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