Petitions

[Beathan]

Well, the SC totally dropped the ball once again.

I can understand the ruling on Tyrrant -- although the principle of Hapeas Corpus is one of general concern and should not turn on the individual desires of a party. Any CDS citizen should be able to address the CDS banning process to make sure that some miscarriage of justice that happened to someone does not, at some time in the future, happen to them. However, I must state that the hearsay report about what Tyrrant allegedly said contrasts substantially to what he said to me when I was preparing the Petition -- which I did in consultation with him and submitted only after he reviewed it.

However, the real problem is in the ruling concerning the election. That Petition was not primarily addressed to an individual injustice. It was primarily addressed to a general error in the citizen list that had the substantial public effect of having a 5 seat RA rather than a 7 seat Ra. That was the critical issue -- and it wasn't even addressed. Who is a citizen is not an issue of concern only to the individual citizens because it affects how all of us are represented in government.

Further, it appears that her major issue was not the Petition -- but the SC's decision to publish it on the forums. That is an issue separate from the merits of the Petition and based on actions taken by the SC, not by me, the Petitioner. Further, the hearsay report about her attitude and concerns contrasts substantially with he information I received from her partner when I drafted the Petition (which I did in consultation with him and which I submitted only after he, and I believe jia, had reviewed and approved it).

Futher, these were my Petitions -- and not only did the SC never consult me about them and disregarded its own procedure -- the SC scheduled every hearing considering these for a time when I was not available. The SC must follow the required statutory procedure. That procedure DOES NOT involve EX PARTE contact of critical witnesses by freelance members of the SC followed by HEARSAY reports back to the SC about what those people allegedly said, which was considered as the critical evidence in the case. That really cannot pass without comment. It is an absurd parody of a justice system that any child could see was just plain wrong.

C'mon SC -- you really must do a much better job.

Beathan

[Sudane Erato]

It was primarily addressed to a general error in the citizen list that had the substantial public effect of having a 5 seat RA rather than a 7 seat Ra. That was the critical issue -- and it wasn't even addressed. Who is a citizen is not an issue of concern only to the individual citizens because it affects how all of us are represented in government.

There was no "general error" in the citizen list. Your statement is incorrect. jia53 was not included in the list because the request to make her a citizen arrived after the cutoff date for voter certification. I understand that that request was never made by jia53 because she and her partner had been told by CLEO that she was automatically made a citizen by virtue of him being a citizen. Based on that incorrect advice, she never applied for the status (which application was necessary because she owned no land).

Indeed, to this day she is not a citizen! She has never paid her tier to the box which was set up for her at her partner's request, despite being very much aware of it (she has touched it for the info readout several times). It is my understanding, correct me if I'm wrong, that people must pay their allocated share of tier, and at least the minimum, in order to be a voting citizen.

Further, even had she been included in the voter roles, the census count of one more person would not have caused the representative number to go from 5 to 7. There is no basis that I can see to make the claim that jia53's qualification as a voter would have the "substantial public effect of having a 5 seat RA rather than a 7 seat Ra."

Sudane................................

[Beathan]

Sudane,

You are mistaken. The SC confirmed 69 eligible voting citizens in the last election. The RA is the nearest odd number to 10% of the eligible citizens rounded down. Ten percent of 69 is 6.9 rounded down to 5. One more voter would have meant 70 eligible citizens and a 7 member RA. In fact, all candidates for the RA, until the last minute, expected a 7 seat RA.

The relevant post is here: http://forums.slcds.info/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3596

Further, I think your observation that jia hasn't paid misses the point. I understand that she tried to pay and failed because the box wasn't set up right. We should not fail to count her because she wasn't able to pay or because she LATER decided not to pay. At the relevant time, she had done everything she could to qualify as an eligible citizen. The mistake in setting up the box right had the effect of preventing a citizen from perfecting her citizenship. We also don't retroactively invalidate the rights and actions of a citizen who ceases to be a citizen.

However, my petition expressly treats the unpaid amount as an arrearage and would only correct the error if jia paid the arrearage. If she did not, my petition would not have effect. However, it nonetheless should have been considered and granted on its merit -- after a proper hearing at which I, as the Petitioner, could present my case and defend my Petition. I was denied that.

The real point is not how this, or any, particular Petition was handled or mishandled. Rather, the point is that the SC is systemically dysfunctional, and the result is that citizens and visitors are denying denied Due Process and due justice.

At a minimum, the SC must start following the prescribed statutory procedure for hearing Petitions -- which is here: http://portal.slcds.info/?qa_faqs=nl-5- ... ayer-rules.

Beathan

[Callipygian]

Well, the SC totally dropped the ball once again.

I can understand the ruling on Tyrrant -- although the principle of Hapeas Corpus is one of general concern and should not turn on the individual desires of a party. Any CDS citizen should be able to address the CDS banning process to make sure that some miscarriage of justice that happened to someone does not, at some time in the future, happen to them. However, I must state that the hearsay report about what Tyrrant allegedly said contrasts substantially to what he said to me when I was preparing the Petition -- which I did in consultation with him and submitted only after he reviewed it.
Beathan

The petition was specific to allowing Tyrrant to attend a hearing- something he clearly has no interest in doing, nor in having the ban lifted. Since we are not a court of law we have no power to force Tyrrant to appear, thus the petition has no further action. I agree, however, that any citizen should be able to address the banning process; my suggestion would be to propose a clear set of infractions that can result in a ban, and initiating a process where any ban that is applied is reported to both RA and SC immediately. I am not aware of either being the process in place now, but if one or both are, then they should be followed.

You state, though: 'the hearsay report about what Tyrrant allegedly said' - what are you implying here Beathan? If you are basing this statement on the transcript of the SC meeting, let me quote the relevant part:

"[2011/12/30 15:42] Callipygian Christensen: Delia contacted Tyrant by notecard and she and I both received his response
[2011/12/30 15:43] Callipygian Christensen: I will quote from it, wtth his permission: "

How is this either 'hearsay' or 'allegedly said'?

However, the real problem is in the ruling concerning the election. That Petition was not primarily addressed to an individual injustice. It was primarily addressed to a general error in the citizen list that had the substantial public effect of having a 5 seat RA rather than a 7 seat Ra. That was the critical issue -- and it wasn't even addressed. Who is a citizen is not an issue of concern only to the individual citizens because it affects how all of us are represented in government.
...
Futher, these were my Petitions -- and not only did the SC never consult me about them and disregarded its own procedure -- the SC scheduled every hearing considering these for a time when I was not available. The SC must follow the required statutory procedure. That procedure DOES NOT involve EX PARTE contact of critical witnesses by freelance members of the SC followed by HEARSAY reports back to the SC about what those people allegedly said, which was considered as the critical evidence in the case. That really cannot pass without comment. It is an absurd parody of a justice system that any child could see was just plain wrong.

C'mon SC -- you really must do a much better job.

Beathan

Beathan, I assume before you request/attend hearings in your RL legal activities that you do research. No hearing has been held about this petition at this point - what has happened is research and discussion of how to proceed. Any formal hearing will, I am sure, be scheduled by the Dean at a time that you can attend to present your arguments - but at this point in time what the SC has is information from Sudane stating that there was no error in the census and no tier ever paid to establish the disputed citizenship. What you so cavalierly describe as 'freelance' ex parte discussion and 'hearsay' reports is an effort by a member of the SC to establish if jia53 or her partner have information that contradicts Sudane's records, and are willing to present it at a hearing if they do. None of the resulting information, of which there was very little, was presented as 'evidence'; again, I'll quote from the transcript of the SC meeting on Jan 30th:

Callipygian Christensen: Since the original petitioner had posted on the Forums that jia53 should appear before the SC, asking her what her wishes are seemed appropriate
[2011/12/30 16:05] Callipygian Christensen: I have not received any reply indicating what is desired, or any supporitng materials for the petition to move forward
...
[2011/12/30 16:06] Callipygian Christensen: Therefore, at this time, I suggest I will followup with jia53 and her partner SDolphin to establish thier preferences in how to proceed.
...
[2011/12/30 16:06] Callipygian Christensen: Until we have such an indication, I propose the petition be tabled.

Finally, the original petition can be found here: http://forums.slcds.info/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=3631

The petition had 4 parts; parts 2,3 and 4 - your critical issue, are totally dependent on a change to the voter roll, based on the result of part 1. Until such time as it is established that the voter roll should, or should not, be changed those parts of the petition cannot be addressed.

Calli

[Beathan]

Calli,

I will address two points.

First, hearsay is an "out of court statement offered for the truth of the matter asserted." Reading from a notecard is hearsay.

Second, it is no defense to say that the SC has not yet held a hearing. By this time, the required process would have: 1. appointed a hearing officer, 2. set up an exchange of information between interested parties and the hearing officer (note, because the process is based on the Anglo-American model not the Napoleonic model, the hearing officer is not supposed to conduct its own investigation, but is only to receive and rule on information presented to it by interested parties); 3. scheduled the hearing; and 4. held the hearing. None of those things have happened. One of my secondary reasons for filing this petition was to see if the SC could even handle a petition -- either through the required rules or otherwise. So far, the clear answer to that question is "NO.".

The rules are here for your reference.

Rule 1 - Initiating notecard

A case is be initiated by submitting a notecard containing (1) name of the Complainant, (2) name of the Respondent(s), and (3) a short and simple statement of the facts of the case. The notecard shall be dropped into the inventory of the Chair of the Judiciary Commission, who shall within 24 hours send the notecard and IM notice of the submission of the notecard to each defendant(s), and the Chair shall maintain a record of having done so.
Rule 2 - Reply notecard

A Respondent shall reply to the initiating notecard within ten days by submitting a reply notecard containing a short and simple statement of the facts of the case. The reply notecard shall be dropped into the inventory of the Chair of the Judiciary Commission, who shall within 24 hours send the notecard and IM notice of the submission of the notecard to the Complainant, and the Chair shall maintain a record of having done so.
Rule 3 - Pretrial hearing

Within ten days of service of the Rule 2 notecard on the Complainant(s), the court shall convene a meeting of the parties (either at the same time in world, via IM, or via email) to discuss any procedures required for handling the case. The parties may agree on a pretrial order setting forth the procedures and timetable by which the case will be handled, including any trial procedures. In the event that no agreement is reached, the court may issue a pretrial order.
Rule 4 - No costs, attorneys fees or other expenses

There shall be no court costs or attorneys fees assessed against any party, and all parties shall bear their own expenses, unless a contract between the parties or an Act passed by the RA provides otherwise.
Rule 5 - Judgments

The court may enter judgment following trial, or upon motion by a party as long as all parties have been given an opportunity to be heard on the motion. The court may enter judgment by default if a party fails to participate at any stage, so long as the party is given notice via notecard providing for at least ten days to show cause why default judgment should not be entered.

That said, I hope that we can resolve this problem through the process we mentioned in the RA meeting -- where we take Pat's proposed reforms of the SC as a starting point and develop, in consultation with the SC, a set of governing procedures that will allow the SC to actually perform its Constitutional functions.

Beathan

[Sudane Erato]

Do the rules of the Scientific Council actually contain references to itself as the "Judiciary Commission"?

Sudane.................................

[Beathan]

Sudane,

The Judiciary Commission was abolished, and the judicial power, which had been transferred from the SC to the Commission, was transferred back to the SC. However, unlike the Judiciary Commission, the hearing procedure statute was not repealed. Therefore, the SC took this judicial power back subject to the procedural statute and is bound by the procedure.

In fact, there was a later statute that amended the procedure to take out references to the Judiciary Commission and replace them with references to the SC itself. NL 5-19. That reads in relevant part,

Our experience with the Judiciary has brought it to our attention that revisions are needed to protect citizen’s rights and to make sure that the power of the judiciary is balanced with that of other branches. This bill changes the code of procedure to accommodate changes in the constitution and plots a way forward towards future judiciary-oriented legislation.

The Code of Procedure is amended to replace all references to the ‘Chair of the Judiciary Commission’ with ‘the Dean of the Scientific Council.’

Again, the procedure is in place, has never been repealed or modified, and is being disregarded by the SC.

I note that NL 5-19 also provides for an RA Commission to consider revisions to this procedure through a mechanism that provides for consultation with the SC, but which retains ultimate control over the procedure to the RA through appropriate legislation. I don't think that this ever happened (at least not to completion) -- but I anticipate that Pat and I will make a stab at it this term, in consultation with (but not in deference to) Calli and Delia as the appointed representatives of the SC.

Beathan