Save The Judiciary Act

[Stanley582]

CONGRESS OF THE

COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

​

---

A BILL TO

“Save” the Judiciary

​

---

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 ‘Save The Judiciary Act’

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

(3) This Act has been authored by sampois_ with input from Associate Justice Matthew100x, President Multiman155, .

(4) This Act has been sponsored by Stanley582.

(5) This Act has been co-sponsored by MJL_.

(6) This Act amends the following acts:

(a) The Criminal Code Act

(b) The Judicial Standards Act

(c) The Redmont Bar Association Act

2. Reasons and Intent

(1) To impose court fees in order to disincentivize filing cases and thereby lessen the Judiciary’s workload and fund some money for the Commonwealth.

(2) To quell the storm of blatantly incompetent lawyers arising from the Jaron wave by imposing a summary offense for incompetent representation.

(3) To make it harder to sue someone for tortious acts arising out of violent conduct, thereby lessening the flood of petty claims the DCR has to deal with.

(4) To remove a possible interpretation of the RBA act as limiting the 9th charter right by imposing statutory standards on what is “legally qualified counsel”. (Justice Mathew said this was a possible interpretation.)

(5) To allow people who have been disbarred or suspended the ability to represent themselves pro se in an appeal.

(6) To stop anyone from being able to go into a bm and buy legal exam answers.

PART II — Contents

1. Amendments to the Judicial Standards Act

(1) Part VIII, section 5(2) shall be amended as follows:

“

(2) These rules may cover matters such as, but are not limited to:

(a) Courtroom Proceedings;

(b) Filing requirements, standing, and deadlines;

(c) Pleadings, including:

(i) A complaint;

(ii) An answer to a complaint;

(iii) An answer to a counterclaim designated as a counterclaim;

(iv) An answer to a crossclaim;

(v) A third-party complaint;

(vi) An answer to a third-party complaint; and

(vii) If the court orders one, a reply to an answer.

(d) Any and all kinds of court motions;

(e) Evidence admissibility standards;

(f) Objections and what constitutes one;

(g) Courtroom conduct and decorum;

(h) Case management practices;

(i) Standards for Judicial Officers; and

(j) The imposition and calculation of court fees.

”

(2) Part VIII of the Judicial Standards Act shall be amended to include a new section entitled “court fees” and it shall read as follows:

“

6. Court Fees

(1) The Judiciary may impose court fees upon the initiator of an ancillary claim or legal proceeding.

(2) Such court fees may not exceed 1500$ or 7% of the total damages (minus compensatory damages for court fees and attorney’s fees) requested in the claim, whichever is higher.

(3) Court fees shall be payable to the Commonwealth.

(4) No court fees may be levied if:

(a) the proceeding is an appeal;

(b) the proceeding is a criminal action;

(c) the proceeding was initiated in order to pursue eminent domain; or

(d) the proceeding was initiated by the RBA in order to pursue disbarment.

”

2. Amendments to the Redmont Bar Association Act

(1) Part VI of the Redmont Bar Association Act shall be amended to create a new section which shall read as follows:

“

5. No Limitations on the 9th Charter

(1) The provisions contained within this part may not be construed as an attempt by Congress to limit the 9th charter right through the creation of ordinary statute by imposing a standard for “legally qualified counsel”.

”

(2) Part V, section 2 of the RBA Act shall be amended as follows:

“(6) A member Any person who has been disbarred or suspended through proceedings initiated by the RBA or otherwise may appeal the Federal Court’s decision to the Supreme Court and represent himself pro se provided he has the respective legal rank to practice in that court.

”

3. Amendments to the Property Standards Act

(1) Section 8(2)(a) of the Property Standards Act shall be amended as follows:

“

(a) such laws include possession, sale, and advertising of illicit items, with the exception of exam answers."

 

[Talion77]

Before Revote

 

[Darklander]

Nay - I am (arguably dogmatically) against court fees

 

[Franciscus]

Presidential Assent

The main thrust of this bill is to permit Court Fees of no more than or 7% of the total case value, with a cap at $1,500, upon the filing of a civil case or civil ancillary claim.

Because court fees are reasonably limited (it’s $70 for every $1000) and because attorney’s fees are mandatory in Redmont to be paid to the victors of a case at a level that is always higher than the court fee amount. The hard cap at a low level prevents fees from deterring victims of very large crimes from suing, which has long been a concern of mine when this was previously discussed. And the mandatory attorney’s fees to the victor means that they will get their court fee back (and then some) if they win, even if the case is small dollar. At the same time, I am likely to veto any future bill that would remove mandatory attorney’s fees of that bill does not also address shifting the burden of court fees.

I hope the court, in its rules, allows pleadings in forma pauperis. For new players, in particular, I am concerned that the court fees might be an actual deterrent in the absence thereof.

There are also a number of other changes in this bill that pertain to the legal profession. The bill removes protections regarding the sale of exam answers from black market plots, lets disbarred attorneys go pro se to appeal disbarment, and clarifies a constitutional concern. These all relate to the legal field (exam answer sales largely cause problems downstream in the legal field; people typically do not cause trouble for others if they have cheated to become a lumberjack), and I don’t see anything lumped in here that jumps out as concerning.

So, on balance, this bill improves Redmont. I don’t think it quite saves the judiciary: only more time and more qualified judicial officers will do that, and the Supreme Court has the power to appoint as many magistrates as it wants to handle the DCR flood. There’s also an open EOI seeking judges, who also frequently help out in the DCR, and I encourage people to apply if qualified.

This bill is hereby granted assent and is signed into law.