Judicial recusal and ethics act

20260314-1 \\ ??? words \\ Passed \\ No summary

Couldn't find anything forcing recusal, big part of this act is from the Pi lawsuit.
\#1: If a justice member is presiding over a case where either the defendant or plaintiff is a member of their same political party, they must recuse themselves. Failure falls under IV, Art. V. Breaking the duty of neutrality.
\#2: If requested during a trial by anyone in the court, a justice member must state any previous argument, friendship, or personal hatred with the defendant. A justice may refuse to give this information, but, in this circumstance, they must be recused. This is considered a motion of inquiry; this right must be told to those standing accused immediately. This must be stated clearly in the manner of "I move for a formal Disclosure of Bias from Justice \[X\]; I request they state on the record any personal friendship, previous argument, or history of animosity toward the parties involved, or otherwise accept immediate recusal..". It must be in this format; if not, then it can be ignored. If later evidence states a user lied about this information, they are to immediately be put for trial with a minimum of a week ban from all teen government servers.
\#3: A court justice may never speak about a trial in private DMs (Including Discord, Reddit, or personal phones) with any member of the court staff (plaintiff, defendant, or witness). If they are found to do this, they must recuse, and if this becomes a repeated issue, the council is to vote on impeachment. (Repeated meaning 3 instances minimum).
\#4: A judge cannot accept bribes of any kind; if they are offered it they must state that it occurred. If a justice accepts a bribe, they must immediately recuse themselves and will immediately go to a judicial trial on keeping their position and criminal charges. A charge is a minimum of a 3-day ban from all teen government servers. And the one responsible for giving the bribes is to continue to trial, and the charge of bribery is to be added. Or if they were the prosecution, they are to continue their trial, but immediately after the case are to be put to their own trial.
\#: 4.5:Bribery involves the following: promising someone a political vote/a party recommendation if they vote in their favor, offering someone currency in the economy, and, if the briber is in a government position, granting someone a public advantage (council vote, nomination to a minister position, etc). As this is difficult to ensure, this can only occur with clear and convincing evidence (screenshots, an admission of guilt, etc).
\#5: Anyone in a court can, at any moment BEFORE the trial, can make a public poll on whether a judge should be removed. This can only occur in the case a majority agrees on an outcome. This needs a 4/5 majority, as well as a minimum of 10 votes. The vote may only last 1 day maximum. If this is abused multiple times to attempt to remove a justice (3 or more times a day), the one using the polls may be stripped of this right; this can only occur via an Admin of the court, considered under spam and abuse of this right. In the unlikely case this would render all judges recused, then #6 is to occur.
\#6: In the case all but 3 (or fewer) of the justices are recused, the justices are to hold a vote on someone to fill in the role as "Special temporary Justice". This vote shall occur after a minimum of 3 users have nominated themselves for this position, done via a Reddit post, and then the justices are to discuss who they believe would be best. They must also write 2 sentences minimum on why they made this choice. Failure to go through with any of these steps requires the process to entirely restart. The justices only have a maximum of 48 hours for this process to not harm the defendant's rights.
\#6.5: Council may remove a "Special temporary Justice" at any time with a 2/3 majority vote. This vote cannot occur during the trial, but may occur immediately after the new candidate is decided. Council is required to give 1 sentence on why they want to remove a candidate. In this circumstance, the Justices are to restart their process.
\#7: This new justice may be removed from the previous recusal rules, the same as a justice, but may not be put to a public vote on removal. This is simply a replacement for a recused seat; this new justice does not count as an actual justice or as an addition to the justices, and their power is limited 1 trial.
\#8: After the trial, in the same section as the criminal records, the justices presiding and any "Special temporary Justice" are to be listed.

Couldn't find anything forcing recusal, big part of this act is from the Pi lawsuit. \#1: If a justice member is presiding over a case where either the defendant or plaintiff is a member of their same political party, they must recuse themselves. Failure falls under IV, Art. V. Breaking the duty of neutrality. \#2: If requested during a trial by anyone in the court, a justice member must state any previous argument, friendship, or personal hatred with the defendant. A justice may refuse to give this information, but, in this circumstance, they must be recused. This is considered a motion of inquiry; this right must be told to those standing accused immediately. This must be stated clearly in the manner of *"I move for a formal Disclosure of Bias from Justice \[X\]; I request they state on the record any personal friendship, previous argument, or history of animosity toward the parties involved, or otherwise accept immediate recusal..".* It must be in this format; if not, then it can be ignored. If later evidence states a user lied about this information, they are to immediately be put for trial with a minimum of a week ban from all teen government servers. \#3: A court justice may never speak about a trial in private DMs (Including Discord, Reddit, or personal phones) with any member of the court staff (plaintiff, defendant, or witness). If they are found to do this, they must recuse, and if this becomes a repeated issue, the council is to vote on impeachment. (Repeated meaning 3 instances minimum). \#4: A judge cannot accept bribes of any kind; if they are offered it they must state that it occurred. If a justice accepts a bribe, they must immediately recuse themselves and will immediately go to a judicial trial on keeping their position and criminal charges. A charge is a minimum of a 3-day ban from all teen government servers. And the one responsible for giving the bribes is to continue to trial, and the charge of bribery is to be added. Or if they were the prosecution, they are to continue their trial, but immediately after the case are to be put to their own trial. \#: 4.5:Bribery involves the following: promising someone a political vote/a party recommendation if they vote in their favor, offering someone currency in the economy, and, if the briber is in a government position, granting someone a public advantage (council vote, nomination to a minister position, etc). As this is difficult to ensure, this can only occur with clear and convincing evidence (screenshots, an admission of guilt, etc). \#5: Anyone in a court can, at any moment BEFORE the trial, can make a public poll on whether a judge should be removed. This can only occur in the case a majority agrees on an outcome. This needs a 4/5 majority, as well as a minimum of 10 votes. The vote may only last 1 day maximum. If this is abused multiple times to attempt to remove a justice (3 or more times a day), the one using the polls may be stripped of this right; this can only occur via an Admin of the court, considered under spam and abuse of this right. In the unlikely case this would render all judges recused, then #6 is to occur. \#6: In the case all but 3 (or fewer) of the justices are recused, the justices are to hold a vote on someone to fill in the role as "Special temporary Justice". This vote shall occur after a minimum of 3 users have nominated themselves for this position, done via a Reddit post, and then the justices are to discuss who they believe would be best. They must also write 2 sentences minimum on why they made this choice. Failure to go through with any of these steps requires the process to entirely restart. The justices only have a maximum of 48 hours for this process to not harm the defendant's rights. \#6.5: Council may remove a "Special temporary Justice" at any time with a 2/3 majority vote. This vote cannot occur during the trial, but may occur immediately after the new candidate is decided. Council is required to give 1 sentence on why they want to remove a candidate. In this circumstance, the Justices are to restart their process. \#7: This new justice may be removed from the previous recusal rules, the same as a justice, but may not be put to a public vote on removal. This is simply a replacement for a recused seat; this new justice does not count as an actual justice or as an addition to the justices, and their power is limited 1 trial. \#8: After the trial, in the same section as the criminal records, the justices presiding and any "Special temporary Justice" are to be listed.

Metadata

Internal ID: 177
Bill proposed(Unix Epoch): 1773508775
Proposer: Trickster-123
Original link: https://www.reddit.com/r/TeenGovernment/comments/1rtp4fp/judicial_recusal_and_ethics_act
Approval admin:
Approval link: https://www.reddit.com/r/TeenGovernment/comments/1ruootc/ive_had_perhaps_the_busiest_weekend_of_my_tenure/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
ARPD-Curator: API

Judicial recusal and ethics act

History