Due Process

Subsection 1: Investigation

For the purposes of this subsection, the terms investigating officer and sentencing officer will be used;

• Investigating officer shall refer to:

  • A constituent of the Ethics Committee investigating a particular case.

  • Any rank or body of a department that holds authority over subordinate members of the department, or that wields investigate power regarding misconduct.

• Sentencing officer shall refer to:

  • A constituent of the Ethics Committee authorized to approve indictments and render punitive penalties.

  • Any rank or body of a department that holds authority over subordinate members of the department, or that wields investigate power regarding misconduct, superior or of equal rank to the investigating officer.

1. Upon ascertainment of inculpatory evidence, the evidence must be analyzed for all applicable charges afforded by the law. Questions posed by the evidence that are unanswered shall be noted for future questioning of witnesses and the accused, such as:
   a. What were the circumstances or context of the actions observed? (e.g. the events leading up to the investigated actions or the accused’s reasons for their actions)

2. When context, circumstances, and intent are inexplicit from the evidence's face value, testimony is a vital resource for obtaining corroborating information and other details surrounding the case.
   a. It is advised that all witnesses be questioned beforehand to ensure the case is fully realized and understood prior to questioning the accused.

3. When the case has been effectively and finally investigated, the investigating officer shall submit a report for the reading and approval of a sentencing officer.

Subsection 2: Sentencing

For the purpose of this subsection, sentencing guidelines refer to the applicable punishments and range of duration attached in each section of chapters 1 and 2.

1. The Ethics Committee or Department Command shall sentence an individual only upon an indictment that may pass the test of the courts.
   a. The test of the courts shall refer to a standard in which a given case would most likely be upheld by the Internal Tribunal Department under the possibility of appeal by the accused.

2. The Ethics Committee or Department Command shall impose sentences usually within the range of sentencing guidelines dictated in the relevant charges. The determined sentence shall be imposed with consideration of the guilty act and guilty mind doctrine to determine criminal liability.

• The guilty act doctrine refers to the physical act or unlawful omission that constitutes a crime, in the form of:

  • Voluntary action (conscious & voluntary movement, not reflexes);

  • Omission (failing to act when it is a legal duty);

  • Circumstances & Results (some crimes require not only an act but also that the act produces a specific result, such as causing death in a murder case).

• The guilty mind doctrine refers to the mental state or intent of the accused at the time of committing the guilty act. It reflects the subjective mindset and culpability of the individual, in the form of:

  • Intent/Purpose (acting with the deliberate objective of bringing about a specific result);

  • Knowledge (awareness that the actions would likely lead to a particular result);

  • Recklessness (the disregard of a substantial and unjustifiable risk, acting with a conscious awareness of the risk);

  • Negligence (failing to exercise reasonable care, resulting in harm).

a. Illegal actions committed with factors of intent, knowledge, or irrational and unreasonable circumstances and context shall increase the appropriate    sentence. In some cases where there is illegal intent, knowledge of illegality, and irrational or unreasonable circumstances and context, a sentence that exceeds the sentencing guidelines range is appropriate.
b. Illegal actions committed without factors of intent, knowledge, or irrational and unreasonable circumstances and context shall decrease the appropriate sentence.
c. When new personnel are indicted, education shall be prioritized over penalization when there is a lack of intent and knowledge. In this case, a penalty below the sentencing guidelines may be appropriate.

3. The Ethics Committee shall sentence an individual with the highest reprimand in the event that there are multiple charges in the violation report.

• This is not applicable to Department Command.

4. Stacked charges and penalties shall be prohibited for typical ethical infractions of Chapter 1. This prohibits the following:
   a. Addition of charges in an indictment that is legally supplemental, such as murder and assault being simultaneously charged for the killing of one person.
   b. In indictments with multiple charges, the penalties of the charges will not be added up. The highest penalizing charge will prevail in sentencing.
   c. There shall be exceptions to this rule as follows:
   i. This rule does not apply to high crimes under Chapter 2.

This section contains the law governing the Foundation's appellate courts. Its purpose is to ensure the courts' consistent, fair, and objective conduct and to enshrine their authority.

The statutes of this section are expectations levied upon the Internal Tribunal Department's courts blanketly. Tribunal Command is responsible for implementing systems and internal procedures that apply those statutory expectations, satisfy them, and self-assess the effectiveness and fairness of the court proceedings.

The judicial power shall be primarily vested in an Internal Tribunal Department and exercised in accordance with the rules of this section alongside internal regulations. 

§2.1. Judicial Structure

1. Judiciary or Judicial Branch shall refer to all courts of the Internal Tribunal Department.

2. Judiciaries shall refer to any personnel of the judiciary of any rank.

3. In this judicial system, there shall be two forms of subject-matter jurisdiction—the power of a court to adjudicate a particular type of matter and provide the remedy demanded:

   1. Original jurisdiction refers to a court's authority to adjudicate a matter for the first time before any other court.

   2. Review jurisdiction refers to a court's authority to review a judgment or order by a lower court.

§2.1.1. Superior Court of Appeal

Rule 1. — Authority

A. Hierarchical Position of This Court.
The Superior Court—officially the Superior Court of Appeal—is the highest court within the Internal Tribunal Department, with ultimate authority—aside from the O5 Council—to review lower court rulings and adjudicate matters in its original jurisdiction.
B. Original Jurisdiction of This Court.
(1) Appeals of sensitive nature, including internal AAC matters, anomaly acting matters, and Council penalties which the court is granted permission to hear.
(2) Appeals of disciplinary action internally imposed in the Public Counsel Branch;
(3) Disciplinary hearings on judiciaries of lower courts.
C. Review Jurisdiction of This Court.
(1) Interlocutory appeals advanced from the Circuit Court;
(2) Appeals of final judgment advanced from the Circuit Court;
(3) Challenges of precedents established by the Circuit Court.

Rule 2. — Composition

A. Superior Court Bench.
The Superior Court comprises five justices: one Chief Justice and four High Justices. Individuals appointed to this court are highly competent and have extensive judicial experience.
B. Case Panels.
Depending on the case, one, three, or all five of the Justices may be impaneled to adjudicate.

§2.1.2. Circuit Court of Appeal

Rule 3. — Authority

A. Hierarchical Position of This Court. 
The Circuit Court—officially Circuit Court of Appeal—is an intermediary appellate court, superior to the Magistrates' Court and subordinate to the Superior Court.
B. Original Jurisdiction of This Court.
(1) COE infractions carrying a sentence above the jurisdiction of the Magistrates' Court;
(2) Departmental infractions carrying a sentence above the jurisdiction of the Magistrates' Court;
(3) Command Standard Ordinance violations.
C. Review Jurisdiction of This Court.
(1) Interlocutory appeals advanced from the Magistrates' Court;
(2) Appeals of final judgment advanced from the Magistrates' Court.

Rule 4. — Composition

A. Circuit Court Bench.
The Circuit Court is comprised of an unrestricted number of Appellate Judges. Individuals appointed to this court have garnered judicial experience and demonstrated competent judgeship.
B. Case Panels.
One or three judges may be impaneled to adjudicate depending on the case. 

§2.1.3. Magistrates' Court of Appeal

Rule 5. — Authority

A. Hierarchical Position of This Court.
The Magistrates' Court—officially Magistrates' Court of Appeal—is the lowest appellate court with jurisdiction over minor matters.
B. Original Jurisdiction of This Court.
(1) COE infractions carrying a sentence of suspension equal to or less than 48 hours, and all less severe penalties;
(2) Departmental infractions carrying a sentence of suspension equal to or less than 48 hours, and all less severe penalties.

Rule 6. — Composition

A. Magistrates' Court Branch.
The Magistrates' Court is comprised of an unrestricted number of Magistrates. Individuals appointed to this court are junior judiciaries handling cases in accordance with their qualifications and development.
B. Case Panels
One judge may be impaneled to adjudicate depending on the case.

§2.2. Appellant Rights

Rule 7. — Right to Fair Proceedings

A. Appellants have the right for their case to be heard by an impartial and unbiased tribunal.
B. Appellants have a right to timely proceedings without unnecessary delays.
C. Appellants have a right to trained and certified legal counsel or may waive this right by opting to go pro se—representing themselves.
D. Appellants have a right to fair and consistent application of court procedure.

Rule 8. — Right to Evidence

A. Appellants have the right to access all evidence and documents relevant to their case, including court records.
B. Appellants have a right to the discovery process and the opportunity to build a case.

Rule 9. — Right to Present Arguments

A. Appellants have the right to file pre-hearing motions and dispute pre-hearing matters when done in a timely manner.
B. Appellants have the right to argue against all opposing party's motions in writing.
C. Appellants have the right to present oral arguments before the tribunal in hearings.
D. Appellants have the right to rebut the arguments of the opposing party in accordance with court procedure.

Rule 10. — Right to a Reasoned Decision

A. Appellants have the right to a written decision by the court involved, detailing the reasoning and legal basis for rulings and judgments.
B. Appellants have the right to be informed of the outcome of their appeal in a timely manner.

Rule 11. — Right to Further Appeal

A. Appellants have the right to motion a court to reconsider a ruling claimed to be erroneous or baseless and argue against such rulings.
B. Appellants have the right to appeal lower court orders to a higher court, which are claimed to be erroneous and impact the outcome of the appeal, through interlocutory appeals as permitted by court procedure.
C. Appellants have a right to appeal final judgments to a higher court with grounds that substantially question the disputed outcome, as permitted by court procedure.

§2.3. Procedural Law

§2.3.1. Appeal of Punitive Action

Rule 12. — Definition and Scope

An appeal of punitive action is an appeal of a penalty or action against a member of the Foundation or a department for alleged violations of Foundation law, departmental regulations, or other policies. This appeal shall be filed to the courts following the laws of original jurisdiction (see §2.1). Corresponding with the appeal, a court may uphold, modify, or appeal charges imposed and their associated penalties.

Rule 13. — Grounds

A. Apparent Claim of Grounds.
Appeals require grounds to be considered. Appeals cannot be filed to the judiciary arbitrarily or to delay punishment. The appellant requires a cohesive argument for their appeal to be successful.
B. Grounds for Appeal.
An appellant may petition for appeal on the following grounds:
(1) Misapplication of law;
(2) Procedural violations;
(3) Unreasonable sentencing;
(4) New evidence;
(5) Evidence not proving the allegations.
The elements to prove these claims are elaborated on in Rule 14.

Rule 14. — Burdens

A. Definitions.
(1) Burdens, in this legal context, refer to a default expectation placed upon a particular side to establish their claim(s) as factual legally.
(2) Standard of proof refers to "the standard that a party seeking to prove a fact in court must satisfy to have that fact legally established."
(3) Preponderance of the evidence is a standard of proof requiring a judge to believe the existence of a fact is more probable than its nonexistence. Therefore, this burden of proof is satisfied when a judge is convinced there is a greater than 50% chance that the claim is true.
(4) Clear and convincing evidence is a standard of proof requiring a judge to believe the existence of a fact is highly and substantially more likely to be true than untrue. Therefore, this burden of proof is satisfied when a judge is convinced there is a ~75% chance that the claim is true.
B. General Provisions.
(1) The standard of proof varies depending on the nature of the grounds of appeal;
(2) The appellee must respond to the appellant's claims.
C. Burdens on a Claim of Misapplication of Law.
(1) The appellant must demonstrate that the law was incorrectly applied to the facts of the case.
(2) The burden of proof is on the appellant to show clear and convincing evidence that an error in the application of law materially affected the case outcome, and the charges are invalid as a matter of law.
(3) The appellee must counter this by showing that the law was applied correctly, any error was harmless, and the charges are still valid as a matter of law.
D. Burdens on a Claim of Procedural Violations.
(1) The appellant must specifically identify procedural violations that occurred during the original disciplinary proceedings, which, if proven, guarantee a favorable judgment as a matter of law.
(2) With claims of violations of the R.E.A.L Act, the appellee has the burden of proof to produce records of compliance with the act.
E. Burdens on a Claim of Unreasonable Sentencing.
(1) The appellant must demonstrate how the sentence imposed was excessively harsh or inappropriate given the circumstances, as dictated by laws and regulations.
(2) The burden of proof is upon the appellant to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the sentencing was excessively harsh or inappropriate given the circumstances.
(3) The appellee must counter this by showing that the sentence was legally permissible and justified by the facts.
F. Burdens on a Claim of New Evidence.
(1) The appellant must present new evidence unavailable during the original disciplinary proceedings.
(2) The burden of proof is on the appellant to show clear and convincing new evidence that warrants remedies as a matter of law or fact.
(3) The appellee must counter by showing that the new evidence is not material, contradicts the Rules of Evidence, or does not affect the outcome of the case.
G. Burdens on a Claim of Evidence Not Proving the Allegations.
(1) The appellant must demonstrate how the evidence used does not substantiate the alleged facts of the case, and the charges are invalidated as a matter of fact.
(2) The burden of proof is on the appellant to prove clearly and convincingly that the evidence used in disciplinary proceedings does not substantiate the charges as a matter of fact.
(3) The appellee must counter by showing that their evidence is not undermined and prove the allegations. 

Rule 15. — Filing Requirements

A. Filing Deadline. 
All petitions for appeal must be submitted to the Tribunal within 21 days of the issue date of the disputed punitive action.
B. Separation of Distinct Matters.
The appellant must file separate petitions for each distinct case. These petitions cannot be merged and must each be heard separately if granted.
C. Frivolous or Baseless Petitions. 
The appellant must genuinely believe in their appeal and its contents. Frivolous or baseless appeals are grounds for dismissal with prejudice and further court sanctions in some circumstances.
D. Compliance with Court Mandated Formatting. 
The appellant must petition the court in accordance with formats and content expectations in court procedure.

Rule 16. — Outcomes of Petitioning

A. Granting Review.  
A petition may be advanced by the court if the following elements are satisfied:
(1) Prima facie validity—On its face, the claim is a legitimate ground for appeal recognized by statute.
(2) Potential merit—There is any reasonable possibility that the grounds could be substantiated through further argumentation and evidence.
(3) Non-frivolous nature—The petition appears to be submitted in good faith and there is a coherent argument against the action.
(4) Relevent to the outcome—The claim, if substantiated, has the potential to tangibly change the outcome of the disputed action, either on the matter of guilt or severity of penalty.
B. Dismissal with Prejudice. 
Assuming the aforementioned elements are not satisfied OR the petition is filed past the deadline, the petition shall be dismissed with prejudice.
C. Dismissal without Prejudice. 
A petition may be dismissed without prejudice when it has rectifiable errors and the court is willing to receive and consider it when it is rectified.

Rule 17. — Final Judgments on Punitive Appeals

Final judgments are imposed by the judiciaries hearing the appeal either on the merits or by a default judgment.
A. Judgment on the Merits.
(1) If the appellant's claims have been substantiated according to the standards of proof in Rule 14, the penalty may be appealed or modified according to the claims and the court's findings. The specific outcome and court-ordered penalty, or appeal of such, shall be determined accordingly:
(i) When the court finds that the charges are invalid and the appellant is guilty of no other violations, the penalty shall be entirely appealed.
(ii) When the court finds that the charges are invalid and other charges are more appropriate, the charges and penalty may be modified accordingly.
(iii) When the court finds that the penalties themselves are unreasonable, they may be modified to an appropriately usual and legal penalty based on previous cases with comparable matters.
(2) If the appellant's claims have NOT been substantiated, the penalty disputed shall be upheld.
(3) Through evidence ascertained during the case, the court may realize other grounds that the appellant did not notice or claim. In this case, assuming the findings can be substantiated by the corresponding grounds' standard of proof, the court may decide based on its conclusions regardless of whether it was initially claimed.
B. Default Judgment. 

§2.3.2. Interlocutory Appeal

Rule 18. — Definition and Scope

An interlocutory appeal is an appeal of an order and ruling by a lower court to the immediate higher court on pre-hearing matters. This appeal may be filed to dispute orders and rulings contradicting law or court procedure.

Rule 19. — Criteria

An interlocutory appeal will only be permitted when:
(1) The matter appealed involves a controlling question of law — a legal issue that can significantly affect the resolution of a case.
(2) The matter appealed is conclusive on the issue.
(3) The matter appealed is collateral to the merits.
(4) The court hearing the case has denied a motion to reconsider the matter, and the court has been notified that an interlocutory appeal will be filed.

Rule 20. — Filing Deadline
An interlocutory appeal must be submitted to the immediate higher court within 12 hours of the disputed order being imposed.

§2.3.3. Appeal of Final Judgment

Rule 21. — Definition and Scope

Appellants are guaranteed a right to appeal final judgments of a lower court up until the Superior Court. Appeals of a final judgment are not merely a rehearing of the case; they dispute specific errors the lower court claimed to have made.

Rule 22. — Criteria

A final judgment may only be appealed to a higher court when there is a judicial error which is more likely than not to pose a miscarriage of justice. Examples include:
(1) Violation of rights;
(2) Misinterpretation or misapplication of law;
(3) Procedural errors.

Rule 23. — Appeal Deadline
Parties must appeal final judgment within seven days of the disputed decision.

§2.4. Judicial Canons

Rule 24. — Code of the Appellate Court
(a) All court proceedings shall obey the Code of the Appellate Court produced by the Superior Court and approved by the O5 Council. (b) The Code of the Appellate Court shall be within the Internal Tribunal Department Rulebook. (c) Through internal deliberation, the Superior Court may amend the Code of the Appellate Court.

Rule 25. — Integrity
(a) Judiciaries participating in proceedings must uphold the highest standards of impartiality and ethical conduct. (b) It is an essential responsibility of judiciaries to recuse themself from cases where personal bias or conflict of interest is clear or would be broadly perceived as such to maintain confidence in the judiciary. (c) Acting on biases or with conflicts of interest prompts disciplinary action and criminal penalties under COE 6.2.3—Abuse of Power. (d) The Superior Court must promptly address bias, conflict of interest, or ethical misconduct within the Judiciary.

Rule 26. — Seating Requirements
(a) It is a statutory requirement that all proceedings in any court be heard and deliberated by an odd number of justices to prevent decision deadlock in an even-numbered panel. (b) Any proceedings that occur with an even number of seated justices for the matter are invalid and must be remanded.

§2.5. Precedent

Rule 27. — Principle of Precedent

As the facilitator of the appellate system and the application of law, the Judiciary observes precedent established by a court's decisions which are a matter of law. This guarantees a system of consistency and reasonable deference, ensuring that decided topics do not have to be continuously revisited.

Rule 28. — Standing of Precedent

Judicial precedent does not officially dictate the practices of a department, rather it stands as guidelines for the administration of reprimand or otherwise related disciplinary actions. While department command are not required to review precedent before delivering any given reprimand, if any punishment violates existing precedent, that punishment will be easily appealed in a court of law. If department command frequently deliver reprimands that violate precedent, their competence is at the scrutiny of their Overseer or the Audit & Accountability Committee.

Rule 29. — Hierarchy of Precedent

Judicial precedent can be established at various levels throughout the Internal Tribunal Department, and so a hierarchy of value for each precedent drawn from cases handled by the Tribunal is established. In a court of law, the cogence of a referenced precedent will depend on the applicability and court from which the precedent was given. While precedents established in a lower court do not necessarily become void or less meaningful in certain contexts, they can be overruled by a higher court if deemed necessary, or logical.

§2.6. Disciplinary Integrity Proceedings

Rule 30. — Definition and Scope

Disciplinary Integrity Proceedings may be employed by the Judiciary to probe and refer violations of disciplinary and due process regulations by command and enforcement authorities. Including, but not limited to violations of the REAL Act, the statutory rights of appellants, etc.

Rule 31. — Grounds

Subsequent to a complaint or a violation being realized on its face, probable cause supporting that a violation occurred is required for proceedings to occur.

Rule 32. — Referral

Through the findings of the proceedings, the court may refer the case to the Ethics Committee for sentencing when there is clear and convincing evidence supporting the findings and there is a prospect for approval of sentencing.

Subsection 1: Written Warning

1. Written warnings are imposed by sentencing officers of the Ethics Committee, typically for minor ethical infractions conducted by staff with none or minimal ethical infractions.

2. All written warnings are logged and remain on record in perpetuity unless appealed.

Subsection 2: Foundation Suspension

1. Foundation suspensions are imposed by sentencing officers of the Ethics Committee for major crimes or repeated minor ethical infractions typically of the same charge.

2. Foundation suspensions must be temporary. Indefinite or permanent clearance suspensions are prohibited.

3. While active, this penalty removes all of the offender's clearance, permissions, responsibilities, and authority. The offender must not serve in any official capacity.

4. All foundation suspensions are logged and remain on record in perpetuity unless appealed.

Subsection 3: Foundation Blacklist

1. Foundation blacklists are imposed by sentencing officers of the Ethics Committee, with the approval of the Ethics High Command, typically for high crimes or staff with a consistent criminal record and no apparent intent of correction.

2. Permanent foundation blacklists sought by the Ethics Committee require approval of the O5 Council by an adopted resolution.

3. When imposed, the offender's clearance and positions are revoked and reclassified to Class D. While active, the offender is barred from obtaining clearance or any positions in the Foundation.

a. All clearance and positions lost resulting from the foundation blacklist are not re-obtained upon expiration of the blacklist. They are lost until they are re-obtained through standard means of progression.

4. All foundation blacklists are logged and remain on record in perpetuity unless appealed.

Subsection 4: Administrative Blacklist

1. Administrative Blacklists are imposed by the O5 Council, typically following an investigation and referral by the Internal Security Department for a high crime or administrative violation.

2. When imposed, the offender’s ranks under the command echelons are revoked. While active, the offender is barred from obtaining any command positions.

a. All positions lost resulting from the administrative blacklist are not re-obtained upon expiration of the blacklist. They are lost until they are re-obtained through standards means of progression.

3. All administrative blacklists are logged and remain on record in perpetuity unless appealed.

Subsection 5: Command Expulsion

1. Command expulsion is imposed by the O5 Council, typically following an investigation and referral by the Internal Security Department for a high crime or administrative violation.

2. When imposed, the offender’s ranks under the command echelons are revoked.

3. All command expulsions are logged and remain on record in perpetuity unless appealed.

Subsection 6: Miscellaneous Punishments

1. Miscellaneous punishments are imposed by sentencing officers of Department Command.

2. When imposed, the offender is required to follow any instructions given by the sentencing officer to continue performing their duties.

3. All miscellaneous punishments are logged and remain on record in perpetuity unless appealed.