Legal Framework that Goes With My Catalyst Nomination for Those Interested in Governance

Article 1 (Project Catalyst)—Failure to obey order

A.Text of statute. Any person subject to this chapter who— (1) violates or fails to obey any lawful order or parameter; (2) having knowledge of any other lawful order or parameter issued by a member of circle or a sub-circle, which it is his duty to obey, fails to obey the order; or (3) is derelict in the performance of his duties; shall be punished as a trial by members of catalyst.

B.Elements.
(1) Violation of or failure to obey a lawful order or parameter. (a) That there was in effect a certain lawful order or parameter; (b) That the accused had a duty to obey it; and (c) That the accused violated or failed to obey the order or parameter.

(2)Failure to obey other lawful order or parameter. (a) That a member of circle issued a certain lawful order or parameter; (b) That the accused had knowledge of the order; (c) That the accused had a duty to obey the order; and (d) That the accused failed to obey the order.

(3)Dereliction in the performance of duties. (a) That the accused had certain duties; (b) That the accused knew or reasonably should have known of the duties; and (c) That the accused was (willfully) (through neglect or culpable inefficiency) derelict in the performance of those duties.

C.Explanation.

(1)Violation of or failure to obey a lawful order or parameter.

(a)Authority to issue general orders and regulations. Orders or parameters are those orders or parameters generally issued by members of circle or members of sub-circles which are properly published by the members of circle or the members of a sub-circle.
(b)Effect of change of circle on validity of an election. A general order or parameter issued by a previous version of circle with authority under Article 1 retains its character as an order or parameter when another version of circle begins, until it expires by its own terms or is rescinded by separate action, even if it is issued by an impeached member of circle.
(c)Lawfulness. An order or parameter is lawful unless it is contrary to the spirit of catalyst, the laws of the Cardano Foundation, or lawful superior orders from IOG or for some other reason is beyond the authority of the official issuing it.
(d) Knowledge. Knowledge of an order or parameter need not be alleged or proved as knowledge is not an element of this offense and a lack of knowledge does not constitute a defense.
(e) Enforceability. Not all provisions in orders or parameters can be enforced under Article 1 (1). Parameters which only supply general guidelines or advice for performing catalyst functions may not be enforceable under Article 1 (1).

(2.) Violation of or failure to obey other lawful order.

(a)Scope. Article 1(2) includes all other lawful orders which may be issued by a member of Circle or a Sub-Circle, violations of which are not chargeable under Article 1. It includes the violation of written parameters which are not Circle parameters.
(b)Knowledge. In order to be guilty of this offense, a person must have had actual knowledge of the order or regulation. Knowledge of the order may be proved by circumstantial evidence.
(c) Duty to obey order. Failure to obey the lawful order of a Circle or Sub-Circle is an offense under Article 1(2), provided the accused had a duty to obey the order, such as one issued by a member of IOG.

(3) Dereliction in the performance of duties

(a)Duty. A duty may be imposed by treaty, statute, regulation, lawful order, standard operating procedure, or custom of the Service.
(b)Knowledge. Actual knowledge of duties may be proved by circumstantial evidence. Actual knowledge need not be shown if the individual reasonably should have known of the duties. This may be demonstrated by regulations, training or operating manuals, customs of the Service, academic literature or testimony, testimony of persons who have held similar or superior positions, or similar evidence.
(c)Derelict. A person is derelict in the performance of duties when that person willfully or negligently fails to perform that person’s duties or when that person performs them in a culpably inefficient manner. “Willfully” means intentionally. It refers to the doing of an act knowingly and purposely, specifically intending the natural and probable consequences of the act. “Negligently” means an act or omission of a person who is under a duty to use due care which exhibits a lack of that degree of care which a reasonably prudent person would have exercised under the same or similar circumstances. Culpable inefficiency is inefficiency for which there is no reasonable or just excuse.
(d)Ineptitude. A person is not derelict in the performance of duties if the failure to perform those duties is caused by ineptitude rather than by willfulness, negligence, or culpable inefficiency, and may not be charged under this article, or otherwise punished. For example, a recruit who has tried earnestly during rifle training and throughout record firing is not derelict in the performance of duties if the recruit fails to qualify with the weapon.
(e) Where the dereliction of duty resulted in grievous financial harm, the intent to cause grievous financial harm is not required.

D. Sample specifications

(1) Violation or failure to obey lawful order or parameter. In that __________ (personal jurisdiction data), did, (at/on board—location) (subject-matter jurisdiction data, if required), on or about _____ 20 , (violate) (fail to obey) a lawful general (order) (regulation) which was (his)(her) duty to obey, to wit: paragraph __ (Catalyst) (Order/Parameter), dated ), by (wrongfully_).

(2)Violation or failure to obey other lawful written order or parameter. In that __________ (personal jurisdiction data), having knowledge of a lawful order issued by , to wit: (paragraph, (Catalyst) (Order/Parameter), dated),(________), an order which it was (his) (her) duty to obey, did, (at/location) (subject-matter jurisdiction data, if required), on or about _____ 20 __, fail to obey the same by (wrongfully) _______________________.

Can Find My Basic Platform Here: Kevin Mohr - Platform Statement

Feel free to critique and add feedback. This is a work in progress. Even if it is as simple as changing a word here and there.

What exactly is this supposed to be?

What problem does it solve?

Who should pass this “law” to bind whom? Which executive body should enforce it? And which judicial body should decide if it is employed correctly?

Also: I think my English is not that bad, but I can hardly comprehend this, can’t even decide if it is proper Legalese or only a good simulation of Legalese.

If there is a problem (see second question above) that has to be solved by rules, can you formulate these rules in plain(er) English?

2 Likes

Apparently I have to type here?

Because you didn’t close the quotes of my text, but included your answer inside, so that it appears as if it is part of the quote.

The idea is that you only select a small snippet of a post and then reply to that below the [/quote].

I am not familiar with that case. Can you please enlighten us what that was and which other cases you see possible in Catalyst?

Ah, that explains the strange language – “obey order”. You sure that that is appropriate for Cardano/Catalyst? We do not have a chain of command, where someone issues “orders”.

Okay, so Catalyst already had cases, where there was a need to play criminal court of justice? It is worse than I thought.

Can you begin with a requirements analysis? Which events should be regulated? A proposer lying in their proposal? A proposer failing to deliver? Clearly evidenced fraud?

1 Like

I am not familiar with that case. Can you please enlighten us what that was and which other cases you see possible in Catalyst?

Yes. This was a case in which Mr. Fernando was accused of abusing his power as a vPA to promote his proposals and discredit or give unfair reviews to other proposals in the same category. A petition was made in attempt to rectify this but there was no basis to prosecute him due to a lack of legal framework. Many saw issues with the way the trial was being handled and thus Mr. Fernando was acquitted but in reality it was a huge mistrial. If this Article 1 existed, then there would be something that Mr. Fernando could have been charged with. That being failure to obey an order and the order being vPA’s will give accurate and fair assessments.

You sure that that is appropriate for Cardano/Catalyst? We do not have a chain of command, where someone issues “orders”

This has been brought up before. The word can be changed to a “guideline” or something of a lesser degree. The reason the word “order” is used right now is because I am also seeking to expand the power of Circle and give Circle the powers to make quick Fund Changing Decisions if need be. In the case that an unforeseen issue arises, Circle can issue an “order” even if not written down like a “Guideline” in order to fix the problem.

Can you begin with a requirements analysis? Which events should be regulated? A proposer lying in their proposal? A proposer failing to deliver? Clearly evidenced fraud?

Yes, so in this case in order to bring a charge the elements have to be met in Section B(1), B(2), or B(3). So, if I am interpreting what you are saying correctly, the requirements analysis would be seeing if one of those elements matches the grievance/crime. If not, then one cannot prosecute under this Article. Now in terms of regulating events, I have started with the broadest of UCMJ articles and applied it to Catalyst because I do not know for sure what should be regulated and what should not. I imagine that we would not like lying or fraud in our community so if the community would like we can make more specific articles for that. However, I am not too sure about failing to deliver. This is an experimental environment and there will be projects that fail.

No, I meant a requirements analysis what kind of statute/code is needed.

I do not understand at all, why you take a military code as blueprint and not something from the civilian sector.

And I do not see how that wall of text above makes anything more clear. Interesting in the context of Catalyst would be: Who judges? What are the possible punishments? …

Everything that seems to be answered by your proposed article could, as far as I can see, be simply stated by: “The Circle can punish people if they do not follow the Circle’s guidelines. Period.”

1 Like

No, I meant a requirements analysis what kind of statute/code is needed.

Ehh, well this is Catalyst so any sort of statute/code is needed. Can’t really keep just doing mob rule.

I do not understand at all, why you take a military code as blueprint and not something from the civilian sector.

I took military code because it is broad and can be played with in an easier manner than civilian code. I am also used to working with it. If we want, we can take legal code from the civilian sector where standards of proof are much higher, and we can just argue all day about the most minute details, but standards of evidence are typically lower with military law and are probably more practical in this evolving ecosystem.

And I do not see how that wall of text above makes anything more clear. Interesting in the context of Catalyst would be: Who judges? What are the possible punishments? …

Yeah idk who judges and idk possible punishments. I would rather have community consensus on how that stuff should be carried out. Yet I get very little back from this community usually. In terms of making things clearer, from a legal perspective it does because you have a defined charge. If you have no set standard language for a charge you can’t identify a crime. You can only say you subjectively feel like something is wrong.

Everything that seems to be answered by your proposed article could, as far as I can see, be simply stated by: “The Circle can punish people if they do not follow the Circle’s guidelines. Period.”

Yes this is true. This power is very broad. It can be whittled down if needed but this gives power to Circle to essentially set parameters and enforce them. It also gives the community power to put a check on Circle though if they do not follow their own rules. Right now, circle is an empty organization without really the power to do anything. It is simply a way for the community to communicate with IOG and nothing more.