Library of Parliament
New member
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2025
- Messages
- 223
- Thread Author
- #1
Original Legislation:
Passed Bill Link: https://www.cityrp.org/threads/court-reformation-act.232/
Final Vote: 4-1-0
Ratified: May 23, 2025
Amendments:
- Amended March 29, 2026, by the Judicial Peace Act
- Amended May 29, 2026, by the Court Privileges Amendment
Author: Lysander Lyon, MP
Sponsor: Lysander Lyon, MP
Preamble:
The goal of this legislation is to introduce several fundamental reforms to the Azalea court system.
1. Short Title
(a) This bill shall be referred to as the "Court Reformation Act".
(b) This bill was authored by Lysander Lyon.
2. The First District Court of Azalea
(a) This bill establishes the First District Court of Azalea, more simply known as the District Court.
(b) The District Court shall be the court for the sole voting district drawn by Parliament. It has jurisdiction in all cases within the Azalea Isles.
(i) Should other electoral districts be drawn in the future, Parliament may (but is not required to) create separate District Courts for those districts, subject to the same powers and outline in the rest of this article.
(ii) When more than one District Court exists, District Courts shall have power to hear cases only within their jurisdiction (their electoral district). Cases suing a company will be heard where that company’s headquarters is located. Crimes will be prosecuted where they occurred.
(1) Should there not be a clear and defining location, for example a lawsuit against a company with no headquarters, the Plaintiff may file in a District Court of their choosing.
(c) Those sitting on the District Court shall be known as Judges. There shall be one to start.
(d) Any Member of Parliament may nominate a Judge. The nomination must have the support of at least two other Members of Parliament.
(e) Should a nomination have the support to proceed within 48 hours of being proposed, the nominee will be called before Parliament in a public hearing not lasting fewer than 24 hours. The nominee must seriously answer all questions asked of them by a Member of Parliament.
(i) Any Member of Parliament may raise a point of order to extend the hearing by another 12 to 24 hours.
(ii) Hearings may last no longer than five days.
(iii) Failure to answer a question asked by a Member of Parliament shall result in prosecution by the Ministry of Justice for Contempt of Parliament.
(f) Upon the conclusion of the hearing, the nomination shall be put to a vote lasting not less than 24 hours, and subject to all other rules and laws of Parliament that govern this process.
(g) Parliament may pass a motion through simple majority to expand the District Court to up to three Judges at any time after the passage of this bill. Future expansion, or expansion beyond three, shall require a supermajority of Parliament to pass.
(h) If the court is expanded, each Judge on the District Court shall operate independently of the other Judges in their cases, and may not hear appeals detailing another Judge’s case.
(i) In essence, whichever Judge first takes the case will be the one to issue all rulings, and the verdict, on it. There is no need to consult other Judges.
3. District Court Function
(a) The District Court will be the first to hear cases. In the event it has been five days, or more, since a case was filed with the judiciary, and the Judge has failed to initiate court proceedings, in accordance with the Constitution, a Supreme Court Justice may step in to handle the case in place of the Judge. This does not invalidate or prevent later appeals - the Justice, in effect, shall take on the role of Judge in the case.
(b) Judges shall have terms of three months, with no limits on reappointment.
(c) If a Judge’s term should end while he or she is presiding over a court case, the Judge shall continue to preside over that case through its completion, even if they are not reappointed. The individual will not, however, be able to take on new cases.
(d) If no individual actively holds the role of Judge, the District Court will not exist for legal purposes. For example, if a new case is filed, with no one as District Court Judge, then for legal purposes, the case will be directly forwarded to the Supreme Court, as if the District Court does not exist, and shall be heard there.
(e) All cases relating to treaties, removal from a Constitutional position, and Crimes Against the State are the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, and shall not first be heard in the District Court.
(f) Should Parliament wish to remove a Judge, a motion to open an impeachment inquiry must receive the support of at least three members of Parliament, which includes the individual who makes the motion. The individual being impeached must be afforded at least a 48 hour opportunity to hear charges or concerns from Parliament, including the specific reason(s) for their proposed removal, and be provided the ability to address them, prior to the vote. Members of Parliament may provide or request testimony from other individuals, and may raise a point of order to extend the hearing beyond 48 hours, up to five days in total, to allow for this to be presented and debated.
(i) Parliament may override this five day limit to extend it further with a simple majority.
(g) Upon the end of the hearing, Parliament must take a vote on whether to move to an impeachment vote. If a simple majority approves, Parliament will then vote on impeachment, with a simple majority in favor sufficing to remove the individual.
4. The Appeals Process
(a) Cases may not be appealed until a verdict is rendered.
(i) The sole exception to allowing something within a case to be appealed is with an interlocutory appeal.
(b) District Court case appeals shall be directly heard in the Supreme Court.
(c) There are four different types of appeal, and the Motions and Objections document in the Court Library shall be updated with a section labeled “Appeals” that contains these.
(i) The motion appeal. This appeal is the appeal made when an individual believes the lower court’s judgement on a motion (for example, ruling in favor of a motion to dismiss, or against a motion to strike) was improper, and had significant negative influence on the outcome of the case against the appellant.
(ii) The objection appeal. This appeal is the appeal made when an individual believes the lower court’s judgement on an objection was improper, and had significant negative influence on the outcome of the case against the appellant.
(iii) The verdict appeal. This appeal is the appeal made when an individual believes that the final verdict in the case is not reflective of the facts. In essence, the verdict appeal is a claim that the person ruling on the case got it wrong.
(iv) The interlocutory appeal. This appeal is made during a case, when the appellant believes a ruling is incorrect, but damage to their client necessitates an immediate appeal. This could be a Judge ruling against (or for) suppressing evidence that could hurt the appellant, that is believed by the appellant to be worthy of suppression, or ruling for an injunction or other type of court order (like a warrant). One example of when an interlocutory appeal might be used could be a situation where private contract details or operations for a business would be disclosed, which could put the business at a strong disadvantage.
(d) Appeals are not guaranteed to succeed. They may be denied for several reasons: for example, on a motion appeal, the Supreme Court may feel the District Court Judge ruled correctly on the motion in question, or they may feel that even if the motion was incorrectly ruled on, it did not have enough of an impact.
(i) It should be noted that, for example, the denial of a motion appeal does not mean the reviewing individual feels that the case verdict was correct. It simply means they do not feel the ruling on that motion was improper, or that it had a large enough impact on the case to hear an appeal.
(e) Appeals are all to be done, and made, within the same court thread of the original case.
(f) An individual may be reprimanded, with a fee set by the Supreme Court, if their appeal is viewed as frivolous. This is largely for situations where a party has chosen to make multiple appeals without significant legal substance, to attempt to achieve a last-minute reversal of the decision.
(g) Any Interlocutory appeals must be made during trial. Any non-interlocutory appeals must be made no later than one week after the end of the trial, in order to be considered.
5. How Appeals Are Handled
(a) A party will file, after the verdict is posted in the court thread, a request for an appeal. It may look something like this: “I, <insert name>, am requesting review of the ruling made by the District Court of Azalea on the <insert decision>.” For example, “I, Lysander Lyon, am requesting review of a ruling made by the District Court of Azalea on the Motion to Strike.” A verdict appeal would be “on the Case Verdict.”
(b) The Supreme Court shall choose whether or not to hear the appeal.
(c) If the appeal is heard, the appellant will then post their argument in favor of the appeal, while the other party of the lawsuit will post their argument (likely opposing it) once the appellant has posted theirs.
(i) The recommended timeframe to allow for statements is 24-48 hours, at the Supreme Court’s discretion.
(d) After the statements are made, a ruling shall be made on the appeal. The decision will either affirm the lower court’s decision, defeating the appeal, or reverse the lower court’s decision, overturning the outcome to that ordered by the Supreme Court.
(e) If the Supreme Court chooses to overturn a verdict, they may decide not to remand the case. In other situations, however, where the law was erroneously applied, or procedural errors were made, or in any situation at the court’s discretion, the Supreme Court may choose to remand the case back to the lower court with corrections.
(i) An example of this might be that the Supreme Court reverses the District Court’s decision to rule in favor of a motion to strike. Then, the Supreme Court remands the case back to the District Court to reconsider the case with the newly allowed evidence.
(f) If a case is remanded, whatever corrections are ordered shall be made. Then, both parties shall have an opportunity to request witnesses, if they are relevant to the new status of the trial. Previously called witnesses, who would be questioned in the same manner and add no new information, should not be called again. After this, closing arguments may be remade, with a new verdict.
6. Verdict Appeals
(a) Verdict appeals shall follow a different format for legal arguments, instead of the single argument in favor of and opposing the appeal outlined in Section 5.
(b) After an appeal is granted, the appellant shall provide an opening statement for why they believe the District Court “got it wrong” and the result should be overturned.
(c) After the appellant’s opening statement, the appellee shall provide an opening statement for why they believe the District Court got it right and the result should not be overturned.
(d) Following opening statements, the Supreme Court may ask questions of the appellant, to better understand the appellant’s legal position, ask about applicable laws, and so on.
(e) When the Supreme Court is prepared to move on, they may ask questions of the appellee, to better understand the appellee’s legal position, ask about applicable laws, and so on.
(f) If the Supreme Court needs to summon a witness or third party from the original trial to the court to ask questions of, they may do so after completing the appellee’s questioning.
(g) Once all questions have been asked, the Supreme Court shall advance to closing statements, with the appellant answering first and the appellee answering after.
(h) The Supreme Court shall then deliberate and return a ruling.
(i) The time for each of these stages, and for party responses, should generally be set at 48 hours. The Supreme Court has discretion in changing this if needed, but the default time should be 48 hours.
(j) Only individuals who have received the in-game Lawyer role for passing the university exam, and hold the role at the time of the appeal and for its entire duration, are to be considered valid counsel at the Supreme Court for arguing a verdict appeal.
7. Additional Court Changes
(a) Court costs shall be amended in the following ways.
(i) The cost to file a forum case will be abolished.
(ii) The cost to summon a witness will be lowered to $100, and the fee per question will be lowered to $10.
(b) The cost to appeal a case will be set at $200 per appeal.
(c) Individuals holding a judicial title may not rule on a motion to recuse in their case. A Judge, faced with a motion to recuse, may not rule on that motion. Another Judge must rule on the motion. If no other Judge is available, the Supreme Court shall rule on the motion. If the only Judge available is recused, then the case will be advanced to the Supreme Court automatically. Otherwise, another Judge shall take up the case.
(d) If a Supreme Court Justice has a motion to recuse against them successfully approved, they may no longer influence the case or be involved in it in any way.
(e) Ties of the Supreme Court on a ruling shall find for the status quo.
(f) All judicial nominees must meet one of the following qualifications to be a valid nomination.
(i) Be a lawyer and have tried at least one case.
(ii) Have successfully won at least two cases.
(g) All judicial nominees must have at least 24 hours of total playtime and must maintain at least five hours of monthly playtime within any given month, effective ten days into the month.
(h) A civil trial must be filed with the courts within two months of the alleged legal wrong that compensation is being sought for. If the civil trial is filed too late, the plaintiff automatically lacks standing.
8. Amicus Curiae Briefs
(a) Non-affiliated entities or persons with interest in a case may only request to file an amicus curiae brief in a case before the Supreme Court.
(i) The case may be in the process of being appealed, or may be being heard for the first time. So long as it is before the Supreme Court, requests to file an amicus curiae brief are allowed to be made.
(b) An individual wishing to file an amicus curiae brief should submit one message to the case thread outlining who they are, why they wish to submit a brief, and what relevance the brief would have to the case.
(c) The Supreme Court shall consider this submission and then make a determination on whether to allow the brief to be filed.
(i) If the Supreme Court rejects the brief, that decision is final, and the individual may not resubmit the request.
(d) Amicus curiae briefs may be objected to by the main parties of the lawsuit.
(e) When the Supreme Court decides to hear a case, whether it be on appeal or whether it is the first time the case is being heard in court at all and there will be a full trial, they shall set a deadline for amicus curiae briefs to be filed by.
(i) These briefs must be filed before a party is summoned to begin closing arguments; must be publicly posted in the court thread; and the parties must be given at least forty eight hours to review all amicus curiae briefs before closing arguments can begin.
(f) These briefs are not allowed in the District Court.
Enactment: This Act comes into force immediately upon passage.
Passed Bill Link: https://www.cityrp.org/threads/court-reformation-act.232/
Final Vote: 4-1-0
Ratified: May 23, 2025
Amendments:
- Amended March 29, 2026, by the Judicial Peace Act
- Amended May 29, 2026, by the Court Privileges Amendment
Author: Lysander Lyon, MP
Sponsor: Lysander Lyon, MP
Court Reformation ActPreamble:
The goal of this legislation is to introduce several fundamental reforms to the Azalea court system.
1. Short Title
(a) This bill shall be referred to as the "Court Reformation Act".
(b) This bill was authored by Lysander Lyon.
2. The First District Court of Azalea
(a) This bill establishes the First District Court of Azalea, more simply known as the District Court.
(b) The District Court shall be the court for the sole voting district drawn by Parliament. It has jurisdiction in all cases within the Azalea Isles.
(i) Should other electoral districts be drawn in the future, Parliament may (but is not required to) create separate District Courts for those districts, subject to the same powers and outline in the rest of this article.
(ii) When more than one District Court exists, District Courts shall have power to hear cases only within their jurisdiction (their electoral district). Cases suing a company will be heard where that company’s headquarters is located. Crimes will be prosecuted where they occurred.
(1) Should there not be a clear and defining location, for example a lawsuit against a company with no headquarters, the Plaintiff may file in a District Court of their choosing.
(c) Those sitting on the District Court shall be known as Judges. There shall be one to start.
(d) Any Member of Parliament may nominate a Judge. The nomination must have the support of at least two other Members of Parliament.
(e) Should a nomination have the support to proceed within 48 hours of being proposed, the nominee will be called before Parliament in a public hearing not lasting fewer than 24 hours. The nominee must seriously answer all questions asked of them by a Member of Parliament.
(i) Any Member of Parliament may raise a point of order to extend the hearing by another 12 to 24 hours.
(ii) Hearings may last no longer than five days.
(iii) Failure to answer a question asked by a Member of Parliament shall result in prosecution by the Ministry of Justice for Contempt of Parliament.
(f) Upon the conclusion of the hearing, the nomination shall be put to a vote lasting not less than 24 hours, and subject to all other rules and laws of Parliament that govern this process.
(g) Parliament may pass a motion through simple majority to expand the District Court to up to three Judges at any time after the passage of this bill. Future expansion, or expansion beyond three, shall require a supermajority of Parliament to pass.
(h) If the court is expanded, each Judge on the District Court shall operate independently of the other Judges in their cases, and may not hear appeals detailing another Judge’s case.
(i) In essence, whichever Judge first takes the case will be the one to issue all rulings, and the verdict, on it. There is no need to consult other Judges.
3. District Court Function
(a) The District Court will be the first to hear cases. In the event it has been five days, or more, since a case was filed with the judiciary, and the Judge has failed to initiate court proceedings, in accordance with the Constitution, a Supreme Court Justice may step in to handle the case in place of the Judge. This does not invalidate or prevent later appeals - the Justice, in effect, shall take on the role of Judge in the case.
(b) Judges shall have terms of three months, with no limits on reappointment.
(c) If a Judge’s term should end while he or she is presiding over a court case, the Judge shall continue to preside over that case through its completion, even if they are not reappointed. The individual will not, however, be able to take on new cases.
(d) If no individual actively holds the role of Judge, the District Court will not exist for legal purposes. For example, if a new case is filed, with no one as District Court Judge, then for legal purposes, the case will be directly forwarded to the Supreme Court, as if the District Court does not exist, and shall be heard there.
(e) All cases relating to treaties, removal from a Constitutional position, and Crimes Against the State are the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, and shall not first be heard in the District Court.
(f) Should Parliament wish to remove a Judge, a motion to open an impeachment inquiry must receive the support of at least three members of Parliament, which includes the individual who makes the motion. The individual being impeached must be afforded at least a 48 hour opportunity to hear charges or concerns from Parliament, including the specific reason(s) for their proposed removal, and be provided the ability to address them, prior to the vote. Members of Parliament may provide or request testimony from other individuals, and may raise a point of order to extend the hearing beyond 48 hours, up to five days in total, to allow for this to be presented and debated.
(i) Parliament may override this five day limit to extend it further with a simple majority.
(g) Upon the end of the hearing, Parliament must take a vote on whether to move to an impeachment vote. If a simple majority approves, Parliament will then vote on impeachment, with a simple majority in favor sufficing to remove the individual.
4. The Appeals Process
(a) Cases may not be appealed until a verdict is rendered.
(i) The sole exception to allowing something within a case to be appealed is with an interlocutory appeal.
(b) District Court case appeals shall be directly heard in the Supreme Court.
(c) There are four different types of appeal, and the Motions and Objections document in the Court Library shall be updated with a section labeled “Appeals” that contains these.
(i) The motion appeal. This appeal is the appeal made when an individual believes the lower court’s judgement on a motion (for example, ruling in favor of a motion to dismiss, or against a motion to strike) was improper, and had significant negative influence on the outcome of the case against the appellant.
(ii) The objection appeal. This appeal is the appeal made when an individual believes the lower court’s judgement on an objection was improper, and had significant negative influence on the outcome of the case against the appellant.
(iii) The verdict appeal. This appeal is the appeal made when an individual believes that the final verdict in the case is not reflective of the facts. In essence, the verdict appeal is a claim that the person ruling on the case got it wrong.
(iv) The interlocutory appeal. This appeal is made during a case, when the appellant believes a ruling is incorrect, but damage to their client necessitates an immediate appeal. This could be a Judge ruling against (or for) suppressing evidence that could hurt the appellant, that is believed by the appellant to be worthy of suppression, or ruling for an injunction or other type of court order (like a warrant). One example of when an interlocutory appeal might be used could be a situation where private contract details or operations for a business would be disclosed, which could put the business at a strong disadvantage.
(d) Appeals are not guaranteed to succeed. They may be denied for several reasons: for example, on a motion appeal, the Supreme Court may feel the District Court Judge ruled correctly on the motion in question, or they may feel that even if the motion was incorrectly ruled on, it did not have enough of an impact.
(i) It should be noted that, for example, the denial of a motion appeal does not mean the reviewing individual feels that the case verdict was correct. It simply means they do not feel the ruling on that motion was improper, or that it had a large enough impact on the case to hear an appeal.
(e) Appeals are all to be done, and made, within the same court thread of the original case.
(f) An individual may be reprimanded, with a fee set by the Supreme Court, if their appeal is viewed as frivolous. This is largely for situations where a party has chosen to make multiple appeals without significant legal substance, to attempt to achieve a last-minute reversal of the decision.
(g) Any Interlocutory appeals must be made during trial. Any non-interlocutory appeals must be made no later than one week after the end of the trial, in order to be considered.
5. How Appeals Are Handled
(a) A party will file, after the verdict is posted in the court thread, a request for an appeal. It may look something like this: “I, <insert name>, am requesting review of the ruling made by the District Court of Azalea on the <insert decision>.” For example, “I, Lysander Lyon, am requesting review of a ruling made by the District Court of Azalea on the Motion to Strike.” A verdict appeal would be “on the Case Verdict.”
(b) The Supreme Court shall choose whether or not to hear the appeal.
(c) If the appeal is heard, the appellant will then post their argument in favor of the appeal, while the other party of the lawsuit will post their argument (likely opposing it) once the appellant has posted theirs.
(i) The recommended timeframe to allow for statements is 24-48 hours, at the Supreme Court’s discretion.
(d) After the statements are made, a ruling shall be made on the appeal. The decision will either affirm the lower court’s decision, defeating the appeal, or reverse the lower court’s decision, overturning the outcome to that ordered by the Supreme Court.
(e) If the Supreme Court chooses to overturn a verdict, they may decide not to remand the case. In other situations, however, where the law was erroneously applied, or procedural errors were made, or in any situation at the court’s discretion, the Supreme Court may choose to remand the case back to the lower court with corrections.
(i) An example of this might be that the Supreme Court reverses the District Court’s decision to rule in favor of a motion to strike. Then, the Supreme Court remands the case back to the District Court to reconsider the case with the newly allowed evidence.
(f) If a case is remanded, whatever corrections are ordered shall be made. Then, both parties shall have an opportunity to request witnesses, if they are relevant to the new status of the trial. Previously called witnesses, who would be questioned in the same manner and add no new information, should not be called again. After this, closing arguments may be remade, with a new verdict.
6. Verdict Appeals
(a) Verdict appeals shall follow a different format for legal arguments, instead of the single argument in favor of and opposing the appeal outlined in Section 5.
(b) After an appeal is granted, the appellant shall provide an opening statement for why they believe the District Court “got it wrong” and the result should be overturned.
(c) After the appellant’s opening statement, the appellee shall provide an opening statement for why they believe the District Court got it right and the result should not be overturned.
(d) Following opening statements, the Supreme Court may ask questions of the appellant, to better understand the appellant’s legal position, ask about applicable laws, and so on.
(e) When the Supreme Court is prepared to move on, they may ask questions of the appellee, to better understand the appellee’s legal position, ask about applicable laws, and so on.
(f) If the Supreme Court needs to summon a witness or third party from the original trial to the court to ask questions of, they may do so after completing the appellee’s questioning.
(g) Once all questions have been asked, the Supreme Court shall advance to closing statements, with the appellant answering first and the appellee answering after.
(h) The Supreme Court shall then deliberate and return a ruling.
(i) The time for each of these stages, and for party responses, should generally be set at 48 hours. The Supreme Court has discretion in changing this if needed, but the default time should be 48 hours.
(j) Only individuals who have received the in-game Lawyer role for passing the university exam, and hold the role at the time of the appeal and for its entire duration, are to be considered valid counsel at the Supreme Court for arguing a verdict appeal.
7. Additional Court Changes
(a) Court costs shall be amended in the following ways.
(i) The cost to file a forum case will be abolished.
(ii) The cost to summon a witness will be lowered to $100, and the fee per question will be lowered to $10.
(b) The cost to appeal a case will be set at $200 per appeal.
(c) Individuals holding a judicial title may not rule on a motion to recuse in their case. A Judge, faced with a motion to recuse, may not rule on that motion. Another Judge must rule on the motion. If no other Judge is available, the Supreme Court shall rule on the motion. If the only Judge available is recused, then the case will be advanced to the Supreme Court automatically. Otherwise, another Judge shall take up the case.
(d) If a Supreme Court Justice has a motion to recuse against them successfully approved, they may no longer influence the case or be involved in it in any way.
(e) Ties of the Supreme Court on a ruling shall find for the status quo.
(f) All judicial nominees must meet one of the following qualifications to be a valid nomination.
(i) Be a lawyer and have tried at least one case.
(ii) Have successfully won at least two cases.
(g) All judicial nominees must have at least 24 hours of total playtime and must maintain at least five hours of monthly playtime within any given month, effective ten days into the month.
(h) A civil trial must be filed with the courts within two months of the alleged legal wrong that compensation is being sought for. If the civil trial is filed too late, the plaintiff automatically lacks standing.
8. Amicus Curiae Briefs
(a) Non-affiliated entities or persons with interest in a case may only request to file an amicus curiae brief in a case before the Supreme Court.
(i) The case may be in the process of being appealed, or may be being heard for the first time. So long as it is before the Supreme Court, requests to file an amicus curiae brief are allowed to be made.
(b) An individual wishing to file an amicus curiae brief should submit one message to the case thread outlining who they are, why they wish to submit a brief, and what relevance the brief would have to the case.
(c) The Supreme Court shall consider this submission and then make a determination on whether to allow the brief to be filed.
(i) If the Supreme Court rejects the brief, that decision is final, and the individual may not resubmit the request.
(d) Amicus curiae briefs may be objected to by the main parties of the lawsuit.
(e) When the Supreme Court decides to hear a case, whether it be on appeal or whether it is the first time the case is being heard in court at all and there will be a full trial, they shall set a deadline for amicus curiae briefs to be filed by.
(i) These briefs must be filed before a party is summoned to begin closing arguments; must be publicly posted in the court thread; and the parties must be given at least forty eight hours to review all amicus curiae briefs before closing arguments can begin.
(f) These briefs are not allowed in the District Court.
Enactment: This Act comes into force immediately upon passage.
Last edited by a moderator: