Hypothetical question about checks and balances

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

Moderator: SC Moderators

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

Banishment and the judiciary

Post by michelmanen »

Dimsum,

Beathan wrote:

[quote:audg621l]If you want your fears of summary banishment to resume with full force, read the thread on Juries in the Commission discussions. Apparently, on his own authority, based on his own take on the evidence, a Judge can convert any case -- even a civil action for breach of contract -- into a banishment criminal trial, during the trial, and impose banishment at the end of it.[/quote:audg621l]

If you read this thread carefully, you will note that Ashcroft's argument was made exactly in order to illustrate the point of what might happen under the newly-adopted Soothsayer Rules, whose lack of detail and foresight can lead to such dramatic consequences, and that exactly such eventualities and consequnces had been foreesen and avoided by the now-repealed, detailed and far-sighted Code of Procedure.

Incidentally, altough I fully suscribe to Voltaire's statement that "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it", I find it beyond ironic that the same person who has vociferously advocated [i:audg621l]ad nauseam[/i:audg621l] the repeal of the Code of Procedure preventing exactly such occurences from taking place, now sounds the alarm bells in such a strident manner about the actual failings of the very Rules he fought so hard to have implemented for the sole purpose of further discrediting our Judicial system and its Chief Justice. Such intellectually questionable debating tactics should be unmasked for what they are and be refuted in the strongest possible terms - in accordance with the very same principle voiced by Voltaire which defends such individuals' right to free speech irrespective of the substantive nature of the comments they make.

Michel

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

Re: Banishment and the judiciary

Post by Gxeremio Dimsum »

[quote="michelmanen":3ael0n7f]If you read this thread carefully, you will note that Ashcroft's argument was made exactly in order to illustrate the point of what might happen under the newly-adopted Soothsayer Rules, whose lack of detail and foresight can lead to such dramatic consequences, and that exactly such eventualities and consequnces had been foreesen and avoided by the now-repealed, detailed and far-sighted Code of Procedure.[/quote:3ael0n7f]

I did read over much of the Code, but I don't recall which part would have prevented this horrible scenario. Could you remind me?

[quote:3ael0n7f]Incidentally, altough I fully suscribe to Voltaire's statement that "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it", I find it beyond ironic that the same person who has vociferously advocated [i:3ael0n7f]ad nauseam[/i:3ael0n7f] the repeal of the Code of Procedure preventing exactly such occurences from taking place, now sounds the alarm bells in such a strident manner about the actual failings of the very Rules he fought so hard to have implemented for the sole purpose of further discrediting our Judicial system and its Chief Justice. Such intellectually questionable debating tactics should be unmasked for what they are and be refuted in the strongest possible terms - in accordance with the very same principle voiced by Voltaire which defends such individuals' right to free speech irrespective of the substantive nature of the comments they make.[/quote:3ael0n7f]

Hmm...perhaps an end to debating tactics in general is called for, much less questionable ones. Perhaps our own positions are too entrenched to make much progress. I did like (and now I miss) Fernando's suggestion to talk about shared interests rather than shared principles, because trying to make people kneel in intellectual defeat is really getting us nowhere.

User avatar
Aliasi Stonebender
I need a hobby
I need a hobby
Posts: 586
Joined: Fri May 26, 2006 12:58 pm

Post by Aliasi Stonebender »

[quote="Ashcroft Burnham":1kgcnmk1]
The Code of Procedure that I designed ensured that courts were explcitly required to take into account timezones and work schedules in scheduling hearings. I cannot imagine that anybody would ever have to take time off work, as hearings would be conducted on week-ends.
[/quote:1kgcnmk1]

Some of us work weekends, Ash.

Member of the Scientific Council and board moderator.
michelmanen
I need a hobby
I need a hobby
Posts: 812
Joined: Sun Nov 19, 2006 2:53 am

Debating tactics

Post by michelmanen »

Dimsum,

You wrote:

[quote:1o4xdb24]...perhaps an end to debating tactics in general is called for, much less questionable ones. Perhaps our own positions are too entrenched to make much progress. I did like (and now I miss) Fernando's suggestion to talk about shared interests rather than shared principles, because trying to make people kneel in intellectual defeat is really getting us nowhere.[/quote:1o4xdb24]

I wholeheartedly agree with you on the need to put an end to the use of debating tactics (questionable or otherwise) for the purposes of eliciting the best argument. I think a rational and reasonable discussion, based on common curtesy and civility, is what we need now more than ever. But, as you well know, "it takes two to to tango", and it is really not a fair and viable solution for one party to play by the Marquess of Queensberry's Rules whilst others practice the fine art of kick-boxing..

User avatar
Ashcroft Burnham
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1093
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2006 3:21 pm

Post by Ashcroft Burnham »

[quote="Aliasi Stonebender":aah5bxo7]Some of us work weekends, Ash.[/quote:aah5bxo7]

With judges in enough timezones, we can be flexible.

Ashcroft Burnham

Where reason fails, all hope is lost.
Beathan
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1364
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 3:42 pm

Post by Beathan »

I like being a pundit, so I will [i:1vzqhrxv]try[/i:1vzqhrxv] to slow down my rate of posting so that I can remain a pundit, rather than need a hobby.

However, this will not be possible if people keep writing things like [quote:1vzqhrxv]Incidentally, altough I fully suscribe to Voltaire's statement that "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it", I find it beyond ironic that the same person who has vociferously advocated ad nauseam the repeal of the Code of Procedure preventing exactly such occurences from taking place, now sounds the alarm bells in such a strident manner about the actual failings of the very Rules he fought so hard to have implemented for the sole purpose of further discrediting our Judicial system and its Chief Justice. Such intellectually questionable debating tactics should be unmasked for what they are and be refuted in the strongest possible terms - in accordance with the very same principle voiced by Voltaire which defends such individuals' right to free speech irrespective of the substantive nature of the comments they make.
[/quote:1vzqhrxv]

First, I am not sounding alarm bells about the current rules. Far from it. I am disagreeing with Ash's claims about those rules and sounding alarms about the fact that our judge appears to be wilfully misinterpreting them for the purpose of creating a problem in his misapplication of the rules which he can then blame on the rules. Specifically, I said

[quote:1vzqhrxv]I agree that the new procedures allow us experiment in this regard. I agree that an unsophisticated, unrepresented criminal defendant could be tricked into agreeing to a case procedure that let's the prosecution, or even the judge, switch a petty crime to a capital offense at the last moment by amendment. However, if this happens, it should be the first place on which we do work to improve and expand the procedures. Nothing in those procedures indicates that they are the last word on the subject. Anyone -- including members of the Judiciary -- can request changes by making asking the RA to do it.

That said, I don't think that this is actually a serious problem. The current procedures requires notice of the case. The notice is simple -- based on "notice pleading" concepts -- but the essential feature of "notice pleading" is that the trial can only occur on theories and claims that could be reasonably understood as being in play based on the pleadings. This safeguard is, I think, enough, provided we do not allow willy-nilly switching and amendment of claims during the trial (or any time after filing). The problem is not so much that a judge could do this switch under the current rules (he can't -- not lawfully, at least), it is that our only current judge seems to think that he could.
[/quote:1vzqhrxv]

Justice reiterated this point about the soundness of the current rules -- and the failure of the old rules to provide a more sound structure -- in this very thread. I agree with Justice and the analysis in his post.

As Ashcroft puts the point [quote:1vzqhrxv]Beathan, you well know that the point that I was making was that my original code of procedures made this impossible, whereas the new ultra-vague rules allow it in theory. You have deliberately taken this out of context, I believe for the purposes of deception.[/quote:1vzqhrxv]

I think my point is not deceptive. I think it is well made and well meant. I think Ash's counterargument is both specious and extremely dangerous given that he is the only one to apply these rules. This is my point.

Beathan

Last edited by Beathan on Wed Dec 13, 2006 1:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Let's keep things simple enough to be fair, substantive enough to be effective, and insightful enough to be good.
User avatar
Ashcroft Burnham
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1093
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2006 3:21 pm

Re: Banishment and the judiciary

Post by Ashcroft Burnham »

[quote="Gxeremio Dimsum":3po785mz]I did read over much of the Code, but I don't recall which part would have prevented this horrible scenario. Could you remind me?[/quote:3po785mz]

[quote="The proper Code of Procedure":3po785mz]In addition to any other requirement for originating notices, notices in the ordinary must:

1. state and particularise fully every proposition of fact upon which the party or parties on whose behalf the notice is filed seek(s) to rely;

2. state in what respects, if any, the party or parties on whose behalf the notice is filed seek(s) to contend that any other party to the proceedings has acted unlawfully;

3. if any penal order is sought, state, in respect of each party against whom it is sought, each respect in which the party filing the notice contends that that party has been culpable, and the degree of culpability so contended;

4. state the order or orders, or declaration or declarations sought by the party or parties on whose behalf the notice is filed;

5. if any non-penal order that a specific sum of money be paid is sought, state what that sum of money is; and

6. in respect of any penal order sought, state that it is a penal order.[/quote:3po785mz]

Ashcroft Burnham

Where reason fails, all hope is lost.
Justice Soothsayer
Pundit
Pundit
Posts: 375
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2006 1:14 pm

Re: Banishment and the judiciary

Post by Justice Soothsayer »

[quote="Ashcroft Burnham":3i7tvxr8][quote="Gxeremio Dimsum":3i7tvxr8]I did read over much of the Code, but I don't recall which part would have prevented this horrible scenario. Could you remind me?[/quote:3i7tvxr8]

[quote="The proper Code of Procedure":3i7tvxr8]In addition to any other requirement for originating notices, notices in the ordinary must:

1. state and particularise fully every proposition of fact upon which the party or parties on whose behalf the notice is filed seek(s) to rely;

2. state in what respects, if any, the party or parties on whose behalf the notice is filed seek(s) to contend that any other party to the proceedings has acted unlawfully;

3. if any penal order is sought, state, in respect of each party against whom it is sought, each respect in which the party filing the notice contends that that party has been culpable, and the degree of culpability so contended;

4. state the order or orders, or declaration or declarations sought by the party or parties on whose behalf the notice is filed;

5. if any non-penal order that a specific sum of money be paid is sought, state what that sum of money is; and

6. in respect of any penal order sought, state that it is a penal order.[/quote:3i7tvxr8][/quote:3i7tvxr8]
One of the problems with the pleadings required by this [former] code of procedures is that it requires the complaining party to know (precisely, to use a popular phrase in these fora) the meaning of "penal":
[quote="Google":3i7tvxr8]
http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3 ... f8&oe=utf8

Definitions of penal on the Web:

of or relating to punishment; "penal reform"; "penal code"
serving as or designed to impose punishment; "penal servitude"; "a penal colony"
subject to punishment by law; "a penal offense"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Penal (originally Peñal) is a town in southern Trinidad. It lies south of San Fernando and Debe, and north of Siparia. Originally a rice and cacao producing area, Penal has grown as a market town and due to its location in the oil fields.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penal
[/quote:3i7tvxr8]

Post Reply

Return to “Judiciary Discussion”