Shireroth

Well, I had typed up a fairly nice decree to go into the Decreebook here on the topic of judicial hearings. I really was fairly proud of it. The problem being, I took so long typing the post that the forum apparently logged me out in the meantime, and after I logged back in, my post was gone.

I don't feel like trying to work out everything I'd written just now, but to summarize what I was thinking:

As far as the Dutch goes (considering that there was some resistance in the Senead, I wasn't going to try to impose this on any of the Barons), there would be three types of proceedings: criminal trial, civil trial, committal trial.

Criminal trial would involve cases brought by the government against someone who had broken an actual law. Lawyers allowed, because they'd know the law. Plaintiff, defendent, lawyers, witnesses would all have to take an Oath as to the veracity of statements and of evidence in order to participate. Plaintiff and defendent would not have the choice not to take the Oath, but others could opt out, so long as they understood that they couldn't participate. Dutch hands down verdict and sentence.

Civil trial: not dealing with the breaking of the law, but with a complaint or claim of damages. Dutch would be much more of a mediator here, would try to negotiate a settlement if zie could avoid imposing one. No lawyers allowed, none needed. Plaintiff and defendant would bear the onus of whether witnesses and evidence were truthful. Assuming no appeal is made, both parties would swear an Oath to abide by settlement.

Committal trial: dealing with the breaking of Oaths. I'm still uncertain about this one. I want it to exist, but it would probably exist solely for those occasions when someone specifically wants the Dutch to arbitrate on an Oath. Probably very informal.

Other things: Evidence. I was thinking a standard way of dealing with evidence. Evidence that was on a forum, website, or other linkable place would not be considered unless the link was provided; no mere quoting. Evidence from chat logs could be quoted in court, but would be given much lesser weight unless a full text of the entire conversation could be provided to the Dutch. The Dutch would be well advised, of course, to ask the other party if they also confirmed the authenticity of the conversation.

And this is for internal matters?

Sound reasonable for that then. Re evidence, I think it would best to establish a system across Shireroth (or even the micronational world)

Looks good to me too. Good to see one of the duchies finally creating something that should be there already (glares at myself).

As Baron of Hallucination I would like to implement a system of "Common Law".

This starts out with there being no law at all, about anything; not criminal, not civil, not committal. The exception to this is that if there is a law of the Duchy or of the Realm of Shireroth the person can be taken to those courts even if the particular law is broken in Hallucination.

The Decrees of the Baron reign for all Counties and the Decrees of the Counts for their County. However, the government can never charge anyone; all charges must be made by a private citizen. A Baron or Count can make charges, but not in their official position, only as a private citizen.

The lowest level noble, Count or Baron, then recruits three judges from across Shireroth. If three can´t be found who volunteer, the lowest level noble must fill in up to the Baron filling out the three. If three can´t be found after a Count/Baron must fill in, then there is no trial and the person "gets away with it."

The three judges hear the case. No one is asked to take an oath of veracity of statements or of evidence. Anyone from anywhere can chime in at any time they want. The judges choose who to believe or not to believe what is said. A link to a quote might help to make something more believable but is not required.

The judges can vote to end the case anytime they want and can make a decision any time they want by a majority vote. The decision becomes the "Common Law" of Hallucination. After that a person can take someone to trial based on the common law decision. Judges can rule differently than an existing common law simply by making a different ruling, however both then become "common law" and in the future the judges of a trial will have to decide which to follow.

Next time there is a person taken to trial the three judges might or might nons, no set rule on who hears cases.

Hmm. In its way, that's a great deal simpler. I'm not sure about the three judges part, but the rest of it...

I might reconsider parts of my own plan in light of this.

So if there is no objection I will considering making a Common Law decree for Hallucination.

No objection whatsoever.

Considering the common law issue on a Duchy level, I'm now thinking like this:

So, established law would generally be limited. Ducal decrees, obviously, as expressed in our Decreebook. To keep it manageable, decrees with permanent legal effects should be few in number (judging from the rate of decrees here, that wouldn't be a problem anyway). A vote of the Seanad, too, maybe, should count? The Seanad's lawmaking ability, or lack thereof, isn't clearly stated. I doubt it would be rushing to vote in new laws anyway, but something to consider.

So, the amount of standing law kept small and limited. Most situations covered by that, by Imperial law, or by whatever growing body of precedent emerges from the hearings. I think the government should still be able to charge people if the law is breached, though: not limited entirely to private citizens. If the body of law is kept small enough, and assuming most citizens are law-abiding, it shouldn't be easy to bring about a situation where someone has to be officially charged; in the few situations where it happens, the resulting common law would serve as more specific interpretation of the law. Everything else, what would have been the civil and committal trials, could be lumped together.

The Dutch would remain the judge, I think. I'd prefer to keep it that way rather than appoint judges, since that seems to be the spirit of the laws surrounding the Judex system: using the extant power of nobles for a judicial purpose. For the general process of conducting trials, Austi's statement should probably suffice as a guide:

The judges can vote to end the case anytime they want and can make a decision any time they want by a majority vote. The decision becomes the "Common Law" of Hallucination. After that a person can take someone to trial based on the common law decision. Judges can rule differently than an existing common law simply by making a different ruling, however both then become "common law" and in the future the judges of a trial will have to decide which to follow.

As for this, though:

The three judges hear the case. No one is asked to take an oath of veracity of statements or of evidence. Anyone from anywhere can chime in at any time they want. The judges choose who to believe or not to believe what is said. A link to a quote might help to make something more believable but is not required.[/quote:fzs3g8n practice, I think, when the judge is a noble the interpretation of evidence is always going to be dependent on whim to some degree. I'd still like to maintain standards of evidence, though, at the very least as guidelines if not as actual hard rules.

With no objection then I shall make a decree - I'll work on the wording I want, it may take a little time.

It would appear that the Barony of Hallucination may have a little more "relaxed" code than the Duchy but yet be subject to the "law" of the Duchy. If a person doesn't like the ruling at the Barony level they will able to appeal the case to the Duchy and thus be subject to the "restrictive" court system.

If I see no object I shall proceed, most likely within a month or so.