Users browsing this thread:

***Tsunamy*** · 08-05-2017, 10:38 AM

I'd like to strike or clarify Article 3.3 of the Charter. Specifically ...

Quote:3. No member may be banned or ejected from the in-game region without the due process of law.

We have no definition of what "due process" entails making this clause completely unworkable in a legal sense and our judiciary doesn't move quickly enough to consider that "due process."

The CRS has the ability to declare a "state of emergency," but even that does no give us the power to eject people — especially if we consider an expansive definition of "due process of law."

On a larger scale, I understand the desire/need to have a bill of rights, but the way these laws are written and have been interpreted, they crippled regional security. The only reason this hasn't been an issue is that any potential invading forces has not taken this clause literally.

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

***Roavin*** · 08-05-2017, 11:09 AM

How about this?

Quote:3. No member may be permanently or indefinitely banned from the in-game region without the due process of law.

Escade · 08-05-2017, 01:09 PM

I think that helps clarify and also helps immediate issues be dealt with in a timely way.

Escade

~ Positions Held in TSP ~
Delegate | Vice Delegate
Minister of Regional Affairs, | Minister of Foreign Affairs | Minister of Military Affairs
~ The Sparkly One ~

My Pinterest

***sandaoguo*** · 08-05-2017, 04:12 PM

It's a legal term of art. It doesn't (contrary to some people's assertions) mean "trial."

Taken from LLI: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/due_process

Quote:While there is no definitive list of the "required procedures" that due process requires, Judge Henry Friendly generated a list that remains highly influential, as to both content and relative priority:

An unbiased tribunal.

Notice of the proposed action and the grounds asserted for it.

Opportunity to present reasons why the proposed action should not be taken.

The right to present evidence, including the right to call witnesses.

The right to know opposing evidence.

The right to cross-examine adverse witnesses.

A decision based exclusively on the evidence presented.

Opportunity to be represented by counsel.

Requirement that the tribunal prepare a record of the evidence presented.

Requirement that the tribunal prepare written findings of fact and reasons for its decision.

This is not a list of procedures which are required to prove due process, but rather a list of the kinds of procedures that might be claimed in a "due process" argument, roughly in order of their perceived importance.

Emphasis added.

The gist of due process is that a process is followed. Nothing is done secretly for secret reasons. Actions are evidence-based, not arbitrary.

(This post was last modified: 08-05-2017, 04:15 PM by sandaoguo.)

***Roavin*** · 08-05-2017, 09:39 PM

Well, only reason that might be an issue is "Opportunity to present reasons why the proposed action should not be taken", which would imply that 3.3 does not allow, say, pre-emptive ejections.

***Tsunamy*** · 08-06-2017, 12:15 AM

(08-05-2017, 04:12 PM)sandaoguo Wrote: It's a legal term of art. It doesn't (contrary to some people's assertions) mean "trial."

Taken from LLI: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/due_process

Quote:While there is no definitive list of the "required procedures" that due process requires, Judge Henry Friendly generated a list that remains highly influential, as to both content and relative priority:

An unbiased tribunal.

Notice of the proposed action and the grounds asserted for it.

Opportunity to present reasons why the proposed action should not be taken.

The right to present evidence, including the right to call witnesses.

The right to know opposing evidence.

The right to cross-examine adverse witnesses.

A decision based exclusively on the evidence presented.

Opportunity to be represented by counsel.

Requirement that the tribunal prepare a record of the evidence presented.

Requirement that the tribunal prepare written findings of fact and reasons for its decision.

This is not a list of procedures which are required to prove due process, but rather a list of the kinds of procedures that might be claimed in a "due process" argument, roughly in order of their perceived importance.

Emphasis added.

The gist of due process is that a process is followed. Nothing is done secretly for secret reasons. Actions are evidence-based, not arbitrary.

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

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

**Belschaft** · 08-06-2017, 04:48 AM

The way to resolve this quandary is to create a new category of minor crimes - mainly relating to things on the RMB - that can be dealt with summarily, without a trial. Several other regions use such a system, where an action alone is sufficient absent intent, should evidence of it be provided.

_{Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making}
^{Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator}

PREVIOUS ROLES

***Tsunamy*** · 08-06-2017, 11:02 AM

(08-06-2017, 04:48 AM)Belschaft Wrote: The way to resolve this quandary is to create a new category of minor crimes - mainly relating to things on the RMB - that can be dealt with summarily, without a trial. Several other regions use such a system, where an action alone is sufficient absent intent, should evidence of it be provided.

I mean ... yes, but no.

Like, I'd but in support of us (or the LC even) coming up with a list of spamming things we can banject people for. That would be an easy fix.

The larger point is that even under a state of emergency, we don't have the have powers to ban someone (some people) to prevent them from taking the delegate's seat. I believe the SoE powers allow the CRS to do anything *after* a coup, but not if someone just ignores the endorsement cap and tards into the delegacy. Further the way some people have been interrupting our laws, this clause allows for just that.

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

**Belschaft** · 08-06-2017, 02:33 PM

I think that, if written correctly, such matters could be handled within the criminal code as well. Give me some time to look at it and think it over.

_{Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making}
^{Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator}

PREVIOUS ROLES

***sandaoguo*** · 08-06-2017, 03:34 PM

(08-06-2017, 12:15 AM)Tsunamy Wrote: 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."

(This post was last modified: 08-06-2017, 03:34 PM by sandaoguo.)