Law:The Ambiguity Resolution Act

From TalossaWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
This bill FAILED to pass.

It amends the following:
El Lexhatx

Ziu 50th Clark 6th
Sponsored by: Viteu Marcianüs

Cosa.png Cosa: FAILED
PER 64 — CON 78 — AUS 13

Senats.png Senäts: PASSED
PER 6 — CON 0 — AUS 0

Digest of Laws

View Clark Results


50RZ28, The Ambiguity Resolution Act

WHEREAS Article XVI, Section 1, of the Organic Law vests the Cort pü Inalt (“Uppermost Cort”), with the judicial power of Talossa.

WHEREAS the Organic Law implies the Uppermost Cort maintains original jurisdiction over all cases, and permits the Cosâ to establish inferior courts as necessary.

WHEREAS Section 9 of Article XVI of the Organic Law vests the power of judicial review upon the Uppermost Cort, and requires the Cort to resolve issues of ambiguity in the Organic Law and statutory laws, interpret the Organic Law and statutory laws, and resolve conflicts between the Organic Law and statutory laws.

WHEREAS no procedure exists for the Government to request the Uppermost Cort to resolve potential ambiguities or conflicts in and between the Organic Law and statutory law.

WHEREAS the Attorney General and other representatives of the State may require guidance from the Uppermost Cort when such circumstance presents itself.

WHEREAS this act does not expand or limit the jurisdiction of the Uppermost Cort, but merely establishes a procedure by which the Uppermost Cort may perform a function.

THEREFORE, the Ziu, acting pursuant to Article X of the Organic Law hereby amends Section G of el Lexhatx to include:

11. The Secretary of State, Prime Minister, and Attorney General shall have standing to file a Petition for Resolution with the Uppermost Cort to resolve an ambiguity in the Organic Law or such inferior laws that were passed by the Ziu.
11.1. The individual petitioning the Uppermost Cort under this subsection shall be known as an “Applicant” until such time as the Uppermost Cort agrees to hear the case, and then shall be known as a “Petitioner.”
11.2. The Petition for Resolution may include a proposed interpretation for the Uppermost Cort to adopt, but must state, with specificity, reasons why the Uppermost Cort should adopt the proposed interpretation.
11.2.1. A Petition for Resolution shall not be an appropriate remedy for potential conflicts between National and provincial law, and this statute should not be construed to impact the ability of a party with standing to file suit for perceived inOrgancity of provincial actions, or potential conflicts between national and provincial law.
11.2.2. A Petition for Resolution shall only be made when there exists an actual case or controversy or bona fide ambiguity, and the Cort shall dismiss a Petition for Resolution for want of an actual question, when the petition seeks an order that is is entirely advisory in nature, and does not involve an actual case or controversy or ambiguity in the law.
11.3. In the interest of justice and to ensure all arguments are properly presented to the Uppermost Cort, the Secretary of State, Prime Minister, or Attorney General shall have discretion to appoint an individual to offer an alternative viewpoint, regardless of whether they are listed as the Applicant/Petitioner; when the Petition for Resolution directly impacts the interpretation of law as it relates to a specific governmental ministry, the Minister impacted may, at their discretion, appoint an individual to offer an alternative viewpoint; when the Petition for Resolution directly impacts the interpretation of law that will impact the conduct of the Crown or its Royal Officers, the Crown may, at its discretion, appoint an individual to represent an alternative viewpoint; all potential parties described above may be referred to as "interested parties" elsewhere in this statute.
11.3.1. Such individuals shall be known as a “Special Respondent.”
11.3.2. A Special Respondent may enter the case within ten days of a Petition for Resolution is filed, or, if that time has expired but no later than sixty days, may enter only with leave of the Uppermost Cort.
11.3.2.1. If, after ten days of filing, but no later than sixty days after filing, no Special Respondent has been appointed, any individual may seek leave of the Cort to intervene as a Special Respondent. The Cort may only grant leave if the intervener can show good cause as to why they should be allowed to proceed.
11.3.2.2. Applicant/Petition may file an Amended Petition for Relief within ten days of the original filing, or, if that time has expired but no later than sixty days, may only file an Amended Petition with leave of the Uppermost Cort.
11.3.2.3. The period to appoint a Special Respondent shall run from the day after the Petition is filed, or the day after the Amended Petition is filed, including holidays and weekends, whichever is later.
11.3.2.4. Only one Special Respondent may be named at any time, except as provided in 11.3.2.7, and deference shall be given to the first Special Respondent named, but the Cort may allow a Special Respondent subsequently named by another official to replace the named Special Respondent if it can be shown that the official has a bona fide connection to the case, their interest is greater than the party who named the original Special Respondent, and that Petitioner will not suffer undue prejudice by the change.
11.3.2.5. The Cort shall deny a motion to replace a Special Respondent if the period described above has expired, unless the party can show a good faith reason why the limitation should be set aside, that the Petition will not be prejudiced, and that the interest of the official moving for replacement is substantially greater than the Special Respondent then appointed.
11.3.2.6. A Special Respondent may consent to their replacement, and the Cort should freely grant leave for that replacement within sixty days of the filing of the original or amended petition, but may deny such a motion if Petitioner can show they would be unduly prejudiced, or if such an action was intended to circumvent the law.
11.3.2.7. If an interested party that would otherwise have authority to appoint a Special Respondent under this statute makes a motion to appoint a co-Special Respondent no later than ten days after a Special Respondent has been named, the Cort may, at its discretion, grant leave for the co-Special Respondent to represent the interest of that party if that interest party can prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the alternative viewpoint significantly and materially differs from that of then-existing parties, and will not cause the Petitioner or then-existing Special Respondent to suffer undue prejudice; the Cort may, on its own, convert a motion to replace a named Special Respondent into a motion to appoint a co-Special Respondent, and all applicable procedures and standards described in this statute shall be applied, provided that doing so is in the best interest of justice.
11.3.2.8. A motion filed pursuant to 11.3.2.5 shall be addressed immediately and toll any time limitations set-forth in other sections of this statute, until such time as the Cort resolves the motion, at which point the time limitations shall continue to accrue and, if the Cort permits a co-Special Respondent, they shall be subject to the then-existing time limitations described elsewhere in this statute.
11.3.2.9. Petitioner and then-existing Special Respondent may, at their discretion, object the motion to appoint a co-Special Respondent, and shall file such objections no later than three days after the motion has been filed; the interested party seeking a co-Special Respondent shall have the right of filing a rebuttal within two days of objection; opposing parties may file a surrebuttal with leave of the Cort if the interested party's rebuttal raises new arguments not previously made by the original motion within one day of service of the rebuttal.
11.3.2.10. If an opposing party can show by by a preponderance of the evidence that a motion for a co-Special Respondent was made for the primary purpose of delaying litigation, the Cort must deny the motion to appoint a co-Special Respondent,
11.3.3. A Special Respondent named in the original petition shall be titled “Defendant” until such time as the Uppermost Cort agrees to hear the case or controversy, at which time they shall be titled “Respondent.”
11.3.4. A Special Respondent is subject to all ethical practices and procedures as set forth by the judiciary, and may not simultaneously hold a position in the Chancery or as a sitting justice or judge in any national court of Talossa.
11.3.4.5 No later than ten days after the Uppermost Cort has agreed to hear the Petition for Resolution, any Talossan of voting age may file an amicus curiae brief.
11.3.4.5.1. The Uppermost Cort shall have broad discretion to limit the amount of amici curiae briefs as it deems necessary.
11.3.4.5.2. In proceedings consisting of a Special Respondent, the amicus curiae shall only address issues material to the proceedings that have not been raised by either party, and shall not seek to supplement arguments made by the parties.
11.3.4.5.2.1 Petitioner and Special Respondent may respond to the amicus curiae no later than three days after filing.
11.3.4.5.2.2 The amicus curiae shall not be entitled to file a rebuttal without good cause and leave of the cort.
11.3.4.5.3. In proceedings absent a Special Respondent, the amicus curiae shall only address topics material to the proceeding not previously may addressed but may also, if they so desire, include counter-arguments to the Petitioner.
11.3.4.5.3.1. The Petitioner may, if they choose, respond to that amicus curiae no later than three days after.
11.3.4.5.3.2. The amicus curiae shall not be entitled to file a rebuttal without good cause and leave of the cort.
11.4. A Petition for Resolution shall properly be titled: In the Matter of ________________ (abbreviated to In re: ________________).
11.4.1. Upon hearing the controversy in its entirety, the Uppermost Cort shall issue an order that shall have the binding effect of law equivalent to any other decision decided by the Uppermost Cort.
11.5. The Uppermost Cort may issue a preliminary injunction to prevent the Government or State from taking certain conduct if that conduct could potentially result in criminal charges against individuals performing their duties.
11.5.1. It shall be an affirmative defense for individual acting in their official capacity exercising the responsibilities of their office in accordance with a reasonable understanding of the Organic Law or an inferior law, even if that conduct is found to be contrary to the Organic Law or an inferior law, until such time as the Uppermost Cort agrees to hear the case, issues a preliminary injunction, and/or resolve the controversy.
11.5.1.1. No person shall be held to answer in a court of law or equity for their conduct prior to a preliminary injunction or final order.

Uréu q'estadra så:

Viteu Marcianüs - (MC,FreeDem)