Talossan judicial precedents

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

You said that Talossa was a place where people can be what they can't be in real life; well, I'm sorry that real life doesn't offer you enough places to be a smart-ass.

Seriously: the King is still going on about the Proclamation Crisis? Talk about "holding a grudge". And honestly I think V's answer to that was great: that in New York law, courts get petitions to re-argue quite often, and sometimes they admit they get it wrong.

[King John]

I'm "going on" about it?  Please.  You yourself had mentioned it already in that very thread, and V had talked at some length, and quite sensibly, about stare decisis and how it applies in Talossa.  I was wondering what he thought about (arguably) the most famous and (certainly) the most important case in which stare decisis was, I think we can all agree, entirely ignored.

In this case, too, I'd note that there wasn't any "petition to re-argue", nor any re-argument.  Simply the Cort announcing a different decision in a case they'd already decided.  It's certainly germane to ask the nominee whether he thought that was a good course, procedurally.

-- John R

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

the most important case in which stare decisis was, I think we can all agree, entirely ignored...

there wasn't any "petition to re-argue", nor any re-argument.  Simply the Cort announcing a different decision in a case they'd already decided. 

That is simply false. I may not have used the term "petition to re-argue", but I forwarded a petition which presented different facts and alternative legal reasoning to the original decision re: 47RZ28, which the UC accepted. I find it hard to believe you don't remember this, but there you are: there was an original case, then the Government asked for the case to be re-heard on different evidence and a different legal principle.

"I think we can all agree" is a phrase often used by people who know what they're about to say is controversial but want to shift the burden of proving that to their opponents.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

... ya Allà, reading those threads reminds me of why I had to take 6 months off Talossa after the Proclamation Crisis. AD's legal tactics caused me literal sleepless nights and deprived me of all joy in this nation.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

You said that Talossa was a place where people can be what they can't be in real life; well, I'm sorry that real life doesn't offer you enough places to be a smart-ass.

It is true that no one in my macronational political career blesses me with such excellent cues.

Seriously: the King is still going on about the Proclamation Crisis? Talk about "holding a grudge". And honestly I think V's answer to that was great: that in New York law, courts get petitions to re-argue quite often, and sometimes they admit they get it wrong.

I think you brought it up?  If you didn't think it was worth mentioning, then mentioning it seems strange.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

the most important case in which stare decisis was, I think we can all agree, entirely ignored...

there wasn't any "petition to re-argue", nor any re-argument.  Simply the Cort announcing a different decision in a case they'd already decided. 

That is simply false. I may not have used the term "petition to re-argue", but I forwarded a petition which presented different facts and alternative legal reasoning to the original decision re: 47RZ28, which the UC accepted. I find it hard to believe you don't remember this, but there you are: there was an original case, then the Government asked for the case to be re-heard on different evidence and a different legal principle.

Are you aware of the fact that you're vehemently arguing in favor of the king's point?  Like... yes, that's the whole thing that's wrong! 

The cort decided, and then later it accepted a new case looking at the same principle with different evidence and arguments.  The whole point of precedent is that this isn't supposed to happen a lot, otherwise no one really knows what the law is, since interpretation of the disputed point might change from one day to the next and then back again.  Read your petition again.  You describe the cort's ruling in order to argue it should be overturned, suggesting that a repugnant conclusion (invalidation of all amendments) argues against it and so the cort should vacate its previous decision.  You explicitly ask for the decision to be vacated and overturned!

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

The cort decided, and then later it accepted a new case looking at the same principle with different evidence and arguments.

Which is what V said happened in New York regularly. QED.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

The cort decided, and then later it accepted a new case looking at the same principle with different evidence and arguments.

Which is what V said happened in New York regularly. QED.

It's a bold stance to say that precedent doesn't matter, but I admire you for taking that stance.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

This is what happens when "enthusiastic amateurs" go up against real lawyers - they tend to be Shocked and Appalled to find out that real jurisprudence does not match their simplistic assumptions.

Talossa is based on Anglo-American law; the State of New York is as well; therefore, NY's flexible attitude to stare decisis is a possible model for us, and one shown by the UC (I think correctly) in the Proclamation Crisis cases. This is why it's good to have a Real Lawyer about the place, and IMHO on the Cort - as long as we continue to work within an Anglo-American common law system, of course. A fully indigenous Talossan civil system is still worth considering and then we can make up whatever rules we want.

On a more serious note, if I really thought "precedent didn't matter", I wouldn't have such an allergic reaction to the Cort's oddball definition of "name" in the S. Panache case.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

Well, I guess the fact that the newest justice doesn't believe in precedent is good, in some ways, since it means that we can reargue the same case the next time it comes up.  So we have that going for us, at least.

Why do you care about the name decision?  It doesn't even matter if it's bad, since if the same thing comes up, we can just argue the point again with "new evidence and new legal theories."  I mean, it sucks in the sense that it's absurd and embarrassing, but it's not as if it will matter in the long term.

... ya Allà, reading those threads reminds me of why I had to take 6 months off Talossa after the Proclamation Crisis. AD's legal tactics caused me literal sleepless nights and deprived me of all joy in this nation.

Not sure, by the way, why you bring this up so often.  I think that whole thing was really unethical -- the idea that you got to discuss and make arguments in private to a justice is so weird.  I understand that the cort agreed as a panel that it was impractical to condemn the practice, given the small size of Talossa, but you'd still never find me repeatedly reminiscing about the time I got to make ex parte arguments and won the resulting case which had been decided the opposite way very recently.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

the newest justice doesn't believe in precedent
...
you got to discuss and make arguments in private to a justice
...

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

It's not controversial to say that, since it was admitted in open court that you got to post a thread and discuss the case on the FreeDem forum.  I couldn't see that or respond, but the justice admitted that he did read it (though he didn't comment on your theory of the case).  The defendants nor I didn't get a chance to write any private arguments that you couldn't read.  That's the sinister aspect of ex parte -- it lets one side describe their theory of the case, unchallenged.

[Viteu]

The cort decided, and then later it accepted a new case looking at the same principle with different evidence and arguments.

Which is what V said happened in New York regularly. QED.

That's not at all what I said. I said that there is such a thing as a motion to renew/reargue. You file that with the Court that decided your motion,. But so file an appeal. Motions to renew/reargue are *Rarely* granted. If pressed, I can say I've maybe come across four times (one Court of Appeals and three Appellate Division cases) it's happened in all of the extensive research I've done. In fact, I said it's extremely rare.

[Viteu]

I'm "going on" about it?  Please.  You yourself had mentioned it already in that very thread, and V had talked at some length, and quite sensibly, about stare decisis and how it applies in Talossa.  I was wondering what he thought about (arguably) the most famous and (certainly) the most important case in which stare decisis was, I think we can all agree, entirely ignored.

In this case, too, I'd note that there wasn't any "petition to re-argue", nor any re-argument.  Simply the Cort announcing a different decision in a case they'd already decided.  It's certainly germane to ask the nominee whether he thought that was a good course, procedurally.

-- John R

John,

Let me clear this up for you -- I declined to answer because I haven't studied the politics of the matter. I did not know about the election and the change, as your worded it, so I couldn't speak. But I tried to answer by relating it a procedure used in common law traditions. I was not trying to evade, but not comment on something that probably needs a good few hours on Witt to learn more about.

[Viteu]

Everyone. Stop. You're misunderstanding.

A motion to reargue/renew does not undermine stare decisis or judicial precedence.

This motion is available at all NY's court levels. They're quite common at the trial level, and maybe success is more possible but still rare. It does not upset stare decisis because it's usually the court got the facts or law wrong. The last time I saw it happen was I had won a motion to sever and then a motion to dismiss. In the underlying action, the clerk never removed my client from the matter. When the law secretary wrote up a new order after other motions, somehow I was back in a second third-party action. Surprisingly, my adversary, who lost her motion, moved to renew to clarify the parties. I was taken out.

The motions are also made at the appeallate level. They are not a bad thing. They're rarely granted. They don't hurt stare decisis because it's usually done pretty quickly.

Now, if the Court issues a decision and interprets a new law, but goes the other way, they could hurt. The Court should explain why it upsetting stare decisis.

Stare decisis is very strong in NY, and I think my analogy got misconstrued. NY courts can fix something if they got it wrong, but it's not like this is common place. So can we take a step back here?