NATION

PASSWORD

DRAFT - An Act Concerning Litigation

Where WA members debate how to improve the world, one resolution at a time.
User avatar
Meekinos
Diplomat
 
Posts: 776
Founded: Sep 10, 2004
Ex-Nation

DRAFT - An Act Concerning Litigation

Postby Meekinos » Tue Jun 02, 2009 10:10 am

TITLE: An Act Concerning Litigation

ACKNOWLEDGING the desire for individuals and corporations to seek compensation where due;

UNDERSTANDING that expedient resolution to litigatious cases are paramount to conducting business;

REALISING the need to create a uniform standard for corporations who wish to carry on business in more than one jurisdiction;

ACKNOWLEDGING that not all nations have the same laws concerning business practices and legal procedures;

THEREFORE

1) ESTABLISHES an international body, WATCA (World Assembly Trade and Commerce Agency), which purpose will be to mediate over large and complex cases involving multi-national corporations in an effort to reduce the strain on the judiciary system of the nation where the cause for action arose, allowing for expedient resolution;

2) DECLARES that local equivalents of the WATCA, the TCA ((Trade and Commerce Agency) hereinafter, the WATCA and TCA are treated as one in the same within the scope of this resolution), be created at the national level in order to expedite local cases, less complex cases;

3) GRANTS the TCA the authority of a legal court, with the capacity to issue binding verdicts, but only in the capacity of litigation in which at least one party is a body corporate;

4) MANDATES that the local TCA in each nation will be bound by the laws of that nation, and any relevant laws passed by the WA;

5) FURTHER DECLARES that those presiding over any state of TCA cases, shall have no interest in the outcome;

6) RECOMMENDS that the TCA have authority to mandate mediation;

7) PROHIBITS the TCA from passing down a ruling on the strictly basis of any ideology;

8) EXPRESSES HOPE THAT a neutral body governing the handling of litigation matters, in which corporations are involved, will enable expedient resolution of litigatious matters.

DRAFT 2 - the first draft will be found below.

Notes: We have decided that we needed to change the name of this. The basic principle behind this will remain the same. We aim to promote commerce, trade, further industry and create a uniform process that will ensure that will apply to all multi-national corporations so that no matter what jurisdiction they operate in, they will be subject to the same general rules.

June 9, 2009 - fixed a typo, so it should make more sense now.
June 10, 2009 - added in another clause to have the TCA follow local law




DRAFT 1 - Too many small edits would be required to make this work. For that reason, it is being scrapped and revised completed. Since other ambassadors already have copies of it, we do not feel the need to remove it. We are keeping it to show the progress of our resolution.

CATEGORY: Advancement of Industry
AREA OF EFFECT: Tort Reform

An Act to Reduce Malicious Litigation

DEFINING COURT as a legal entity (tribunal, council, et cetera) within a nation designated by the nation to settle any type of legal dispute, civil or otherwise;
DEFINING LITIGATION as a lawsuit between two or more individuals or corporations that is a long arduous process involving legal paperwork, discovery, conferences, a possible trial with a number of outcomes.

ACKNOWLEDGING the desire for individuals and corporations to seek compensation;

UNDERSTANDING that some individuals and corporations will pursue litigation for reasons that could be deemed petty;

IT IS HEREBY PROPOSED to the World Assembly that reforms be made to the way litigation is handled insofar as to ensure that those with legitimate grievances can receive timely court hearings and those wasting the legal system's time shall be punished according;

TO CREATE a basic standard for corporations carrying on business activities outside of their originating jurisdiction;

THEREFORE

MANDATES that nations to set up a pretrial process which may include: mandatory mediation, arbitration, pretrial conferences or any equivalent in that nation, in an effort to settle out of court.

SUGGESTS that a minimum of one pretrial hearing in front of a court officer be granted to those who request it. The ruling from the pretrial may be binding on all parties.

SUGGESTS that cases deemed to be complex; i.e.: those with multiple claimants, third party, class action, etc, be granted priority to be heard by the court.

STRONGLY ENCOURAGE nations to make available legal services for those seeking legal recourse; advice.

STRONGLY ENCOURAGE nations to grant courts broad discretionary powers in dealing with excessively litigatious individuals or corporations, and to penalize those parties accordingly.

STRONGLY ENCOURAGE nations to grant protection to individuals or corporations that are frequent targets of unfounded and malicious litigation.





Accepting feedback from all ambassadors, diplomats and delegates, et al.

This is currently the first draft and will inevitably be subject to many edits and revisions. Hopefully this will appeal to more delegates than the education proposal that we previously brought to this drafting room for consideration.




EDITS:
June 2, 2009 (4:00pm) - defined frivolous litigation; turned the first clause about mediation from encouraged into mandated. Expanded the acknowledgement line to include corporations.

June 3, 2009 (8:22am) - removed frivolous litigation; replaced frivolous with petty in the act's proposed name. Fixed the SUGGESTED line about pretrial to allow parties to request a pretrial hearing. Altered the name of the act yet again. Petty was too vague. Removed the tort definition line. Court and litigation remain for practical reasons.
Last edited by Meekinos on Wed Jun 10, 2009 6:34 am, edited 12 times in total.
Ambassador Gavriil Floros
Meekinos' Official WA Ambassador
Deputy Treasurer, North Pleides Merchant's Syndicate
CEO & Financial Manager of Delta Energy Ltd.
Madame Elina Nikodemos
Executive Senior Delegate
Educator
The Hellenic Republic of Meekinos
Factbook: Your Friendly Guide to Meekinos
The paranoid, isolationist, xenophobic capitalists.

User avatar
Absolvability
Diplomat
 
Posts: 857
Founded: Apr 08, 2009
Ex-Nation

Re: DRAFT - An Act to Reduce Frivolous Litigation

Postby Absolvability » Tue Jun 02, 2009 12:10 pm

I agree that abuse of process should be punished... or at least prevented. I'm not sure your proposal contains enough detail, however. For example... what shall be considered frivolous? It could easily be said that any plaintiff who loses their case is guilty of having produced a frivolous lawsuit.

I like your idea of a pre-trial process. Maybe you should try to mandate it? As very reasonable as it is for you to only encourage everything... in the end, a resolution really should do more.
Antonius Veloci
Ambassador of The Event Horizon of Absolvability

User avatar
Philimbesi
Minister
 
Posts: 2453
Founded: Jun 07, 2007
Ex-Nation

Re: DRAFT - An Act to Reduce Frivolous Litigation

Postby Philimbesi » Tue Jun 02, 2009 12:49 pm

Careful ambassador a long time ago in a WA far far away I got into a pretty deep disucssion over a Good Samaritan Law that I put in under tort reform and was told my a mod that the category is only used for business and corporate law not civil law.

Again not a mod, don't even play one on TV but...

Removes legal barriers from anti-corporate litigation, reducing government interference in business.


emphasis mine... cause well... I'm an emphazizer.
Last edited by Philimbesi on Tue Jun 02, 2009 12:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The Unified States Of Philimbesi
The Honorable Josiah Bartlett - President

Ideological Bulwark #235

User avatar
Meekinos
Diplomat
 
Posts: 776
Founded: Sep 10, 2004
Ex-Nation

Re: DRAFT - An Act to Reduce Frivolous Litigation

Postby Meekinos » Tue Jun 02, 2009 1:08 pm

We have implemented the changes that the two good ambassadors have suggested. Our goal is to reduce frivolous litigation between corporations and individuals. By encouraging out of court settlement, we are enabling those involved in the case to settle with little government interference that may result from a hearing in front of a judge, master, justice, et cetera.
Last edited by Meekinos on Tue Jun 02, 2009 1:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Ambassador Gavriil Floros
Meekinos' Official WA Ambassador
Deputy Treasurer, North Pleides Merchant's Syndicate
CEO & Financial Manager of Delta Energy Ltd.
Madame Elina Nikodemos
Executive Senior Delegate
Educator
The Hellenic Republic of Meekinos
Factbook: Your Friendly Guide to Meekinos
The paranoid, isolationist, xenophobic capitalists.

User avatar
Kelssek
Minister
 
Posts: 2612
Founded: Mar 19, 2004
Civil Rights Lovefest

Re: DRAFT - An Act to Reduce Frivolous Litigation

Postby Kelssek » Tue Jun 02, 2009 11:33 pm

I am puzzled both by the merits of the aim, and by how such an aim is to be achieved by this proposal. Although it seems intended to target what it defines as "frivolous", its provisions would affect all legal cases.

Granted, there are some with both the time and money to waste on truly meritless cases, but lawyers tend to become rather expensive to hire after a while and most people would not spend money on legal counsel knowing their case has no merit, much less go before a judge to argue it. This is even more so for a corporation which has a balance sheet to attend to. There already exists in most nations every incentive to settle a legal dispute as soon as possible.

Meekinos wrote:By encouraging out of court settlement, we are enabling those involved in the case to settle with little government interference that may result from a hearing in front of a judge, master, justice, et cetera.


Surely, unless the ambassador is one of those who considers even the existence of laws as "government interference", a judicial ruling based on the law cannot possibly be considered as such? Perhaps this is not the case in your nation, but I would believe that in most the judiciary is not part of the government and maintains independence, at least in theory.

Why would it necessarily be a bad thing for any case to come before a court of law? Even if it is truly frivolous, the dismissal of it by a judge would create a legal precedent which would not exist if it were to simply be settled in a law firm meeting room, and future such cases may then be less likely to be proceeded with.

And finally, this point: surely the legal merit of a case is up to a judge to decide? It is not really up to us to glibly dismiss certain lawsuits as "frivolous", it is up to the judges hearing individual cases. Do you not agree?

User avatar
Meekinos
Diplomat
 
Posts: 776
Founded: Sep 10, 2004
Ex-Nation

Re: DRAFT - An Act to Reduce Frivolous Litigation

Postby Meekinos » Wed Jun 03, 2009 5:20 am

Kelssek wrote:I am puzzled both by the merits of the aim, and by how such an aim is to be achieved by this proposal. Although it seems intended to target what it defines as "frivolous", its provisions would affect all legal cases.

Granted, there are some with both the time and money to waste on truly meritless cases, but lawyers tend to become rather expensive to hire after a while and most people would not spend money on legal counsel knowing their case has no merit, much less go before a judge to argue it. This is even more so for a corporation which has a balance sheet to attend to. There already exists in most nations every incentive to settle a legal dispute as soon as possible.

Meekinos wrote:By encouraging out of court settlement, we are enabling those involved in the case to settle with little government interference that may result from a hearing in front of a judge, master, justice, et cetera.


Surely, unless the ambassador is one of those who considers even the existence of laws as "government interference", a judicial ruling based on the law cannot possibly be considered as such? Perhaps this is not the case in your nation, but I would believe that in most the judiciary is not part of the government and maintains independence, at least in theory.

Why would it necessarily be a bad thing for any case to come before a court of law? Even if it is truly frivolous, the dismissal of it by a judge would create a legal precedent which would not exist if it were to simply be settled in a law firm meeting room, and future such cases may then be less likely to be proceeded with.

And finally, this point: surely the legal merit of a case is up to a judge to decide? It is not really up to us to glibly dismiss certain lawsuits as "frivolous", it is up to the judges hearing individual cases. Do you not agree?


Is the wording perhaps the issue here? Someone would have a technically sound case but they choose to waste the other side's time, money and effort in an attempt to wear them down, in order to force the other side to settle and/or concede since it is taking a long time to get the desired judgment. Or it's becoming increasingly costly for each side, and one side has money while the other has none and this is being used to exploit the other side.

We understand where you're coming from. It is important that some cases are heard in a court. Some however, could be settled out of court through mediation. Our end objective is to protect businesses (corporations) from pointless lawsuits from individuals who will abuse the system... hmm... we think we shall go add that in now.
Ambassador Gavriil Floros
Meekinos' Official WA Ambassador
Deputy Treasurer, North Pleides Merchant's Syndicate
CEO & Financial Manager of Delta Energy Ltd.
Madame Elina Nikodemos
Executive Senior Delegate
Educator
The Hellenic Republic of Meekinos
Factbook: Your Friendly Guide to Meekinos
The paranoid, isolationist, xenophobic capitalists.

User avatar
Bears Armed
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 21479
Founded: Jun 01, 2006
Civil Rights Lovefest

Re: DRAFT - An Act to Reduce Frivolous Litigation

Postby Bears Armed » Wed Jun 03, 2009 5:41 am

Kelssek wrote:Granted, there are some with both the time and money to waste on truly meritless cases, but lawyers tend to become rather expensive to hire after a while and most people would not spend money on legal counsel knowing their case has no merit, much less go before a judge to argue it.
OOC: "No win, no fee"? Any nations that actually grant 'legal aid' for such cases?
The Confrederated Clans (and other Confrederated Bodys) of the Free Bears of Bears Armed
(includes The Ursine NorthLands) Demonym = Bear[s]; adjective = ‘Urrsish’.
Population = just under 20 million. Economy = only Thriving. Average Life expectancy = c.60 years. If the nation is classified as 'Anarchy' there still is a [strictly limited] national government... and those aren't "biker gangs", they're traditional cross-Clan 'Warrior Societies', generally respected rather than feared.
Author of some GA Resolutions, via Bears Armed Mission; subject of an SC resolution.
Factbook. We have more than 70 MAPS. Visitors' Guide.
The IDU's WA Drafting Room is open to help you.
Author of issues #429, 712, 729, 934, 1120, 1152, 1474, 1521.

User avatar
Qumkent
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 442
Founded: Jun 03, 2009
Ex-Nation

Re: DRAFT - An Act to Reduce Frivolous Litigation

Postby Qumkent » Wed Jun 03, 2009 6:19 am

Meekinos wrote:
Kelssek wrote:I am puzzled both by the merits of the aim, and by how such an aim is to be achieved by this proposal. Although it seems intended to target what it defines as "frivolous", its provisions would affect all legal cases.

Granted, there are some with both the time and money to waste on truly meritless cases, but lawyers tend to become rather expensive to hire after a while and most people would not spend money on legal counsel knowing their case has no merit, much less go before a judge to argue it. This is even more so for a corporation which has a balance sheet to attend to. There already exists in most nations every incentive to settle a legal dispute as soon as possible.

Meekinos wrote:By encouraging out of court settlement, we are enabling those involved in the case to settle with little government interference that may result from a hearing in front of a judge, master, justice, et cetera.


Surely, unless the ambassador is one of those who considers even the existence of laws as "government interference", a judicial ruling based on the law cannot possibly be considered as such? Perhaps this is not the case in your nation, but I would believe that in most the judiciary is not part of the government and maintains independence, at least in theory.

Why would it necessarily be a bad thing for any case to come before a court of law? Even if it is truly frivolous, the dismissal of it by a judge would create a legal precedent which would not exist if it were to simply be settled in a law firm meeting room, and future such cases may then be less likely to be proceeded with.

And finally, this point: surely the legal merit of a case is up to a judge to decide? It is not really up to us to glibly dismiss certain lawsuits as "frivolous", it is up to the judges hearing individual cases. Do you not agree?


Is the wording perhaps the issue here? Someone would have a technically sound case but they choose to waste the other side's time, money and effort in an attempt to wear them down, in order to force the other side to settle and/or concede since it is taking a long time to get the desired judgment. Or it's becoming increasingly costly for each side, and one side has money while the other has none and this is being used to exploit the other side.

We understand where you're coming from. It is important that some cases are heard in a court. Some however, could be settled out of court through mediation. Our end objective is to protect businesses (corporations) from pointless lawsuits from individuals who will abuse the system... hmm... we think we shall go add that in now.





The law should not encourage its own obviation, or what on earth is the point in having laws at all. By all means encourage the settlement of certain kinds of dispute through arbitration of a non-judicial nature, but to encourage out of court settlement is in fact to deny the efficacy of the court system.

Malicious litigation, and "frivolous" litigation have there own penalties in most jurisdiction, which normally involve counter suits for wrongful litigation. The penalty for misuses of civil courts are built in to the way they function.

What is the point in the WA interposing itself between member states and the way their civil courts are operated if the cause of the interposition is illusory and based on what appears to be a misunderstanding of how litigation works ?


Yours,
Mongkha, Khan of Kashgar, Ambassador to the World Assembly for the Autonomous Principality of Qumkent, a constituent state of the Confederated Sublime Khanate of Urgench

Learn more about the CSKU here - http://www.nswiki.net/index.php?title=Urgench

User avatar
Meekinos
Diplomat
 
Posts: 776
Founded: Sep 10, 2004
Ex-Nation

Re: DRAFT - An Act to Reduce Petty Litigation

Postby Meekinos » Wed Jun 03, 2009 6:59 am

Litigation is more than just going to court and getting a large pay out or being told to leave. It's a long arduous process. Despite that it is inherently an area of civil jurisdiction, it is important to note that there are multi-national and inter-stellar corporations et cetera, that conduct business out of their home jurisdiction. It should also be noted that citizens of WA nations do travel between nations. It is based on this that we introduce an act that sets out a basic standard.
Ambassador Gavriil Floros
Meekinos' Official WA Ambassador
Deputy Treasurer, North Pleides Merchant's Syndicate
CEO & Financial Manager of Delta Energy Ltd.
Madame Elina Nikodemos
Executive Senior Delegate
Educator
The Hellenic Republic of Meekinos
Factbook: Your Friendly Guide to Meekinos
The paranoid, isolationist, xenophobic capitalists.

User avatar
Kelssek
Minister
 
Posts: 2612
Founded: Mar 19, 2004
Civil Rights Lovefest

Re: DRAFT - An Act to Reduce Frivolous Litigation

Postby Kelssek » Wed Jun 03, 2009 7:26 am

Bears Armed wrote:OOC: "No win, no fee"? Any nations that actually grant 'legal aid' for such cases?


No lawyer would seriously do a no win no fee deal if they honestly thought the case had no chance of winning, or even some kind of meaning to it, as they would then be promising to work for nothing. In the latter case, if a nation is granting legal aid, surely that demonstrates it's willing to shoulder the cost of such lawsuits, and doesn't consider this to be a serious problem?

Someone would have a technically sound case but they choose to waste the other side's time, money and effort in an attempt to wear them down, in order to force the other side to settle and/or concede since it is taking a long time to get the desired judgment.


If they have a technically sound case, one would think it most likely they would be in a hurry to bring it to trial and get the ruling in their favour, and not seek to take delaying tactics. If one feels that their case is doubtful or knows it has no merit, one would most likely want to avoid litigation which would most likely result in a judgement against them, or an unfavourable settlement. These are generalities, I will grant.

Our end objective is to protect businesses (corporations) from pointless lawsuits from individuals who will abuse the system... hmm... we think we shall go add that in now.


If so, then you have lost the chance of gaining our support completely, ambassador. We had thought initially that such measures would be intended to work both ways, which is something we could have supported, but we have no interest in protecting businesses from the consequences of their actions by discouraging legal action against them and by unfairly turning legal systems in their favour.
Last edited by Kelssek on Wed Jun 03, 2009 7:34 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Newmanistan
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5905
Founded: Feb 17, 2005
Compulsory Consumerist State

Re: DRAFT - An Act to Reduce Petty Litigation

Postby Newmanistan » Wed Jun 03, 2009 7:31 am

Define "Petty".

My definition of petty litigation and your definition could be very different. (and I bet that since you are writing this draft and that I personally disapprove of taking someone's right to sue away if they were wronged, regardless of how minor it may appear to an outsider, that we are indeed night and day on this). It's never "petty" for the victim. You need a clear definition here.
Last edited by Newmanistan on Wed Jun 03, 2009 7:34 am, edited 1 time in total.
Six-time World Baseball Classic Champions
Now just here to run NSSCRA. Thank you to the community for all the fun in other sports.
NEWMANISTAN SPORTING ACHIEVEMENTS:
CHAMPIONSHIPS: DBC 4; 27th BoF; CoH 34, 36, & 37; Oxen Cup 12; WBC 10, 12, 15, 17, 41, & 43; IBC 4, 5, & 29; CE 26; WLC 1
Runner Up: DBC 5 & 6; Oxen Cup 6; WBC 7,9 11, 14, & 45; IBC 1; WB 4, 6 & 34; WLC 2 & 3
World Cups qualified for: 46, 48 (R of 16), 49, 50, 54
Hosted: WORLD CUP 49, WB 1, 2, 5, & 35; WBC 8, 11, 14, 19, 38, 44, & 46; CoH 33, 35, & 39; CE 25, WLC 2, 4 & 5; WCoH 10, IBC 24, NSSCRA, Multiple NSCAA Basketball Tournaments, and a horse racing series

User avatar
Meekinos
Diplomat
 
Posts: 776
Founded: Sep 10, 2004
Ex-Nation

Re: DRAFT - An Act to Reduce Petty Litigation

Postby Meekinos » Wed Jun 03, 2009 7:56 am

Newmanistan wrote:Define "Petty".

My definition of petty litigation and your definition could be very different. (and I bet that since you are writing this draft and that I personally disapprove of taking someone's right to sue away if they were wronged, regardless of how minor it may appear to an outsider, that we are indeed night and day on this). It's never "petty" for the victim. You need a clear definition here.

The goal is not to take away the right to litigation but rather to grant protection from malicious litigation and to encourage out of court settlement, allowing complex cases to be heard sooner because in theory there should be less of a backlog. On your suggestion, we have replaced petty with malicious. That should be more specific.
Ambassador Gavriil Floros
Meekinos' Official WA Ambassador
Deputy Treasurer, North Pleides Merchant's Syndicate
CEO & Financial Manager of Delta Energy Ltd.
Madame Elina Nikodemos
Executive Senior Delegate
Educator
The Hellenic Republic of Meekinos
Factbook: Your Friendly Guide to Meekinos
The paranoid, isolationist, xenophobic capitalists.

User avatar
Newmanistan
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5905
Founded: Feb 17, 2005
Compulsory Consumerist State

Re: DRAFT - An Act to Reduce Petty Litigation

Postby Newmanistan » Wed Jun 03, 2009 8:25 am

Meekinos wrote:
Newmanistan wrote:Define "Petty".

My definition of petty litigation and your definition could be very different. (and I bet that since you are writing this draft and that I personally disapprove of taking someone's right to sue away if they were wronged, regardless of how minor it may appear to an outsider, that we are indeed night and day on this). It's never "petty" for the victim. You need a clear definition here.

The goal is not to take away the right to litigation but rather to grant protection from malicious litigation and to encourage out of court settlement, allowing complex cases to be heard sooner because in theory there should be less of a backlog. On your suggestion, we have replaced petty with malicious. That should be more specific.


Much better, that simple word change does alot. And probably enough to get my vote. (I have a puppet in the WA for those who are thinking "but you're not in it")
Six-time World Baseball Classic Champions
Now just here to run NSSCRA. Thank you to the community for all the fun in other sports.
NEWMANISTAN SPORTING ACHIEVEMENTS:
CHAMPIONSHIPS: DBC 4; 27th BoF; CoH 34, 36, & 37; Oxen Cup 12; WBC 10, 12, 15, 17, 41, & 43; IBC 4, 5, & 29; CE 26; WLC 1
Runner Up: DBC 5 & 6; Oxen Cup 6; WBC 7,9 11, 14, & 45; IBC 1; WB 4, 6 & 34; WLC 2 & 3
World Cups qualified for: 46, 48 (R of 16), 49, 50, 54
Hosted: WORLD CUP 49, WB 1, 2, 5, & 35; WBC 8, 11, 14, 19, 38, 44, & 46; CoH 33, 35, & 39; CE 25, WLC 2, 4 & 5; WCoH 10, IBC 24, NSSCRA, Multiple NSCAA Basketball Tournaments, and a horse racing series

User avatar
The Animal Union
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 127
Founded: May 28, 2009
Ex-Nation

Re: DRAFT - An Act to Reduce Malicious Litigation

Postby The Animal Union » Wed Jun 03, 2009 8:29 am

GO FOR IT, BUD!!!!!!!!!!

User avatar
Qumkent
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 442
Founded: Jun 03, 2009
Ex-Nation

Re: DRAFT - An Act to Reduce Petty Litigation

Postby Qumkent » Wed Jun 03, 2009 8:39 am

Meekinos wrote:Litigation is more than just going to court and getting a large pay out or being told to leave. It's a long arduous process. Despite that it is inherently an area of civil jurisdiction, it is important to note that there are multi-national and inter-stellar corporations et cetera, that conduct business out of their home jurisdiction. It should also be noted that citizens of WA nations do travel between nations. It is based on this that we introduce an act that sets out a basic standard.




Thank you for explaining to us what "litigation" means.

Our point is that out of court settlement encourages "frivolous" litigation, since in most cases baseless cases are thrown out of court long before full proceedings, if malicious or opportunistic litigators know the system encourages out of court settlement they will presume, rightly, that they have a higher chance of making good on their accusations instead of having them thrown out by a judge.

There are other issues which arise from out of court settlement, such as the conditions placed upon litigants by the named party in the suit as a condition of settlement. This can lead to otherwise important information, important for both future civil and criminal prosecutions, being suppressed, sometimes permanently.


Yours,
Last edited by Qumkent on Wed Jun 03, 2009 8:42 am, edited 2 times in total.
Mongkha, Khan of Kashgar, Ambassador to the World Assembly for the Autonomous Principality of Qumkent, a constituent state of the Confederated Sublime Khanate of Urgench

Learn more about the CSKU here - http://www.nswiki.net/index.php?title=Urgench

User avatar
Meekinos
Diplomat
 
Posts: 776
Founded: Sep 10, 2004
Ex-Nation

Re: DRAFT - An Act to Reduce Petty Litigation

Postby Meekinos » Wed Jun 03, 2009 8:54 am

Qumkent wrote:
Meekinos wrote:Litigation is more than just going to court and getting a large pay out or being told to leave. It's a long arduous process. Despite that it is inherently an area of civil jurisdiction, it is important to note that there are multi-national and inter-stellar corporations et cetera, that conduct business out of their home jurisdiction. It should also be noted that citizens of WA nations do travel between nations. It is based on this that we introduce an act that sets out a basic standard.




Thank you for explaining to us what "litigation" means.

Our point is that out of court settlement encourages "frivolous" litigation, since in most cases baseless cases are thrown out of court long before full proceedings, if malicious or opportunistic litigators know the system encourages out of court settlement they will presume, rightly, that they have a higher chance of making good on their accusations instead of having them thrown out by a judge.

There are other issues which arise from out of court settlement, such as the conditions placed upon litigants by the named party in the suit as a condition of settlement. This can lead to otherwise important information, important for both future civil and criminal prosecutions, being suppressed, sometimes permanently.


Yours,

The opportunistic don't want mediation though, or any form of arbitration, since these are neutral entities hearing the case. We have included a mandatory line on this for that reason, and for the reason that simpler and small cases can be resolved without having to go into court.

Settling in court can often yield larger rewards for those who hold out. Delay tactics would pay off in that respect because then the litigant seeking a large pay out may be able to win over the court and wouldn't have won over the mediator.

How would information be suppressed?
Ambassador Gavriil Floros
Meekinos' Official WA Ambassador
Deputy Treasurer, North Pleides Merchant's Syndicate
CEO & Financial Manager of Delta Energy Ltd.
Madame Elina Nikodemos
Executive Senior Delegate
Educator
The Hellenic Republic of Meekinos
Factbook: Your Friendly Guide to Meekinos
The paranoid, isolationist, xenophobic capitalists.

User avatar
Qumkent
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 442
Founded: Jun 03, 2009
Ex-Nation

Re: DRAFT - An Act to Reduce Petty Litigation

Postby Qumkent » Wed Jun 03, 2009 9:20 am

Meekinos wrote:
The opportunistic don't want mediation though, or any form of arbitration, since these are neutral entities hearing the case. We have included a mandatory line on this for that reason, and for the reason that simpler and small cases can be resolved without having to go into court.

Settling in court can often yield larger rewards for those who hold out. Delay tactics would pay off in that respect because then the litigant seeking a large pay out may be able to win over the court and wouldn't have won over the mediator.

How would information be suppressed?




If a case is frivolous there will be no pay out, since it will either never be heard or will not be vindicated. If a case isn't frivolous then it will be vindicated and the plaintiff would be perfectly within their rights to have brought the case in the first place. Or does your Excellency think people should not be legally compensated for cases they have every right to bring ?


Has your Excellency never heard of non-disclosure agreements ? They are often a binding legal condition of out of court settlements.


Yours,
Mongkha, Khan of Kashgar, Ambassador to the World Assembly for the Autonomous Principality of Qumkent, a constituent state of the Confederated Sublime Khanate of Urgench

Learn more about the CSKU here - http://www.nswiki.net/index.php?title=Urgench

User avatar
Absolvability
Diplomat
 
Posts: 857
Founded: Apr 08, 2009
Ex-Nation

Re: DRAFT - An Act to Reduce Malicious Litigation

Postby Absolvability » Wed Jun 03, 2009 9:40 am

Proposal wrote:STRONGLY ENCOURAGE nations to grant protection to individuals or corporations that are frequent targets of unfounded and malicious litigation.

I think this is what we need to be focusing on. As far as civil suits go, they are by nature pedantic and subjective. Which is why most of them are seen by a Judge rather than selecting a Jury for such trivial matters.

So maybe the answer to all of our concerns is to write separate legislation for certain cases. Personally, when I first read this proposal, the thing that came to my mind was "Malpractice Lawsuits." Doctors go through a lot of school to get where they are... but everybody makes mistakes. The fact that Doctors' mistakes cost lives is much to their chagrin I'm sure, and speaks to their inner strength for shouldering such a responsibility. Furthermore, many Doctors try to maintain a certain level of success in their statistics for fear of being sued... which brings them to neglect experimental practices or high-risk surgeries.

So I say lets create an International Committee of Oversight for malpractice, and no longer leave it up to people. Just an idea. You say you want to protect individuals or corporations that are frequent targets, but your average civilian is most certainly not.
Antonius Veloci
Ambassador of The Event Horizon of Absolvability

User avatar
Qumkent
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 442
Founded: Jun 03, 2009
Ex-Nation

Re: DRAFT - An Act to Reduce Malicious Litigation

Postby Qumkent » Wed Jun 03, 2009 10:02 am

Absolvability wrote:
Proposal wrote:STRONGLY ENCOURAGE nations to grant protection to individuals or corporations that are frequent targets of unfounded and malicious litigation.

I think this is what we need to be focusing on. As far as civil suits go, they are by nature pedantic and subjective. Which is why most of them are seen by a Judge rather than selecting a Jury for such trivial matters.

So maybe the answer to all of our concerns is to write separate legislation for certain cases. Personally, when I first read this proposal, the thing that came to my mind was "Malpractice Lawsuits." Doctors go through a lot of school to get where they are... but everybody makes mistakes. The fact that Doctors' mistakes cost lives is much to their chagrin I'm sure, and speaks to their inner strength for shouldering such a responsibility. Furthermore, many Doctors try to maintain a certain level of success in their statistics for fear of being sued... which brings them to neglect experimental practices or high-risk surgeries.

So I say lets create an International Committee of Oversight for malpractice, and no longer leave it up to people. Just an idea. You say you want to protect individuals or corporations that are frequent targets, but your average civilian is most certainly not.




So your suggesting that an international committee should discourage people from bringing civil malpractice suits ?



Yours,
Mongkha, Khan of Kashgar, Ambassador to the World Assembly for the Autonomous Principality of Qumkent, a constituent state of the Confederated Sublime Khanate of Urgench

Learn more about the CSKU here - http://www.nswiki.net/index.php?title=Urgench

User avatar
Absolvability
Diplomat
 
Posts: 857
Founded: Apr 08, 2009
Ex-Nation

Re: DRAFT - An Act to Reduce Malicious Litigation

Postby Absolvability » Wed Jun 03, 2009 10:11 am

Yes. I think it would be much more efficient to have peers review a Doctor's work and decide if it constitutes malpractice.
Antonius Veloci
Ambassador of The Event Horizon of Absolvability

User avatar
Meekinos
Diplomat
 
Posts: 776
Founded: Sep 10, 2004
Ex-Nation

Re: DRAFT - An Act to Reduce Malicious Litigation

Postby Meekinos » Wed Jun 03, 2009 10:20 am

A peer review of a doctor's practice would be applicable if this was an all-purpose resolution on ligitation. Current this meant to be between corporations and individuals or corporations and corporations, which should be apparent from the draft tabled above.
Last edited by Meekinos on Wed Jun 03, 2009 10:21 am, edited 1 time in total.
Ambassador Gavriil Floros
Meekinos' Official WA Ambassador
Deputy Treasurer, North Pleides Merchant's Syndicate
CEO & Financial Manager of Delta Energy Ltd.
Madame Elina Nikodemos
Executive Senior Delegate
Educator
The Hellenic Republic of Meekinos
Factbook: Your Friendly Guide to Meekinos
The paranoid, isolationist, xenophobic capitalists.

User avatar
Qumkent
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 442
Founded: Jun 03, 2009
Ex-Nation

Re: DRAFT - An Act to Reduce Malicious Litigation

Postby Qumkent » Wed Jun 03, 2009 10:20 am

Absolvability wrote:Yes. I think it would be much more efficient to have peers review a Doctor's work and decide if it constitutes malpractice.




So you would seek to hinder the right of ordinary people to seek redress for the horrific negligence and malpractice inflicted upon them ? And have these awful mistakes hushed up by a commttee of made up of persons with a direct vested interest in such whitewashing ?


Yours,
Mongkha, Khan of Kashgar, Ambassador to the World Assembly for the Autonomous Principality of Qumkent, a constituent state of the Confederated Sublime Khanate of Urgench

Learn more about the CSKU here - http://www.nswiki.net/index.php?title=Urgench

User avatar
Qumkent
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 442
Founded: Jun 03, 2009
Ex-Nation

Re: DRAFT - An Act to Reduce Malicious Litigation

Postby Qumkent » Wed Jun 03, 2009 10:21 am

Meekinos wrote:A peer review would be applicable if I were to change the category of this resolution - right now it falls in the advancement of industry. Current this meant to be between corporations and individuals or corporations and corporations.



How exactly does this advance indsutry, as opposed to simply reducing civil liberties ?

Yours,
Mongkha, Khan of Kashgar, Ambassador to the World Assembly for the Autonomous Principality of Qumkent, a constituent state of the Confederated Sublime Khanate of Urgench

Learn more about the CSKU here - http://www.nswiki.net/index.php?title=Urgench

User avatar
Meekinos
Diplomat
 
Posts: 776
Founded: Sep 10, 2004
Ex-Nation

Re: DRAFT - An Act to Reduce Malicious Litigation

Postby Meekinos » Wed Jun 03, 2009 10:23 am

Qumkent wrote:
Meekinos wrote:A peer review would be applicable if I were to change the category of this resolution - right now it falls in the advancement of industry. Current this meant to be between corporations and individuals or corporations and corporations.



How exactly does this advance indsutry, as opposed to simply reducing civil liberties ?

Yours,

The goal is to provide protection against malicious litigation. It is to give a basic standard for all who want to conduct business internationally.
Ambassador Gavriil Floros
Meekinos' Official WA Ambassador
Deputy Treasurer, North Pleides Merchant's Syndicate
CEO & Financial Manager of Delta Energy Ltd.
Madame Elina Nikodemos
Executive Senior Delegate
Educator
The Hellenic Republic of Meekinos
Factbook: Your Friendly Guide to Meekinos
The paranoid, isolationist, xenophobic capitalists.

User avatar
Qumkent
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 442
Founded: Jun 03, 2009
Ex-Nation

Re: DRAFT - An Act to Reduce Malicious Litigation

Postby Qumkent » Wed Jun 03, 2009 10:36 am

Meekinos wrote:
The goal is to provide protection against malicious litigation. It is to give a basic standard for all who want to conduct business internationally.



That may well be your Excellency's intention, but the actual effect will be to protect vast wealthy organisations from being held to account by ordinary persons when these organisations have behaved in legally culpable and negligent ways. The civil law exists to hold civil society to the standards of decency which should be expected of it. Introducing protections of groups or persons from proper civil accountability completely undermines this vital function of a civilised society.


Yours,
Last edited by Qumkent on Wed Jun 03, 2009 10:37 am, edited 1 time in total.
Mongkha, Khan of Kashgar, Ambassador to the World Assembly for the Autonomous Principality of Qumkent, a constituent state of the Confederated Sublime Khanate of Urgench

Learn more about the CSKU here - http://www.nswiki.net/index.php?title=Urgench

Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General Assembly

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

Advertisement

Remove ads