Discussion: Amedment - Impeachment

[Kramerman]

If there are no more, arguements in the next couple of days, Jdjdjd, then I would say go ahaed and put this puppy up for vote. But people better nit be nit-picking this baby at the polls, when they have had weeks to voice their opinion on this matter in this thread....
Oh, well, give it a couple more days. This post should bump this into the public view too

Kman

[Captain]

Two related issues:

Are we to assume that in article 1b)

b. The Court will review the allegations made and by a vote of at least three Justices determine if there are proper and legal grounds to hold an impeachment hearing.

that the review will include attempting to obtain a response from the defendant before proceeding? This seems only fair to me. A failure to respond by the respondent should not hold up the Court indefinitely nor be automatic grounds for proceeding either.

I also would like the Court to be the one to start the Impeachment "trial" thread (in article 2b) as opposed to the "party who started the impeachment process". This ensures that the Court is able to present the facts before the arguments about removal start flying. The first post in a thread is very important and the Court should be responsible. It should lay down the initial arguments/evidence of the plaintiff and the response of the respondent, along with the reasons for the Court ruling to impeach and proceed to removal trial. This ensures a more fair trial. Given the past history of an inflammatory tone in "cases" publicly opened prior to Court approval, we should be careful.

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by Captain
Two related issues:

Are we to assume that in article 1b) that the review will include attempting to obtain a response from the defendant before proceeding? This seems only fair to me. A failure to respond by the respondent should not hold up the Court indefinitely nor be automatic grounds for proceeding either.

I also would like the Court to be the one to start the Impeachment "trial" thread (in article 2b) as opposed to the "party who started the impeachment process". This ensures that the Court is able to present the facts before the arguments about removal start flying. The first post in a thread is very important and the Court should be responsible. It should lay down the initial arguments/evidence of the plaintiff and the response of the respondent, along with the reasons for the Court ruling to impeach and proceed to removal trial. This ensures a more fair trial. Given the past history of an inflammatory tone in "cases" publicly opened prior to Court approval, we should be careful.

I agree Good points.

[jdjdjd]

I have updated this to clarify 2b. (see 2 a-c) The court should summarize the case, but complainant and respondent should have a chance to post their arguments in full, so that misinterpretation by the court is eliminated.

As for 1b, since this is merely a review by the court to make sure allegations warrant impeachment, a defendant does not need to respond. The court is judging if the case is valid, not the guilt or innocense of the party. Its like an indictment, where defense is not presented, only the case against. So, I left 1b unchanged.

"This amendment will hereby set the rules of impeachment and removal from office for all officials of the governement in an elected or appointed post, and limited to these positions, President, Vice President, Justice of The Court, and Minister, incuding any Minister position currently described in the Code of Laws and any Minister position created in the future. This amendment shall override any prior rules on Impeachment and the Removal of an official from office mentioned in the Code of Laws presently.

1. Impeachment:

a. Any citizen may bring the case of impeachment of an official to a member of The Court by PM. "Any citizen" is defined to include the President, Vice President, Minister or Justice.

b. The Court will review the allegations made and by a vote of at least three Justices determine if there are proper and legal grounds to hold an impeachment hearing. If so, then the accusation shall be deemed "with merit", the official shall be impeached (indicted), and The Court shall proceed as directed in section 2. If the accusations are found to be without legal merit, or if at least three Justices cannot find that there is merit to continue, the allegations shall be dismissed.

c. Should a member of The Court be the subject of impeachment then he shall not take part in the decision by The Court. The Vice President shall sit in his place for the sole determination of whether the impeachment has merit, and shall be considered a "Justice" for that vote only.

2. Removal from office:

a. Once impeachment has been approved by The Court, the matter then goes to trial (which will be in a thread started by The Court). This thread will have an outline of the facts presented by the complainant and the response by the defendant.

b. The party who started the impeachment process will have a chance to elaborate on the summary and present the facts and evidence against the official including all specific allegations.

c. The defendant will have a chance to answer these allegations and elaborate on his defense. The defendant will have three days to respond once the allegations are posted by the complainant.

d. Both parties must post their arguments for the public to see, this will be in a thread on the matter started by The Court.

e. After the arguments are presented, the public then can debate the topic in the thread, and may request that The Court hold a public forum for arguments (a chat). The chat will be moderated by at least one member of The Court. There will be a three day time limit to this thread after the defendant files his answer and the chat must occur within that period of time.

f. The general populace will then review the case and vote for removal from office of the defendant in a poll. This requires a 2/3 vote. This poll will last for three days.

g. If for valid reason, the defendant did not file his answer timely, he will be able to make a case for filing late to the court, which they can grant if the lateness is within reason as agreed upon by a simple majority of the Full Court. This is the only means by which a case can be reopened and re-presented to the public.

h. No appeals of the people's decision can be made, except as stated in "g", above.

3. Offenses:

a. An official can be impeached only if they have violated the Code of Laws in place at the time of the violation.

b. The Code of Laws can never be amended retroactively and be made to apply to an act committed prior to the amendment.

4. Other:

a.. While impeachment and removal from office procedings are pending, the official will remain in power.

b. If the President is removed from office, the Vice President will immediately assume his duties.

c. If a Vice President or Minister is removed from office, the President will appoint a replacement, who will serve the remainder of the removed official's term.

d. If a Justice is removed from office, then the President will appoint a replacement to serve out the remainder of the removed Justice's term. If the remaining term is for longer than one (1)month, a confirming poll will be placed to the people, as described in the Amendment creating the High Court.

e. Other procedural and housekeeping matters will be created by The Court as need requires in order to carry out this amendment.

f. If the people feel The Court has shirked their duty by failing to impeach the official, the people can post their own poll for impeachment. If 2/3's of the people agree to bypass the court, and impeach the official, then trial will commence as stated above in "2. Removal from office".

[Captain]

As for 1b, since this is merely a review by the court to make sure allegations warrant impeachment, a defendant does not need to respond. The court is judging if the case is valid, not the guilt or innocense of the party. Its like an indictment, where defense is not presented, only the case against. So, I left 1b unchanged.

But the Court IS judging the guilt or innocence of the party. That's what indictment means. It means to charge with wrongdoing.

The complainant/plaintiff who brings up the accusation is also "indicting" in the sense that they are charging them with wrongdoing. The accusor says "This person is guilty". But this charge is just that, an accusation and everyone knows it. A Court indictment is more than an accusation, it is a ruling. It says "this person IS guilty" because they move on to removal trial. Otherwise, if not guilty, we would not proceed to removal trial. This is precisely why we NEED to hear from the defendent. We are not assessing only the legal grounds, we are assessing whether the charge is true. If a Court indicts, it means it agrees with the accusation. If it "charges with wrongdoing", it says it believes the accusation is true. Without hearing from the defendent, this is very vulnerable to one-sidedness and failure to get at the truth.

Remember, since we do not have a D.A. or Prosecutor, the Court "charging with wrongdoing" is not the same as the police (or citizen) "charging with wrongdoing".

An indictment by the Court MUST have a response from the defendent beforehand. While I am not sure how the Courts do it in real life, I personally would not ever charge someone with wrongdoing without hearing from the accused party. That is NOT fair at all. As a judge or jury, I would like to get the facts before proceeding and that includes hearing both sides of the story. Then, if I was convinced, I would indict (charge with wrongdoing).

[jdjdjd]

I am under the impression that the court is not determining guilt but determining whether there is reasonable cause to proceed to removal from office. The intent, I thought, was to discard with the frivilous cases that have no merit. The court will not decide the innocense or guilt, just that there are grounds to continue, it is up to the people to decide if the official is in violation, acting as the jury in this case.

In a normal indictment, it is just voting to say yes the prosecutor has prima facia case, i.e. enough evidence to bring it to a jury.

Togas expertise (as a lawyer) would be appreciated in this area as maybe I understand it incorrectly. As would anyone else's opinion.

In any event, since we are talking about just whether to allow defendant to provide opinion, I would be willing to concede.

But as the proposed amendment states, the court is just to say if the case has merit, and not to decide guilt or innocense. Going forward, impeaching, does not state that the official is guilty of any violation, just that there are grounds to move to the next step.

If nothing new by Friday, I will update and look to post the poll.

[GodKing]

Sounds good jdjdjd.

[Captain]

Anyone with a better legal understanding of indictment/impeachment?

I'm just using the dictionary (Merriam-Webster) and applying some logic as to consequences. Would love to have anyone clarify if they happen to know. Thanks!

[Togas]

Originally posted by jdjdjd
In a normal indictment, it is just voting to say yes the prosecutor has prima facia case, i.e. enough evidence to bring it to a jury.

Togas expertise (as a lawyer) would be appreciated in this area as maybe I understand it incorrectly. As would anyone else's opinion.

In short, JD is right. I won't get into all the details and exceptions and such, but I will explain this bit about the system that might clear things up:

In the beginning, when charges are first presented, a Judge says to himself, assuming everything listed here is true, is this enough to prove the crime? Is there enough evidence here to bother going forward?

Indictments are just that -- a statement by a judge (or Grand Jury) that there is enough evidence to go to the great expense and effort of having a trial.

The judges act as gatekeepers, keeping out baseless attempts at impeachment. That is how we should use them. It should be a simple check to see if impeachment of X Minister is called for assuming everything in the complaint is true.

--Togas

[Kramerman]

But as the proposed amendment states, the court is just to say if the case has merit, and not to decide guilt or innocense. Going forward, impeaching, does not state that the official is guilty of any violation, just that there are grounds to move to the next step.

I thought the court was to decide merit, and then also vote to impeach as well, in a sense putting their input on the guilt or innocence of the accused. And then it is the public who ultimately remove. I shoul reread what the amendment looks like, for I just skimmed it earlier. Ill get back to this discussion later.

[Kramerman]

ok, so it is set up so the court by finding merit in a case, also impeaches. They dont make a seperate vote to do this as it is now. That is fine with me. It is probably more time efficient to find merit and impeach all in one action.

[jdjdjd]

sorry, this was an error, that happens when you have too many browsers opened at once.

[Kramerman]

I think this is ready to put to the poll. I'll let someone else do it cause Im not sure how everybody else feels that it is ready yet also. But if this is the general consensus, you got my thumbs up

Kman