Proposed temporal residency requirements for judges

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

Moderator: SC Moderators

Diderot Mirabeau
Master Word Wielder
Master Word Wielder
Posts: 453
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Fiat justitia , ruat coelum

Post by Diderot Mirabeau »

[quote="michelmanen":1f018n6k]By the way, as Site Administrator, could you please let me know if you are aware why my status has suddenly changed from two owls to one?[/quote:1f018n6k]

I have no idea how the owl system works. It was implemented by Gwyneth. Presumably it is a relative calculation of the number of your posts in relation to the total number of posts or those of the top poster - both a number, which has increased exponentially in recent days.

Incidentally, I find it strange that you expect an answer from me yet refuse to answer the perfectly straightforward questions that I have put forward.

Accusing me bluntly of "demoting your status" in order to get back at you is really a low point in your mud-slinging attack on me. You could have all of my owls if I could give them to you - I don't really care much for outwardly symbols of status unlike you it seems.

michelmanen
I need a hobby
I need a hobby
Posts: 812
Joined: Sun Nov 19, 2006 2:53 am

Residents and citizens

Post by michelmanen »

The amendment you mention is quite recent and (as you quite rightly pointed out previously) introduces an internal inconsistency in the Constitution. I, for one, would welcome a debate on this issue, at the appropriate time and place.

This, however, changes nothing as to how this argument is currently being manipulated by some for their own purposes -in order to ensure that the Judiciary Act cannot be implemented and, therefore, be seen as a failure by citizens at large in the build-up to the upcoming RA elections. This is the crux of the matter. The sustained personal attacks I have been subjected to because I dared apply for a judgeship position, while reprehensible, remain secondary to the critical point: the attempt to prevent by any by any means necessary the possibility that our democratically legitimated Judicature Act may prove its worth in practice.

michelmanen
I need a hobby
I need a hobby
Posts: 812
Joined: Sun Nov 19, 2006 2:53 am

Owls

Post by michelmanen »

Thank you for your explanation, Diderot. I apologise for my unwarranted accusation. It was wrong of me to do so without knowing all the facts. I made a mistake. I shall be more careful from now onwards.

Gxeremio Dimsum
Veteran debater
Veteran debater
Posts: 205
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2006 6:37 pm

Post by Gxeremio Dimsum »

Since everyone is outing themselves, or trying to "expose" the motivations of others, let me be clear what my motivations in this situation are.

When the Judiciary Act was being debated, I didn't take great interest. I would say in general I trusted the RA to make reasonable decisions. Around that time I suggested a new path for the CDS that would allow a more flexible and open system that might hopefully draw in many different groups and allow for local autonomy, with the goal of eventually establishing a CDS-linked Esperanto-language community. My proposal for an overarching CDS Constitution included proposals for and a defense of an active judiciary that would be a real draw for people to join the CDS.

However, in recent weeks it has become obvious that this system was not designed for my benefit, nor for the benefit of the vast majority of CDS citizens. It was designed for RL lawyers, who not only feel they alone may create the system, but that they alone are capable of taking part in it. Oh, and guess who gets to pay for it? Us unenlightened non-lawyers. At first I thought these outcomes were bugs in the proposed system, but the person who created it seems to see them as features which must be preserved at all costs.

So, with this new information, my interest in and response to the issue is considerably stronger than it was during the original debate. I have no interest in driving Michel or Ash or Patroklus away from participation in government, though I'm not sure the same is true about their desire for me and others. The proponents seem to be saying, alternately:
- Give it time to work - i.e. become too entrenched to change.
- We can't change course without making the RA look foolish - though marching over a cliff just because you've already started walking towards it seems infinitely more foolish.
- We must respect that this was democratically passsed - though clearly not all the information was in at that time, and its passage threatens the existence of at least one other democratically-created institution (the SC)
- The system must be so clear that there is no confusion about how it works - but this "clarity" results in a document that only a few people are likely to ever read in its entirety.
- A system of lawyers is a boon to the service economy - though who is being served and who is being fleeced seems quite different to me than to those supporting the system.

Have I missed any of the main points?

I was not nearly as staunch an opponent of this Act as I have become, because the information and responses raise my level of concern rather than assuaging my concerns.

At least one good result is I finally crossed the threshold of 50 posts to become a "seasoned debater" on my forum description. :)

Diderot Mirabeau
Master Word Wielder
Master Word Wielder
Posts: 453
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 6:28 am

Post by Diderot Mirabeau »

Gxeremio thanks for your account of where you stand in relation to the Judiciary Act and congratulations passing the watermark for a new fine title :-)

With your permission I'd like to inform the present debate in the Simplicity Party forum with your remarks since we are currently trying to formulate a constructive agenda for how to alleviate the present situation. Feel free to chime in yourself if you feel sympathetic to our general cause - if you're not already a member I believe the group is open for anyone to join.

User avatar
Patroklus Murakami
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1929
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2006 5:54 pm

Post by Patroklus Murakami »

[quote="Gxeremio Dimsum":fq2ndr2y]When the Judiciary Act was being debated, I didn't take great interest. I would say in general I trusted the RA to make reasonable decisions.[/quote:fq2ndr2y]Thank you for being honest Gx about your involvement when the JA was being debated. I think this is true for a number of the people who've joined the discussion as it has flared up recently and is part of the reason why it has occasionally got heated. (Please note that I'm not blaming anybody for this, it's just an observation). The strongest voices raised against the JA are coming from people who weren't here when the debate took place or who had RL commitments that took them away from SL temporarily or who, like you, didn't take a great interest. I understand that it can make you feel angry and powerless when decisions are taken that you don't feel you had a chance to influence (for whatever reason).
[quote:fq2ndr2y] I have no interest in driving Michel or Ash or Patroklus away from participation in government, though I'm not sure the same is true about their desire for me and others.[/quote:fq2ndr2y]I have no desire to drive you, or anyone else away from participation in government. But I don't agree with you and I see no reason not so say so.
[quote:fq2ndr2y]The proponents seem to be saying, alternately:
- Give it time to work - i.e. become too entrenched to change.[/quote:fq2ndr2y]What is wrong with giving a new system some time to work? My main problem with those of you who wish to rip up the JA and start again is that you are trying to ensure that this system is stillborn. It is unfair and disrespectful to those of us who did participate in the development of the JA and who spent thousands of hours working on this.
[quote:fq2ndr2y]- We can't change course without making the RA look foolish - though marching over a cliff just because you've already started walking towards it seems infinitely more foolish.[/quote:fq2ndr2y]You misrepresent my argument. My point is that people need to stand by the decisions they make and defend them, even when under pressure. If the RA were to 'flip flop', reversing a firm decision they made three times, unanimously, they would look like idiots in my opinion. I'm trying to goad them into defending what they passed :). We are not walking towards a cliff edge, that is hyperbole.
[quote:fq2ndr2y]- We must respect that this was democratically passsed - though clearly not all the information was in at that time, and its passage threatens the existence of at least one other democratically-created institution (the SC)[/quote:fq2ndr2y]Don't we need to respect the fact that this was democratically passed? Do you want to live in a society where the legislature reverses its position every couple of weeks? I don't. The information is never all in, you have to make decisions based on imperfect knowledge all the time. In any case, I'm not aware of any new information which should alter this decision. And the SC is not threatened, in my opinion.
[quote:fq2ndr2y]- The system must be so clear that there is no confusion about how it works - but this "clarity" results in a document that only a few people are likely to ever read in its entirety.[/quote:fq2ndr2y]I've yet to read the Code of Procedures. If the problems you identify are serious enough we can fix them.
[quote:fq2ndr2y]- A system of lawyers is a boon to the service economy - though who is being served and who is being fleeced seems quite different to me than to those supporting the system.[/quote:fq2ndr2y]Any system of justice is going to attract lawyers, should we be without one to save ourselves from them?

[quote:fq2ndr2y]At least one good result is I finally crossed the threshold of 50 posts to become a "seasoned debater" on my forum description. :)[/quote:fq2ndr2y]Congratulations!

User avatar
Fernando Book
Forum Admin
Forum Admin
Posts: 92
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2006 2:39 pm

Post by Fernando Book »

A land developer arrives in a city with a project to build a resort. The city council studies it, opens the project to public scrutiny, makes some changes, and finally approves it. But when the actual construction stars, the citizens begin to notice there will be a tall building in the beach. And while in the first instance they look only to the building, after that they begin to research the whole project and find a lot of problems, and it's a matter of days to have some Greenpeace guys hanging in the facade with a "demolition" banner.

[img:3k0kxpqn]http://www.cabodegata.net/assets/ultimasoaa.jpg[/img:3k0kxpqn]

Of course, the land developer and the city council say, and they are right, that everything was done according with the laws, that there was a time and a place to express the concerns, that it will be a waste of time and money not to build the resort.

But each new stage in the building reminds the citizens the problems, and they think, and they are right, that the taller the building is, the more difficult will be to modify it and the more likely demolition will be seen as the only solution.

We are in a similar point. I share most Gxeremio has just explained, including my [i:3k0kxpqn]a priori[/i:3k0kxpqn] trust in the RA.

I understand the concern of Patroklus about the RA Credibility, but I'm sure the RA Credibility will not suffer more than the credibility of the twenty-something citizens that are active in the forums and the RA meetings. Neither the RA members nor the citizens noticed in advance the problems that the implementation of the judiciary would have. We have played the big league of legislation with a wide background and a fine political instinct, but without the technical means the RL legislatures have.

In fact, neither the RA approved nor any of the citizens asked for a route map to guide the creation of the judiciary. And I feel that none of us would have set up such a complex machinary in our enterprises without an implementation plan. Every time we talked about the procedure rules, or the qualification of judges any of us (except, I'm sure, Ashcroft), had a vague (and probably simpler) idea about what we were talking about.

So now we are debating simultaneously on the judges selection, the code of procedures and the Judiciary Act as a whole. Also, we argue now 0n our principles like rule of law, ethics, and judicial independence (with sub-thread with "my judicial independence is bigger than yours").

So I suggest to shift the weight of the debate from principles to interests. We can't trade on principles, but perhaps we can achieve a quicker agreement if we debate about interests.

michelmanen
I need a hobby
I need a hobby
Posts: 812
Joined: Sun Nov 19, 2006 2:53 am

Interests

Post by michelmanen »

My only interest is to give our legal system as defined by the Judiciary Act and the Code of Procedure the chance to actually be tested in-world. Should a clear majority of DCS citizens and legislators find it too complicated, cumbersome, inefficient, or ineffective after using it and, consequenly, voice their dissatisfaction or refuse to make further use of it, I would wholehearteldy support discussing such changes as may be required to remedy its initial flaws, however significant these may be.

But simply to judge a book by its covers or a legal system by the number of articles and pages of its Acts and Codes, and on this basis only refuse to even entertain the idea that a democratically legitimated legal system ought at the very least to be tested in practice before being judged in theory and rejected out of hand because of the refusal of a vocal minority to play by the democratic rules of our community is utterly unacceptable -to me and to all those who value the principles of democratic legitimacy and the rule of law.

Diderot Mirabeau
Master Word Wielder
Master Word Wielder
Posts: 453
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Interests

Post by Diderot Mirabeau »

It's CDS.

Gxeremio Dimsum
Veteran debater
Veteran debater
Posts: 205
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2006 6:37 pm

Re: Interests

Post by Gxeremio Dimsum »

[quote="michelmanen":369ktzr0]My only interest is to give our legal system as defined by the Judiciary Act and the Code of Procedure the chance to actually be tested in-world. Should a clear majority of DCS citizens and legislators find it too complicated, cumbersome, inefficient, or ineffective after using it and, consequenly, voice their dissatisfaction or refuse to make further use of it, I would wholehearteldy support discussing such changes as may be required to remedy its initial flaws, however significant these may be. [/quote:369ktzr0]

I think your position is reasonable. However, we have already seen the excuse of "but so much time has gone into it already!" as being, in and of itself, a reason to keep the system indefinitely. If proponents of the law agree to drop that argument and instead adopt a position of "Try it for 2 months (or whatever) and re-evaluate at that time, with the clear option to radically alter or totally repeal it," then that is a position I could accept. Additionally WHO gets a voice in that process is important - if the system is packed out with newbies who came solely to work in the judiciary, it will clearly influence their perceptions of said system. In other words, if the system draws, say, 10 lawyers who benefit from the system, that makes a big dent in a community of 60 people.

I might also add that we should say "a majority" opposing at that time rather than "a clear majority" since the latter phrase is open to too much interpretation for this group. ;-) In any case, the force needed to alter or repeal it should not be greater than the force needed to enact it (a simple majority).

michelmanen
I need a hobby
I need a hobby
Posts: 812
Joined: Sun Nov 19, 2006 2:53 am

Trying out the current legal system

Post by michelmanen »

[quote:1qmxheau]However, we have already seen the excuse of "but so much time has gone into it already!" as being, in and of itself, a reason to keep the system indefinitely. [/quote:1qmxheau]

Of course, this cannot, in and of itself, be a reason to keep the system indefinitely. I only raised this argument to say: "Hey, someone with real expertise spent a lot of months and put into a huge amount of effort into this; we all decided he was qualified to do this job; should we not at least try out what he did before junking all that work because what he did has too many articles and pages and requires people who understand legal issues to make it work?"

[quote:1qmxheau]If proponents of the law agree to drop that argument and instead adopt a position of "Try it for 2 months (or whatever) and re-evaluate at that time, with the clear option to radically alter or totally repeal it," then that is a position I could accept.[/quote:1qmxheau]

We have at least two cases pending that could be decided under the new legal system. We will get some initial feedback right away from them. If the feedback is so negative, I am certain that we all will agree to make changes. Let's try it out first, as voted on by the RA, and then argue as to whether we should amend it, radically change it or replace the whole thing.

[quote:1qmxheau] Additionally WHO gets a voice in that process is important - if the system is packed out with newbies who came solely to work in the judiciary, it will clearly influence their perceptions of said system. In other words, if the system draws, say, 10 lawyers who benefit from the system, that makes a big dent in a community of 60 people.[/quote:1qmxheau]

Three issues here:

1. You talked about interests. Let's look at that for a second. In real life, lawyers are stuck in systems they had no contribution in creating. The game is there, the rules are set, all they can do is to learn how to play the game as well as possible. Here, in 2L, they have the chance to be creative. In CDS, they can be present at the very beginning of a legal system, and help shape it, change it, adapt it to 2L requirements - in other words, use their skills to contribute making CDS a fair and stable enviroment for its citizens to pursue all their activities. Now why is this such a bad thing that we must hold it against them? It is certainly not a worse motive than that of those who come in to create in-world merchandise to sell because they have the skills to do so, or those who come in to buy and sell land for profit. Each of these occupations requires a certain set of skills and attracts a certain crowd of people. Why are we picking on lawyers simply because they have the skills to make a legal system work?

2. I, for one, although I have a legal background in 2L, had no intention to be a judge. My interest in joining is entirely different. I head a non-profit organzation in real-life that tries to re-think what it means to be an active citizen in the 21st century in the US, Canada, and Western Europe. I want to establish its virtual headquarters in 2. L to see if my members will be interested to use this innovative environment to interact. I decided to apply simply because I was so appalled at the attempts of some to kill this democratically legitimated system before it even had the chance to prove itself, and were using any means available to ensure no one could be selected as a judge to justify the failure of the system. This is so totally undemocratic and unfair that it violates everything this community stands for. If CDS is to be democratic, and fair, and respect the rule of law, we cannot possibly let such attempts to gut the system before it is even tried out to succeed. That is the only reason I applied. Should I be disqualified to apply simply because I have a legal background? I personlly don't see why.

3. The issue of residency requirements is also important. We do not have at present such a requirement. One of us raised this issue last month, well after the RA ratified the Judicature Act, but it was not picked on for discussion and debate. It only became a hot potato when I applied for judgeship and Ashcroft said that he knows a few people who are ready to also apply, in order to make sure that we could not do so. So, those who support this would argue: "See? No one applied? The system doesn't work. Let's gut it!" Well, of course it doesn't if they come up with new tricks to avoid interested people to apply and make it work! How is that fair - to come up with new rules we all hadn't agreed on in the first place- with the express purpose to make the legal system fail?

Now, if we all think that we need residency requirements for voting, or being elected to public office, or be appointed to judgeships, let's talk about it in a reasoned and reasonable manner. Let the RA vote on it. Let's do this democratically, following the very rules we all gave ourselves. That's fair. Once we all agree on this, the rules will apply from then on - but not backwards, because retroactive legislation is also totally undemocratic and unfair. What's wrong with this -except that it's too time-consuming and involved for those who want to ignore the rules and start all over again right away because they weren't there when the rules were made and they want to play it differently?

[quote:1qmxheau]I might also add that we should say "a majority" opposing at that time rather than "a clear majority" since the latter phrase is open to too much interpretation for this group. Wink In any case, the force needed to alter or repeal it should not be greater than the force needed to enact it (a simple majority).[/quote:1qmxheau]

Even before starting this discussion, I drafted a Clarity Act, which was appreciated even by those opposing the current legal system. It's just a draft. Let's look at it, discuss it, change it, agree to the rules according to which changes to the legal system can be made, have the RA vote on it, and ratify it. If after a few cases go through the system, CDS citizens are so terribly unhappy with it that they want to gut it, they will have a democratically legitimated instrument allowing them to so do. It's just, it's fair, it's democratic, it's legitimate, it respects the rule of law. That's all I ask for: if we are a Confederation of Democratic Simulators, let's stick to doing things in a democratically legitimated way. Is that really so dogmatic, elitist and unreasonable?

michelmanen
I need a hobby
I need a hobby
Posts: 812
Joined: Sun Nov 19, 2006 2:53 am

Reasoned and reasonable debate

Post by michelmanen »

By the way, Gxeremio, I want to thank you for helping us return to a reasoned and reasonable level of conversation. It had gotten completely out of hand - and I had my role in bringing this about - and we sorely needed someone who would bring back a measure of civility and sanity in it and remind us all just why we are all here. I, for one, really appreciate your contribution.

Claude Desmoulins
I need a hobby
I need a hobby
Posts: 730
Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 9:28 am

Post by Claude Desmoulins »

There is in fact a residency requirement for voting. This term, the RA passed an amendment requiring voters to have been citizens for 28 consecutive days prior to the opening of the polls.

As to Fernando's post. I would point out that much of the judiciary controversy centers around the judicial application process and the code of procedure, neither of which the RA drafted. There had been significant criticism of the RA for "micromanaging" legislation, so with the Judiciary Act, the RA delegated responsibility for drafting these procedural documents to the judiciary. The results of that process so far have been troubling for many.

I have looked for Gxeremio's clarity act on the forums and can't find it posted.

michelmanen
I need a hobby
I need a hobby
Posts: 812
Joined: Sun Nov 19, 2006 2:53 am

Clarity Act

Post by michelmanen »

I drafted the Clarity Act. You can find it on this thread:
[url:10s0jkc6]http://forums.neufreistadt.info/viewtop ... ight=#3060[/url:10s0jkc6]

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

Post by Beathan »

Pat wrote [quote:3ejjn0pu]I could post a number of examples of your less than courteous contributions to date.... [/quote:3ejjn0pu]

Pat, as a rule I start out my interactions with people courteously, but they don't always stay there. What I meant was that I haed gone out of my way to be courteous with Michel. As for my ongoing battle with you and Ash, I started out courteously there, too, but his ad hominem attacks and your dogged and abrasive commitment to a failed system have exhausted my patience. I have tried, and continue to try, to restore this patience. However, your decision to attack me wherever and however I participate in these forums is not helping matters. That said, it is your right to be unpleasant and misguided. It is also the right of the citizens to consider that in the next election. I trust we will.

I freely admit that my objective is to get rid of the Judiciary Act. It is a mess. We need to get rid of it. I freely admit that I hope the current RA will act approriately and make needed changes, which might include outright repeal or might fall short of repeal. If this RA does not act, I trust the next one will.

As for Michel's accusation that I would use "any and all means" available to me, including unconstitutional means -- an accusation you have taken on as your own -- I really don't know what either of you are on about. I have no means available to me other than argument on these forums. I am not on the RA. I am not on the SC. I am not on the PJSP. I hold no office -- and do not presently seek any office. I am only a citizen among citizens with the right to express my opinions and set forth my reasons for opinions. If I have any influence, it is by persuasion, not force -- which I take as a sign that people realize that my concerns are apt and the problems I see are real.

Frankly, with the current structure of government (as charted) and the monstrous Code of Procedure available for all to see, I am astounded that anyone disagrees with me. That said, I trust that the collective wisdom will prevail in the end.

Pat -- if you have better things to do, please do them. I hope that one of them is to fix the Judiciary Act, but if you think something else is more worthy of your time, I will not keep you from it.

Beathan

Last edited by Beathan on Wed Dec 06, 2006 9:17 am, edited 2 times in total.
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”