Should we ask a legal question and let our new permanent justice rule on that?

I don't see the point. Either we agree here that "due process" =/= trial, or we don't. No point in asking the court, when we'll just turn around and amend it if the court says "no it has to be a trial."

I suppose my contention if that even if we decide we don't *need* a trial for due process, the court can clearly have a different determination.

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

Reply

Should we ask a legal question and let our new permanent justice rule on that?

I don't see the point. Either we agree here that "due process" =/= trial, or we don't. No point in asking the court, when we'll just turn around and amend it if the court says "no it has to be a trial."

I suppose my contention if that even if we decide we don't *need* a trial for due process, the court can clearly have a different determination.

Well, that's my point. If we, right now, agree that due process doesn't require a trial, then we should simply say so. It's not up to the court to write the Charter. Even if Kris might think due process should be a trial and only a trial, we can make that a moot point by writing it into law that it doesn't.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Reply

Should we ask a legal question and let our new permanent justice rule on that?

I don't see the point. Either we agree here that "due process" =/= trial, or we don't. No point in asking the court, when we'll just turn around and amend it if the court says "no it has to be a trial."

I suppose my contention if that even if we decide we don't *need* a trial for due process, the court can clearly have a different determination.

Well, that's my point. If we, right now, agree that due process doesn't require a trial, then we should simply say so. It's not up to the court to write the Charter. Even if Kris might think due process should be a trial and only a trial, we can make that a moot point by writing it into law that it doesn't.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Fair. Let's codify it.

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

Reply

Alright, then how's this:

3. No member may be banned or ejected from the in-game region for reasons not explicitly specified by law, and may not be permanently or indefinitely banned without due process.

Reply

Then we need to make a law saying its illegal to try and take the delegate's seat and/or break the endo cap.

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

Reply

Then we need to make a law saying its illegal to try and take the delegate's seat and/or break the endo cap.

We've got that already. Former is implicit, latter is explicit.

(1) Treason shall be defined as plotting against the Coalition, seeking to lower the delegate's endorsement count without his or her consent, breaking the endorsement cap after receiving an official warning, aiding any entity in which the Coalition is taking defensive action against, or any entity in which a state of war exists with.

Reply

Alright, then how's this:

3. No member may be banned or ejected from the in-game region for reasons not explicitly specified by law, and may not be permanently or indefinitely banned without due process.

As a simple counterexample, if we preemptively banned someone under the appropriate law, banning them for say 1000 years would be legal under this definition and require no due process.

Reply

Yes. Then don't write laws that allow banning for 1000 years.

Reply

Curiously enough, I think TNI or LKE used to impose forum bans of hundreds or thousands of years.


Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk

Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator.
I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum.

Legal Resources:
THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System

Reply

Alright, then how's this:

3. No member may be banned or ejected from the in-game region for reasons not explicitly specified by law, and may not be permanently or indefinitely banned without due process.

As a simple counterexample, if we preemptively banned someone under the appropriate law, banning them for say 1000 years would be legal under this definition and require no due process.

If people are not part of our region, they aren't protected by our laws. We don't have to let them in.

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

Reply