[DEFEATED] Int'l Service of Process

[Separatist Peoples]

"Minor expenditure."

"Some member states have populations who are quite litigious."

A lot of minor expenditures add up to a major expenditure.

"Tax your people more or address it by treaty. I don't see it as being major unless a nation is trying to make it a major expense."

[Stoskavanya]

2. f. A notification to the recipient party if a failure to appear and respond will result in a default judgment for relief;

If I understand it, does this proposal allow foreign governments to contact individuals, and then, if they do not respond, force a verdict or relief against the individual?

Concerning cost, what about bogus class action suits against entire groups of people, and other deliberate subterfuge possible by abusing what this law allows?

I can also see why other governments are skeptical about the foreign agents clause, I don't think many states would be comfortable allowing foreign agents to roam their lands, or else being forced to pay for the service, mentioned in concern #2.

It seems to me, and I might very well be misled, that to achieve this proposal's aims we either we need to go much broader in scope, basically just establishing an international postal service, or have regulation as too what is a legitimate court summon, or anything to prevent abuse.

[Separatist Peoples]

2. f. A notification to the recipient party if a failure to appear and respond will result in a default judgment for relief;

If I understand it, does this proposal allow foreign governments to contact individuals, and then, if they do not respond, force a verdict or relief against the individual?

"Nope. That exclusion was deliberate."

Concerning cost, what about bogus class action suits against entire groups of people, and other deliberate subterfuge possible by abusing what this law allows?

"I struggle to imagine a government that allows this to occur, since it would both open themselves up to similar response and harm them domestically for similar action."

I can also see why other governments are skeptical about the foreign agents clause, I don't think many states would be comfortable allowing foreign agents to roam their lands, or else being forced to pay for the service, mentioned in concern #2.

"Then they can allow service by post or serve it on behalf of the foreign nation, as provided in the text."

It seems to me, and I might very well be misled, that to achieve this proposal's aims we either we need to go much broader in scope, basically just establishing an international postal service, or have regulation as too what is a legitimate court summon, or anything to prevent abuse.

"And international postal service exists, per GAR#73, and a legitimate summons is a national concern."

[Stoskavanya]

Thank you for you prompt response sir.

"Nope. That exclusion was deliberate."

Forgive me If I am understanding my legalese wrong, but it seems like "failure to appear and respond will result in a default judgment for relief" allows a decision to be made on miscommunication.

And, bringing GA #72 to my attention, what does this proposal allow which couldn't simply be done through the postal service allowed through that resolution?

[Jarish Inyo]

If sent through the postal service, will there be a way to verify that the summons has been delivered by the date the court has decided to hear the case? Postal services can be sent reliable sometimes. Things get lost or delayed. An individual may not receive the summons until after the court date.

[Separatist Peoples]

Thank you for you prompt response sir.

"Nope. That exclusion was deliberate."

Forgive me If I am understanding my legalese wrong, but it seems like "failure to appear and respond will result in a default judgment for relief" allows a decision to be made on miscommunication.

And, bringing GA #72 to my attention, what does this proposal allow which couldn't simply be done through the postal service allowed through that resolution?

"The requirement is that a summons must include notification if failure to appear and respond will result in a default judgment, not that this has to be the case.

"Service of process isn't regular mail. Some nations don't consider mail notice to be sufficient notice, and sometimes with good cause. My goal here isn't to set up a new and exciting mailing method, its to ensure that alternate methods are possible."

If sent through the postal service, will there be a way to verify that the summons has been delivered by the date the court has decided to hear the case? Postal services can be sent reliable sometimes. Things get lost or delayed. An individual may not receive the summons until after the court date.

"Care bear utopia. Ducks. Vote against."

[Jarish Inyo]

As you state sending the summons through the postal service is an acceptable means to inform an individual. And if said individual doesn't reply before the court date, the court decides without hearing from said individual. My questions are valid. What happens is the summons is not delivered before the court date? How does the court know if the summons has been delivered? Is a summary judgment justified in cases where the summons was not delivered?

[Christian Democrats]

"Some member states have populations who are quite litigious."

A lot of minor expenditures add up to a major expenditure.

"Tax your people more or address it by treaty. I don't see it as being major unless a nation is trying to make it a major expense."

Nations should not be forced to tax their citizens to pay for the costs of civil cases in foreign lands.

[Separatist Peoples]

"Tax your people more or address it by treaty. I don't see it as being major unless a nation is trying to make it a major expense."

Nations should not be forced to tax their citizens to pay for the costs of civil cases in foreign lands.

"Oh, No! Taxpayer money is used to maintain the nation's border and customs system! What a crime! Ambassador, you are making a mountain out of a molehill."

[Separatist Peoples]

ooc: el bumpo.

(That's Esperanto for Bump)

[Yohannes]

Ambassador Bell; as a lawyer like you myself, I must ask: is this a serious proposal?

Her Excellency Elisa Rue Wake, Emperor’s Counsel
World Assembly Ambassador of Yohannes

[Separatist Peoples]

Ambassador Bell; as a lawyer like you myself, I must ask: is this a serious proposal?

Her Excellency Elisa Rue Wake, Emperor’s Counsel
World Assembly Ambassador of Yohannes

"Most of it is."

[Yohannes]

---

Ambassador Bell; as a lawyer like you myself, I must ask: is this a serious proposal?

Her Excellency Elisa Rue Wake, Emperor’s Counsel
World Assembly Ambassador of Yohannes

"Most of it is."

I see.

[ … Ambassador Wake smiled to reassure Ambassador Bell that she’s on his side; a brief pause, and then… ]

I have before me a copy of the draft Int’l Service of Process. Section two says that, quote, member states shall allow the service of process from other member states upon persons within their jurisdiction, unquote.

The constitutional convention of the Unity Law and judicial circumspection found commonly in the Justices of the Peace supplement legal protections. By convention, Ministers and public servants of the nineteen countries must avoid criticising their judicial decisions; section two would — I fear, though my fear may be entirely unfounded — jeopardise this balance. Well, we in the nineteen countries cannot guarantee that ministers of foreign governments would respect our judicial tradition; and section two I fear would indirectly legitimise infringement upon our judicial sovereignty; if enacted into reality, it would provide incentive for the more... unhinged ministers of foreign governments to criticise our judicial process.

“Hey, we have this piece of World Assembly legislation that allows the Yohannesian judicature to submit to its terms; why not criticise them? I know it will get nowhere; but in an increasingly globalized world, our very public criticisms will without a doubt be reported all around their news and social media,; we can criticise them and get away with it.” We are worried that the more... tempestuous members of our international community; the Empire of Maxtopia and the corrupt Republic of Bigtopia, amongst others, may attempt to abuse this piece of legislation to infringe on our judicial sovereignty.

My second question is about section seven. It states that, quote, no provisions herein shall be construed as to [...] nor shall be construed to apply to the jurisdictions of nonmember states, unquote. By Unity Law tradition, a Minister may comment on punishment policies or the effectiveness of the law itself; but they may not impugn on the performance of our courts. A Minister should inform our Marshal of the Peace (i.e., similar to an Attorney General) rather than comment publicly if she or he disagrees with a sentencing decision. Would section seven be strong enough to guarantee that the previously mentioned tradition of our nation state would not be violated by ministers (and thus governments) of the more influential foreign nation states?

In the nineteen countries, judges themselves stick to an unwritten code of conduct for maintaining their independence and integrity; that is, judges do not engage publicly in political or contentious issues — the only exception being to correct errors of fact for the public record. Yohannesian judges are more self-conscious than judges in some other common law or civil law jurisdictions; in that they want to avoid public controversy. The Chief Justice of the Peace herself is the one who impress on them this need for restraint. They are, she says, to act judicially; another word for acting without fear or favour, affection or ill will. Their circumspection is vital to their stature and independence. Would section seven of this piece of legislation (if enacted into reality) be strong enough to guarantee that tradition? It can be... very tempting, for judges of the more influential foreign nation states to criticise their foreign counterparts.

My third question relates to section three, quote, member states must allow service of process if the method by which it is sent is reasonable. A method is reasonable if it is the same or substantially similar to the method used by the host nation for the same or similar purposes, unquote.

The second most important element of judicial independence in the nineteen countries is the courts’ institutional independence. The nation state of Yohannes — personified by the elected Executive Council of the day — must provide adequate resourcing and administrative support services for the judiciary to work as an autonomous branch of governance. The interests of members of the public in impartial adjudication beats considerations of administrative costs, convenience, and efficiency in the disposition of cases. According to the Chief Justice of the Peace herself, quote, the consumption of court time and judicial resources in rehearing a case will not clear a judge who was disqualified for bias, unquote. Institutional independence therefore depends on the ability of the courts of our land to control information technology systems of judges and court staff.

And that is because, as you would know yourself, Ambassador Bell, not having enough information security arrangements will endanger the very notion of the courts’ institutional independence itself. How would section three ensures that foreign governments will have enough information security arrangements in electronic matters concerning the service of process, i.e., electronic copies and using IT systems to process things or contacting their agents overseas, amongst others?

Finally, again, as you would know Ambassador Bell, politicians do not always respect conventions and protocols of their own governments. Let alone, the conventions and protocols of a foreign government; a far away foreign government at that. Even in the nineteen countries itself, past ministers and especially parliament have attempted to maliciously attack judges, publicly using social media and the internet. Personalised attacks, especially, can be very effective. They attack not the position, but the person of the Judge her or himself.

[ … Ambassador Wake smiled once again to reassure Ambassador Bell that she’s on his side; a brief pause… ]

In closing, I support the principles behind the drafting of this Bill, if it is to be tabled before the World Assembly as an At-Vote Resolution; but I want to hear your reassuring words, Ambassador Bell: that our judicial sovereignty — the sanctity of the Unity Law — will not be violated in the process.

Her Excellency Elisa Rue Wake, Emperor’s Counsel
World Assembly Ambassador of Yohannes

[ Out of character edit: I like it! But a wee bit worried with some things that I have stated in character wise above, aha ]

[ Out of character Edit2: Thank you for your time! Aha ]

[ Out of character Edits and edits again: this in character post will go to my nation's story uhmm.. so I had to edit a couple of grammar mistakes (because I don't properly think through before posting aha) ]

[Fauxia]

OoC: Are jokes that technically break rules still count as rule breaking? I assume anyone with any knowledge of the GA and who has read this proposal knows what I am talking about.

[Tinfect]

OoC: Are jokes that technically break rules still count as rule breaking? I assume anyone with any knowledge of the GA and who has read this proposal knows what I am talking about.

OOC:
Given that clause 8 would be illegal for a variety of reasons, it is safe to assume it will not be in the submitted version.

[Fauxia]

OoC: Are jokes that technically break rules still count as rule breaking? I assume anyone with any knowledge of the GA and who has read this proposal knows what I am talking about.

OOC:
Given that clause 8 would be illegal for a variety of reasons, it is safe to assume it will not be in the submitted version.

OoC: Gotcha.

Still the greatest line in the history of the WA

[Separatist Peoples]

I have before me a copy of the draft Int’l Service of Process. Section two says that, quote, member states shall allow the service of process from other member states upon persons within their jurisdiction, unquote.

The constitutional convention of the Unity Law and judicial circumspection found commonly in the Justices of the Peace supplement legal protections. By convention, Ministers and public servants of the nineteen countries must avoid criticising their judicial decisions; section two would — I fear, though my fear may be entirely unfounded — jeopardise this balance. Well, we in the nineteen countries cannot guarantee that ministers of foreign governments would respect our judicial tradition; and section two I fear would indirectly legitimise infringement upon our judicial sovereignty; if enacted into reality, it would provide incentive for the more... unhinged ministers of foreign governments to criticise our judicial process.

“Hey, we have this piece of World Assembly legislation that allows the Yohannesian judicature to submit to its terms; why not criticise them? I know it will get nowhere; but in an increasingly globalized world, our very public criticisms will without a doubt be reported all around their news and social media,; we can criticise them and get away with it.” We are worried that the more... tempestuous members of our international community; the Empire of Maxtopia and the corrupt Republic of Bigtopia, amongst others, may attempt to abuse this piece of legislation to infringe on our judicial sovereignty.

"Well, your Excellency, far be it from me to destabilize your confederation, but it's worth noting that service of process is a question of notice and not necessarily one of judicial jurisdiction. Service of process, while it might be used as a factor in determining personal jurisdiction elsewhere, is defined here specifically as a tool of notice. Individuals and states can still refuse to acknowledge a court's jurisdiction over the individual to hear the case. This is about ensuring that people do not have default judgments rendered without the opportunity to respond."

My second question is about section seven. It states that, quote, no provisions herein shall be construed as to [...] nor shall be construed to apply to the jurisdictions of nonmember states, unquote. By Unity Law tradition, a Minister may comment on punishment policies or the effectiveness of the law itself; but they may not impugn on the performance our courts. A Minister should inform our Marshal of the Peace (i.e., similar to an Attorney General) rather than comment publicly if she or he disagrees with a sentencing decision. Would section seven be strong enough to guarantee that the previously mentioned tradition of our nation state would not be violated by ministers (and thus governments) of the more influential foreign nation states?

"Erm, section seven in relevant part merely qualifies that the provisions only affect, and therefore apply to, member states, so as to incentivize nonmembers into joining the World Assembly. I don't see this as interfering with your specific situation. Asserting a lack of jurisdiction isn't a criticism."

My third question relates to section three, quote, member states must allow service of process if the method by which it is sent is reasonable. A method is reasonable if it is the same or substantially similar to the method used by the host nation for the same or similar purposes, unquote.

The second most important element of judicial independence in the nineteen countries is the courts’ institutional independence. The nation state of Yohannes — personified by the elected Executive Council of the day — must provide adequate resourcing and administrative support services for the judiciary to work as an autonomous branch of governance. The interests of members of the public in impartial adjudication beats considerations of administrative costs, convenience, and efficiency in the disposition of cases. According to the Chief Justice of the Peace herself, quote, the consumption of court time and judicial resources in rehearing a case will not clear a judge who was disqualified for bias, unquote. Institutional independence therefore depends on the ability of the courts of our land to control information technology systems of judges and court staff.

And that is because, as you would know yourself, Ambassador Bell, not having enough information security arrangements will endanger the very notion of the courts’ institutional independence itself. How would section three ensures that foreign governments will have enough information security arrangements in electronic matters concerning the service of process, i.e., electronic copies and using IT systems to process things or contacting their agents overseas, amongst others.

Bell clears his throat, "As I understand you, your Excellency, you're asking if failure to meet the high standards of security makes an otherwise similar method of service unacceptable? I don't see why not. An unsecured electronic method is not substantially similar to a secured one for the purposes of consideration. Which is not to say that a state can have obscenely high and particular standards so as to prevent such service, merely that they may impose requirements to ensure acceptable parity in methodology."

In closing, I support the principles behind the drafting of this Bill, if it is to be tabled before the World Assembly as an At-Vote Resolution; but I want to hear your reassuring words, Ambassador Bell: that our judicial sovereignty — the sanctity of the Unity Law — will not be violated in the process.

"Uh...sure? Near as I can understand your arguments, your Excellency, I don't foresee such issues."

[Yohannes]

---

Well, your Excellency, far be it from me to destabilize your confederation [...] Near as I can understand your arguments, your Excellency, I don't foresee such issues.

Uhmm... I see.

[ … Ambassador Wake smiled brightly at Ambassador Bell; a brief pause, and then… ]

Ambassador Bell spoke with his wonted eloquence. I love it.

[ … Ambassador Wake waved the copy of the draft before the Assembly… ]

And this copy of the draft Int’l Service of Process before me is just as good, I think. Hereby in representation of the Christian Democratic Executive Council shall I present, that Parliament and the Electoral College have made an advance vote of FOR the would be General Assembly Resolution At Vote, uhmm... Int'l... Service of Process. Aha.

Her Excellency Elisa Rue Wake, Emperor’s Counsel
World Assembly Ambassador of Yohannes

[Separatist Peoples]

Bump

[Jarish Inyo]

Again, what happens if a summons was not delivered by the process server before the court date? Will the court be notified that the summons was not delivered? Will it take that information into account when issuing it's summary ruling? Is it fair to the individual to receive a summary judgement if they were never informed?

[Separatist Peoples]

Again, what happens if a summons was not delivered by the process server before the court date? Will the court be notified that the summons was not delivered? Will it take that information into account when issuing it's summary ruling? Is it fair to the individual to receive a summary judgement if they were never informed?

OOC: Default, not summary judgment, is what the court enters when the defendant is absent. And most courts enter it in such a manner as to allow reversal if the defendant can show good cause for such a reversal. Like not getting the summons in time. It isn't in the interest of justice to allow a judgment to stand without the opportunity to respond.

IC: "I'm positive I've answered this. Your nation is transformed into a care bear utopia."

[Deropia]

Again, what happens if a summons was not delivered by the process server before the court date? Will the court be notified that the summons was not delivered? Will it take that information into account when issuing it's summary ruling? Is it fair to the individual to receive a summary judgement if they were never informed?

"Well, unless I'm mistaken, summons are usually delivered in person to the person to whom the summons was issued by a process server or via registered mail with return receipt so that some form of conformation of delivery can be obtained. Courts usually set a time frame from when the summons was issued to when it has deemed to have been 'served'. For example, the Deropian courts currently hold that after ten working days, if a summons has not been served on the defendant, notice of the lawsuit is published in the local newspaper for where the defendant was last known to reside and the defendant is considered notified of the pending case against them. If the defendant still does not appear, a default judgement is issued against them. If after a default judgement is rendered the defendant comes before the court and proves that they no longer resided at the address at which service was attempted, the judgement is overturned and a new hearing date is scheduled."

"Great lengths are taken to ensure that a defendant has time to respond, however, one must also take into account the plaintiffs right to have their case heard in a timely manner. Since there is no way to know if a defendant is intentionally avoiding service of process, a default judgement is made against them for not appearing."

"I believe this proposal looks to reduce the number of default judgments made against defendants by ensuring that they are notified, regardless of the nation of residence."

[Greater Gilead]

Ambassador Baldwin: "So, am I correct in understanding that this would allow a government to take legal action against people in other nations?"

[Separatist Peoples]

Ambassador Baldwin: "So, am I correct in understanding that this would allow a government to take legal action against people in other nations?"

"Nope."

[The Egyptian Pharocracial Suzerainty]

2. Member states shall allow the service of process from other member states upon persons within their jurisdiction

No.

Next!

4. Where service of process cannot be accomplished through post, member states must either:

a. Allow agents of a foreign court entry into their nation and provide sufficient assistance to allow the agent to serve process upon recipient party

No.

Opposed.