initial information. Once we have an idea of what evidence we have, we can start taking a look at what kind of opinion we can draft.

Let me know if you're good with this, so we can make any changes, if needed.