Bill: Rejected Notice and Cure Act

[ameslap]

CONGRESS OF THE
COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
​

---

A BILL TO

ESTABLISH NOTICE AND OPPORTUNITY PRIOR TO PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT




​

---

The people of the Commonwealth of Redmont, through their elected Representatives in the Congress and the force of law ordained to that Congress by the people through the constitution, do hereby enact the following provisions into law:


​

PART I — PRELIMINARIES

1. Short Title and Enactment

(1) This Act may be cited as the ‘Notice and Cure Act’

(2) This Act shall be enacted immediately upon its signage.

(3) This Act has been authored by Representative Ameslap.

(4) This Act has been co-sponsored by Representatives Sophie Frostshade and Lovepurplepoodle.

(5) This Act amends the following Judicial Standards Act.

2. Reasons and Intent

(1) This bill provides the government with reasonable notice of alleged unlawful acts, errors, or omissions before civil litigation is commenced.

(2) To encourage prompt resolution of disputes between citizens and the government.

PART II — AMENDMENTS

3. Notice and Opportunity to Cure

(1) Part II, Section 1 of the Judicial Standards Act shall be amended by inserting the following after subsection 3:

(4) Notice Against Government.
(1) A person may not commence a civil proceeding against the Commonwealth, a government department or office, or a government official acting in their official capacity unless they first provide written notice to the Attorney General or a designee determined by the President through an Executive Order.
(a) The Notice shall be filed in a ticket on the Official Discord Server support category.

(2) The Notice must explain:
(a) the action or decision being challenged;
(b) the corrective action or relief being requested.

(5) Opportunity to Cure
(1) The Commonwealth shall have 72 hours after receiving notice to do one of the following:
(a) Accept the Notice and give a timeline on when it will be corrected
(b) Deny the Notice.

(2) A person may commence a civil proceeding after:
(a) the 72 hour period expires;
(b) the Commonwealth denies the requested relief;
(c) the Notice is not corrected under the timeline given by the Commonwealth.


(6) Execeptions
(1) The Notice requirement shall not apply where:
(a) immediate court action is reasonably necessary to prevent serious or irreparable harm;
(b) the proceeding challenges an ongoing sentencing or deprivation of liberty.

(7) Non-Notice
(1) A proceeding filed without satisfying Notice requirements shall be dismissed without prejudice unless an exception applies.

(2) The Office of Congressional Affairs is authorized to renumber the Judicial Standards Act in accordance with this law.

 

[greymc]

I voted AYE in the house.

Am voting NAY right now. Will explain below

 

[greymc]

- After doing some research I see many problems with this bill:

1. This bill does not consider people who do not have discord. There is no alternative method provided, nor does it allow counsel to send the notice for them.
2. 72 hours is too low. If the Commonwealth gets multiple requests, there is no way they could handle all of them.
3. What is stopping the Commonwealth from giving an unreasonable or huge timeline for curing? This feels like really easy abuse.
4. Why is ongoing sentencing an exception? By the time the lawsuit is filed, they are already out of prison. For that, you go to the DHS already via precedent.
5. Are appeals included in this?
6. "government officials acting in their official capacity" confuses me. Normally, RCEA has it so that if an employee is doing their official duties, liability is transferred to the employer.
7. Why is the case dismissed? Why can't instead the presiding officer order the Plaintiff to look for a notice first. That's what happens with DHS lawsuits currently.
8. What if someone is about a day away from the statute of limitations deadline? Now, they have to file a notice and oh no, they can no longer file the case.

I think it's a good bill, but it needs a rewrite. I'd love for Former Representative ameslap to provide a new bill should they take this feedback or anyone else.

 

[Stanley582]

- following a conversation with an attorney, it’s become clear to me that this bill is generally vague, has incorrect provision numbering, and needs foundational changes. I have nothing against a bill of those type, but this one specifically has a number of notable defects.