I'm not sure about having this apply to TSPers - it stinks of extra-judicialism, as every qualifying act is a crime.

Edit: I've actually come on to my computer to comment on this in more detail, as it's actually massively more awful than I initially thought.
 

(03-26-2018, 05:18 PM)sandaoguo Wrote: 3. Judicial Review

(1) Legislators subject to a “persona non grata” declaration may challenge the veracity of the claims made by the Cabinet and the Assembly, in the High Court.

(2) The “persona non grata” status will remain throughout the judicial process, but the individual must be given adequate permissions to view and respond to the relevant threads in the High Court forum.

(3) The “persona non grata” status will be lifted if the High Court finds that it is substantially more likely than not that the claims presented by the Cabinet are false.

The section I have highlighted is a complete reverse of the established judicial standard for "burdens of proof" - the High Court is required to uphold a PNG status even if they don't think the Cabinet's claim are true. I'm choosing to "believe" that Glen and everyone liking the OP have simply failed to realise this, and are not intentionally requiring the accussed to prove their innocence rather than the cabinet prove their guilt.

Because that's what this requires.

The only reason I'm not saying this proposal stinks is because it's an insult to skunks.