Results of SC meeting on Sunday?

Forum to discuss issues pertaining to the organisation and operations of the judiciary.

Moderator: SC Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Bromo Ivory
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1428
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2024 11:38 am

Results of SC meeting on Sunday?

Post by Bromo Ivory »

Does anyone know where I can find the results of the meeting the SC had on Sunday? I'm sure someone simply neglected to post the results - but I do believe that there were enough substantial issues being decided upon, that I'd like to see how the SC ruled.

Thanks in advance if someone posts it! :)

==
"Nenia peno nek provo donos lakton de bovo."

User avatar
Rosie Gray
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 2046
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2010 9:47 am

Re: Results of SC meeting on Sunday?

Post by Rosie Gray »

"Courage, my friend, it's not too late to make the world a better place."
~ Tommy Douglas
User avatar
Bromo Ivory
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1428
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2024 11:38 am

Re: Results of SC meeting on Sunday?

Post by Bromo Ivory »

Thanks - though that's one item on the agenda - is there more?

Glad I am not in the SC...

==
"Nenia peno nek provo donos lakton de bovo."

Beathan
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1364
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 3:42 pm

Re: Results of SC meeting on Sunday?

Post by Beathan »

I thought that was the outcome, too. However, now I am not so sure. Calli indicated that no determination was made and that the meeting involved a decision on what procedure to use to address the Petitions. Lilith's post highlights some relevant legal provisions, but does not apply them or determine an outcome. The proper and fair outcome -- a conditional order requiring retroactive amendment of the voter role on payment of any arrears by jia23 -- would be consistent with the highlighted terms of the agreement when read in light of the UDHR, which is uncited, but applicable, law.

Beathan

Let's keep things simple enough to be fair, substantive enough to be effective, and insightful enough to be good.
User avatar
Bromo Ivory
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1428
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2024 11:38 am

Re: Results of SC meeting on Sunday?

Post by Bromo Ivory »

Beathan wrote:

[..] The proper and fair outcome -- a conditional order requiring retroactive amendment of the voter role on payment of any arrears by jia23 -- would be consistent with the highlighted terms of the agreement when read in light of the UDHR, which is uncited, but applicable, law.

Though if she had the ability to pay in a reasonable amount of time and failed to do so after the typographical error was rectified (It appears from the discussion that this *might* be the case), the case would be pretty darn weak from where I am sitting and wouldn't involve UDHR at all...

==
"Nenia peno nek provo donos lakton de bovo."

Beathan
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1364
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 3:42 pm

Re: Results of SC meeting on Sunday?

Post by Beathan »

Bromo Ivory wrote:
Beathan wrote:

[..] The proper and fair outcome -- a conditional order requiring retroactive amendment of the voter role on payment of any arrears by jia23 -- would be consistent with the highlighted terms of the agreement when read in light of the UDHR, which is uncited, but applicable, law.

Though if she had the ability to pay in a reasonable amount of time and failed to do so after the typographical error was rectified (It appears from the discussion that this *might* be the case), the case would be pretty darn weak from where I am sitting and wouldn't involve UDHR at all...

To me, that would depend on notice. As I understand it, she received no notice that the error had been corrected. She was told to pay; tried to pay; could not pay; had her partner complain about it; and then was never informed that any corrective action was taken. She should have the opportunity to take corrective action -- and I think that a fair opportunity requires notice.

Beathan

Let's keep things simple enough to be fair, substantive enough to be effective, and insightful enough to be good.
User avatar
Bromo Ivory
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1428
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2024 11:38 am

Re: Results of SC meeting on Sunday?

Post by Bromo Ivory »

Beathan wrote:
Bromo Ivory wrote:
Beathan wrote:

[..] The proper and fair outcome -- a conditional order requiring retroactive amendment of the voter role on payment of any arrears by jia23 -- would be consistent with the highlighted terms of the agreement when read in light of the UDHR, which is uncited, but applicable, law.

Though if she had the ability to pay in a reasonable amount of time and failed to do so after the typographical error was rectified (It appears from the discussion that this *might* be the case), the case would be pretty darn weak from where I am sitting and wouldn't involve UDHR at all...

To me, that would depend on notice. As I understand it, she received no notice that the error had been corrected. She was told to pay; tried to pay; could not pay; had her partner complain about it; and then was never informed that any corrective action was taken. She should have the opportunity to take corrective action -- and I think that a fair opportunity requires notice.

Beathan

Agreed - notice vs no notice is the key here. Err on the side of franchise is the way I'd do it, however ... it isn't up to me.

==
"Nenia peno nek provo donos lakton de bovo."

Callipygian
I need a hobby
I need a hobby
Posts: 782
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 9:25 pm

Re: Results of SC meeting on Sunday?

Post by Callipygian »

Beathan wrote:
Bromo Ivory wrote:
Beathan wrote:

[..] The proper and fair outcome -- a conditional order requiring retroactive amendment of the voter role on payment of any arrears by jia23 -- would be consistent with the highlighted terms of the agreement when read in light of the UDHR, which is uncited, but applicable, law.

Though if she had the ability to pay in a reasonable amount of time and failed to do so after the typographical error was rectified (It appears from the discussion that this *might* be the case), the case would be pretty darn weak from where I am sitting and wouldn't involve UDHR at all...

To me, that would depend on notice.As I understand it, she received no notice that the error had been corrected. She was told to pay; tried to pay; could not pay; had her partner complain about it; and then was never informed that any corrective action was taken. She should have the opportunity to take corrective action -- and I think that a fair opportunity requires notice.

Beathan

I'll quote the relevant portion of my posted opinion here, so that Bromo and others can read it, and see what understanding they draw from it. This is information received from Sudane.

Realizing it was an issue of the spelling, Sudane informed them that she would correct the error and let them know. She did so, and jia53 came to the box while Sudane was in-world, to check that it was working. jia53 touched the box and it recognized her, but she did not pay the box. This is known because the system notifies Sudane whenever a payment box is touched.

No payment was received through jia53's tier box by the month end closeout of October 23rd. The next payment cycle when the boxes were open for tier payment ran from October 28th through Nov 23rd. No payment was received through jia53's tier payment box during that cycle either. Therefore, as of Nov 23rd jia53 has never paid tier to the designated tier box establishing her citizenship and would not be eligible to vote, or be counted in the number of citizens used to establish the number of seats on RA.

The complete posting as at http://forums.slcds.info/viewtopic.php? ... 631#p19026

People often say that, in a democracy, decisions are made by a majority of the people. Of course, that is not true. Decisions are made by a majority of those who make themselves heard and who vote -- a very different thing.

Walter H. Judd
Beathan
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1364
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 3:42 pm

Re: Results of SC meeting on Sunday?

Post by Beathan »

It's not clear that that narrative tells the full story. I would want live testimony from, at a minimum, jia 21. I myself have touched the payment box intending to pay -- or thinking that touching it resulted in an autopayment -- only to be informed by Sudane that payment was not received, at which time I paid late. Jia23 may have done that. I think that such an attempt to pay should be a correctable mistake that does not deprive a citizen of the essential rights of citizenship if she pays the arrears at this point.

Perhaps the members of the SC have less respect for the right to vote, as imposed on us by the UDHR, which has Constitutional force, then I do. If so, I consider that a matter for RA oversight of the SC to consider in due course.

I also note that Calli has not been confirmed on the SC by the RA. We should hold a confirming session and question her for that purpose as soon as possible.

I do note that there is currently an automatic confirmation if the RA does not act. This must change. It allows the LRA to confirm controversial candidates for the SC on her own by simply not including a confirmation process on the agenda. We need to implement a requirement that no one can serve on the SC until and unless confirmed by the RA -- with no automatic confirmation. That would prevent the LRA from unilaterally confirming controversial candidates. Arguably, this might allow the LRA to prevent a candidate from being confirmed by never scheduling a confirmation hearing -- but I think such a hearing could be added to the RA agenda on motion from the floor, so that won't be a problem.

Beathan

Let's keep things simple enough to be fair, substantive enough to be effective, and insightful enough to be good.
Post Reply

Return to “Judiciary Discussion”