Legal System (CreepySins)

A legal system is the system in which a foundation creates and enforces their rules. In CreepySins SCPF, the legislative authority is mainly seated with the O5 Council. Executive authority mainly resides with the Ethics Committee and Internal Security Department. The legal system of the foundation is often criticised to be very confusing, as large parts of their laws are outdated or inactive. Some operations defy the legal system entirely.

Legislation

Flowchart of the legislative process of the Administrative Department

The legislative system was reformed on the September 7th, 2024 with the introduction of the Administrative Department through the corresponding policy and founding document. It has introduced two new legislative organs, though only one is a fully fledged one. The Board of Directors was introduced as a true legislative organ, composed of eleven department directors. They are able to introduce motions and vote on them. Though, passed motions must receive approval from the O5 Council to be formall inducted into foundation law, or receive a veto to formally end the legislative case of the motion. The Executive Committee was created as a advisory committee to the Board of Directors, with no true abilities given.

The Office of the Administrator and the Office of the Overseer Council each hold the ability to issue Executive Orders. Executive Orders are pieces of legislature used to issue a specific action, or to create, amend or repent laws. Executive Orders are recorded on the Legislative Records Database. They are taken into effect through signature of the issuing office holder, and are active until repented by one of the two authorised offices. Examples of Executive Orders include legislation to bar Executives from being part of a hostile GOI, orders to create select committees to discuss possible projects, the creation or deletion of new offices, as well as amnesties.

Legislative Classes

The foundation has three legislative documents. The foundation framework is the main legislative document, with the other ones gaining their status through the contents of the framework. The framework is divided into the “Information”, “Getting Started”, “Foundation Policy”, “Executive Policy” and “Council Policy” sections. The former two are generally used for informational purposes. Foundation-, Executive- and Council policy are binding to their target groups. Enforcement bodies of the foundation do not prosecute by the framework, but instead prosecute by clauses of the Foundation Law Book, which is its criminal code. The Foundation Law Book, as its criminal code, provides enforcement bodies with these regulations. The Law Book is generally divided into “General Information”, “Ethical Violations” and “Intelligence Violations”.

The “General Information” section provides enforcement bodies with general information as to how violations are dealt with, along with principle clauses. The Clauses section features four clauses, along with other miscellaneous regulations:

• Supremacy Clause, determining that the foundation framework and foundation law book are the two superior legislative documents of the foundation. Regulations of departments fall out of effect if in conflict with either of these documents. The superiority between the framework and law book is not regulated.
• Ex Post Facto Clause, prohibiting the prosecution of actions that have been outlawed after the action has already concluded, and that amended laws can not be applied to acts occurring before the amendment was enacted. Instead, the law in its old version is to be applied.
• Grandfather Clause, stating that an old law may not be applied to prosecute an action if there is a newer version of the law, or a different younger law taking effect in the situation. This prohibits enforcement bodies from using outdated laws or traditional rules to prosecute personnel.
• Double Jeopardy Clause, allowing each violation to only be prosecuted and punished once, regardless whether the sentence is later appealed or not. This introduces the concept of “prosecutive waste”, saying that the sole attempt of prosecuting a case may be wasted through misconduct. This does not apply to prosecution by enforcement bodies in connection with internal prosecution by department management.

Further, the clauses and regulations make accomplices liable to the same extent as the main violator. Moreover, it creates the jurisdictions of the Internal Monitoring & Enforcement Division and Iota-10, and determines the liability of Studio Staff. It also allows prosecutors to ban Level-0 personnel on-site if they are visibly trolling.

“Ethical Violations” are further divided into violations of minor, moderate and severe intensity. Violations are interdictions, meaning outlawed acts in the foundation. Violating one of these laws may result in prosecution and punishment. Violations are coded in the format VO §X.Y, where X is the subclass of the violation, and Y the violation number. Violations are enumerated in their subclasses.

List of Violations

Paragraphs	Class	Jurisdiction	Punishments	Notes
§§ 1.0–1.2	Minor, Ethical	Ethics Committee*	Formal Warning, up to 4 days** Class-E	Violations committed on the Security Department or Mobile Task Forces team on-site are prosecuted by the Internal Monitoring & Enforcement Division (for SD) and the Iota-10 Task Force (for MTF).
§§ 2.0-2.8	Moderate, Ethical		up to 7 days** Class-E***
§§ 3.0-3.5	Severe, Ethical		up to 9 days** or permanent Class-E
§§ 4.0-4.5; 4.7-4.9	Intelligence	Internal Security Department	Decided by enforcement body, no public legislative restrictions available
§ 4.6		Intelligence Agency
§ 4.10	Studio, Intelligence	Intelligence Agency, Senior Developers, Cyber and Asset Security Division
Asterisks: * The Internal Security Department takes jurisdiction if committed in tandem with a violation of their natural jurisdiction ** With possible 33% extension *** Violations of VO § 2.1.2 (Bigotry) may be punished with up to thirty days Class-E.

The Code of Ethics is the third legislative document, and serves as complimentary to the Law Book. As the clauses of the Law Book only contain vague descriptions of the offense, the Code of Ethics further discriminates and differentiates between specific cases. As such, a law book clause might prohibit misuse of firearms, while the Code of Ethics explains when firearm usage is allowed. Same principle applies to the framework. Though the framework is the highest piece of legislature that also puts the Law Book into effect, it also serves as complimentary to the Law Book.

Enforcement

Member of the Ethics Committee reprimanding someone (June 2022)

The two main enforcement bodies are the Ethics Committee and the Internal Security Department, with the Intelligence Agency, the O5 Council and Senior Developers mostly playing a side role. The Ethics Committee investigates the incident, and then votes internally on a punishment. The processes of the Internal Security Department are unknown to the public. The Ethics Committee is generally bound to the framework when giving out punishments, but is allowed to increase the sentence by up to 33%, or decrease the sentence up to 100%. The result is rounded up to determine the sentence.

After a rogue incident with Overlord172, the O5 Council has introduced the Removal Policy. This forces enforcement bodies to go through multiple steps when issuing Class-E sentences to executives, preventing further rogue incidents. Enforcement bodies typically use Class-Es as punishments, which is equal to a temporary suspension or permanent exclusion from employment by the foundation. For minor violations, enforcement bodies utilise Formal Warnings. Formal Warnings do not have any weight by their own as they are not logged. This allows enforcement bodies to punish a violation without suspending the user. The Internal Security Department may utilise Domestic Security Threat Protocols ("DST Protocol") in cooperation with the Administrator or the Overseer Head if a person represents danger to the foundation's integrity.

Enforcement bodies start an enforcement process by report of a witnessing or third party, or ex officio by knowledge of the incident, most likely gained by direct observation by one of their members. In case of an enforcement body actively witnessing an incident, special protocols are authorised that permit a quicker response. This is done by shortening the enforcement process, such as skipping the investigation. The Ethics Committee utilises this through expedited votes.

Judiciary

Appellate hearing by the Ethics Committee (now decomissioned) around April 2022

The first instance of the judiciary lies with the enforcement bodies. The second instance, appeals, depend on the issuing authority. Multiple authorities are permitted to issue Class-E sentences to enforce laws, however the Ethics Committee and Internal Security Department traditionally take priority in doing so. There are no laws determining priority. Class-E sentences have to be requested. Requests are approved by an approving body. The requestor cannot approve their own request.

Enforcing Authorities

Requesting Body	Approving Body	Jurisdiction over	Legal Basis
Directors (Level-5)	Directors (Level-5)	Ethical Violations	Executive Policies, Enforcement Body Jurisdictions
Executives (Level-4)
Command (Level-3)*			Command Policies
Ethics Committee	Department Management		Enforcement Body Jurisdictions
Internal Security Department		Intelligence Violations
Intelligence Agency
Senior Developers	Undefined	VO § 4.10
O5 Council	O5 Council	All
*The framework gives Command (Level-3) personnel the responsibility to issue Class-Es "when necessary", but does not give them the power to do so. The exact meaning of this clause is unknown.

Each enforcing authority has their own judicial guidelines and processes, as there is no uniform or standardised way to adjudicate violations. Punishments may differ vastly from other enforcing authorities. As Level-3 personnel are not known to request Class-Es, the framework is assumed to be outdated in this aspect. Class-Es are rarely requested by Executives or Directors. The O5 Council regularly issues Class-Es.

Appeals

All Class-Es can be appealed, unless declared unappealable by the Administrator or the O5 Head. Class-Es can be appealed by multiple authorities and offices.

Appealing Authorities

Appealing Body	Jurisdiction over	Legal Basis
Board of Directors	Ethical	Filing of Appeals Policy
Director of Ethics		Executive Policies
Director of Internal Security	Intelligence
O5 Council		Filing of Appeals Policy

The Director of Ethics and Director of Internal Security may only appeal Class-Es that have originated in their respective department. The Director of Internal Security is not permitted to appeal DSTs or Class-Es issued by the Office of Internal Security. The Office of Internal Security is also to be notified of any appeal process within the Internal Security Department. The Board of Directors and O5 Council appeal through a simple majority vote. Appeals by the Board of Directors may be overturned by the O5 Council with a 51% vote. Appealed permanent Class-Es will enter a probationary phase for 6 months, with any other incident warranting another permanent Class-E being automatically upgraded to an unappealable DST warrant.

Pardons, Amnesties

The foundation's legal system does not feature pardons or amnesties in the general sense. The punishment can not be voided without the verdict, appealing a punishment appeals the verdict and removes the incident from the Class-E record. Enforcement bodies have the abilites to pardon, such as the Director of Ethics. These pardons however are handed out before the punitive process is finished. Amnesties are not usually happening, with the only amnesty being the Executive Order #006, issued by CreepySins. This appealed most permanent Class-Es issued prior to 2022.