Sudane,
I see your point. However, I note that in the last SC transcript, the SC appears to have rejected a homespun petition because it was not properly draped in legalese. I also understand that Soro has recommended that a couple citizens consult with attorneys with regard to SC matters. I think that, along with much else that has occurred on the SC in the last few terms, goes in the wrong direction -- but, as a lawyer, I can oblige.
A "Writ" is an order a person receives from a court directing that someone (usually a governmental actor) take or stop taking some action. For private persons, the term "injunction" is often used instead (and in modern practice, governments are also subject to injunctions).
Habeas Corpus is a kind of writ dating from ancient law. It literally means "produce the body." Originally, it was used to get a court order requiring that the government who had imprisoned someone illegally (without charge, etc.) produce them into the jurisdiction of the court. Once they were out of jail in in the care of the court, the court freed them. We don't have dungeons in SL. We have banning. However, the same logic applies. If a person has been banned from the CDS without following the proper process for banning, a writ from the SC should be available to reverse the ban as unlawful (unconstitutional). I think we might as well call that a "Writ of Habeas Corpus" because of the parallels.
Mandamus means "we command." A writ of mandamus is an order of a court that a government or official do something that it, he or she is not doing (by accident, from oversight, neglect, intent, etc.) but has an obligation to do. It essentially says "X must do A; X is not doing, or has not done, A; therefore we command that X do A."
I would rather that the SC proceed with plain English than with this mess of forgotten Latin we use in the law. However, the SC appears to want to go in a different direction, even though only a handful of us can really follow it there.
I do note that my petitions were published on these forums. I don't see that the publication of petitions is a usual process of the SC. (It's been done before, but not often and not at all, as near as I can tell, by the last terms SC.) However, I think it should be. I applaud the SC for publishing my petitions and think that the SC should, in the spirit of openness, start doing that more regularly. That would allow input on the petition process before the SC hearing that could have several benefits: 1. inartfully worded petitions could receive some friendly suggested editing, making the SC's job easier by providing it with clearer documents; 2. public light and public discussion might resolve some issues without the need for SC intervention; 3. the importance of matters coming to the SC could be better assessed by all citizens without the need for guessing based on an agenda bulletpoint.
Beathan
Let's keep things simple enough to be fair, substantive enough to be effective, and insightful enough to be good.
