- Joined
- Jun 30, 2024
- Messages
- 35
- Thread Author
- #1
Author: Lysander Lyon, MP
Sponsor: N/A
Type: Act of Parliament
Preamble: The procedure for addressing court orders remains unclear, and needs to be addressed and further clarified for legal reliability.
1. Short Title
(a) This bill shall be referred to as the "Court Orders Procedure Act".
(b) This bill was authored by Lysander Lyon, MP.
Court Orders Procedure Act
(a) Individuals may request, in their court trials, various court orders, such as an Asset Preservation Order to ensure that assets are not wasted or depleted.
(b) The courts are to hear these orders separately from the case, and on an expedited basis.
(c) The process for ruling on an order shall be as follows:
(i) An individual shall formally request an order, through a Motion For Court Order. It may be the government requesting a seizure order, or an individual requesting a temporary injunction, or some other court order.
(ii) The other side in the trial, or their representative, must have indicated their presence in the court thread prior to the hearing on this order having taken place. This is only relevant if an order was requested in the court filing, to ensure a Defendant is aware of the court case against them - if it is requested mid-trial, the other party’s presence is assumed.
(iii) After a request is made (and after the presence of both parties is assured, or after the other party’s time to indicate their presence has expired, if at the start of a trial), the judge will grant the individual making the motion 24 hours to present their statement on why the court order should be granted.
(iv) The side not requesting the order shall have 24 hours, after the judge informs them in the thread, to present their rebuttal to the request for an order.
(v) The judge will rule on the order.
(vi) The case will continue as is normal.
(d) The presiding judicial figure may, at his or her discretion, reject requests for a court order if it is not the first request that party has made in the trial, on the basis of the order being a frivolous request intended to delay the trial.
(i) This is the only reason a judge may unilaterally reject a request for a court order.
(ii) A motion for sanctions may be made by a party if a court order request is made in such a manner, and is granted, delaying the trial. There should be an indication that the goal of the request is not to genuinely obtain the requested order, but instead to delay the court case. If approved, the party guilty of a frivolous filing shall be ordered to pay $750 to the opposing party and $750 to the courts.
(e) Warrants are not changed under this legislation.
Enactment: This Act comes into force immediately after passage.
Sponsor: N/A
Type: Act of Parliament
A
BILL
TO
Require Court Orders Be Properly Heard
BILL
TO
Require Court Orders Be Properly Heard
Preamble: The procedure for addressing court orders remains unclear, and needs to be addressed and further clarified for legal reliability.
1. Short Title
(a) This bill shall be referred to as the "Court Orders Procedure Act".
(b) This bill was authored by Lysander Lyon, MP.
Court Orders Procedure Act
(a) Individuals may request, in their court trials, various court orders, such as an Asset Preservation Order to ensure that assets are not wasted or depleted.
(b) The courts are to hear these orders separately from the case, and on an expedited basis.
(c) The process for ruling on an order shall be as follows:
(i) An individual shall formally request an order, through a Motion For Court Order. It may be the government requesting a seizure order, or an individual requesting a temporary injunction, or some other court order.
(ii) The other side in the trial, or their representative, must have indicated their presence in the court thread prior to the hearing on this order having taken place. This is only relevant if an order was requested in the court filing, to ensure a Defendant is aware of the court case against them - if it is requested mid-trial, the other party’s presence is assumed.
(iii) After a request is made (and after the presence of both parties is assured, or after the other party’s time to indicate their presence has expired, if at the start of a trial), the judge will grant the individual making the motion 24 hours to present their statement on why the court order should be granted.
(iv) The side not requesting the order shall have 24 hours, after the judge informs them in the thread, to present their rebuttal to the request for an order.
(v) The judge will rule on the order.
(vi) The case will continue as is normal.
(d) The presiding judicial figure may, at his or her discretion, reject requests for a court order if it is not the first request that party has made in the trial, on the basis of the order being a frivolous request intended to delay the trial.
(i) This is the only reason a judge may unilaterally reject a request for a court order.
(ii) A motion for sanctions may be made by a party if a court order request is made in such a manner, and is granted, delaying the trial. There should be an indication that the goal of the request is not to genuinely obtain the requested order, but instead to delay the court case. If approved, the party guilty of a frivolous filing shall be ordered to pay $750 to the opposing party and $750 to the courts.
(e) Warrants are not changed under this legislation.
Enactment: This Act comes into force immediately after passage.