Presentation CARE's draft Judiciary Commission Act

[michelmanen]

CARE Members strongly believe that a stable, efficient, effective, legitimate and independent Judiciary branch of government is critical for our community as we grow and expand. Given past experiences on this matter, CARE is persuaded that such an objective can only be achieved by involving as many as our citizens as possbile in the process, listening with an open mind to their experiences, ideas, proposals and criticisms, then proceeding to develop coherent, effective and affordable policies, adopting them and implementing them in cooperation with all citizens wishing to take part in this process.

Therefore, CARE proposes that the RA re-establishes the Judiciary Commission.

Anyone interested in the draft Judiciary Commission Act and CARE's discussions on this matter can follow and participate here: http://www.care-cds.com/forum/index.php?topic=47.0 .

[Salzie Sachertorte]

OH God!
You've got to be kidding!
Runs for the hills.

[michelmanen]

Actually you'd be surprised how many citizens are really interested in having a functioning Judiciary and participating in this Commission. Just because they don't spend their time posting on forums doesn't mean they don't actually exist.

In the less than 24 hours since this thread was posted, I've already had a number of citizens (Pelanor Eldrich and Gelf Yalin, for example) IM me, tell me how interested they are in this initiative, and letting me know they would be willing to serve on this commission.

[Patroklus Murakami]

Again, for the benefit of those who don't want to click through to another website, here is the text of the proposal:
[quote="CARE (Michel)":c6fcimj0]
Bill to Re-Establish the Judiciary Commission

1. This Act Re-establishes the Judiciary Commission

2. The Commission is charged with considering how the CDS could develop and implement a stable, efficient, effective, legitimate and independent Judiciary branch of government.

3. The Commission will hold a full and participatory set of discussions inworld and on the CDS forums starting on 13 August and finishing on 1 November 2007.

4. The Commission will present a report to the RA within a week of the completion of the Commission's work with recommendations (and draft legislation if needed) in the following areas:

a) establishing a CDS system of courts (including selection of qualified judges);
b) drafting a CDS code of procedure; and
c) adopting a CDS system of arbitration compatible with the above.

5. The Commission will be chaired by the Dean of the Scientific Council.

6. Citizens wishing to serve on the Judiciary Commission should make themselves know to the SC Dean by 13 August.

7. The RA will consider and adopt appropriate legislation in each of the four areas specified above by 1 December 2007.[/quote:c6fcimj0]

[Beathan]

1. There shall be a Minister of Law, who shall be a civil servant, appointed by the Chancellor with the advice and consent of the RA.

2. The [Minister of Law shall evaluate the administration of justice in the CDS, institute impeachment actions against any member of the SC or other judicial officer, institute an action to remove an arbitrator from the role of arbitrators maintained by the SC, and make recommendations to the Chancellor and to the RA as to the improvement of the administration of justice in the CDS.

Notwithstanding this power, the administration of justice, including the institution, staffing and oversight of any courts or appellate panels is vested in the SC, as the separate and independent judicial branch of government.

3. Further, the Minister of Law shall chair the Judiciary Commission, which may be instituted by the Chancellor, on advice and consent of the RA, from time to time. The Judiciary Commission shall serve for a term that ends with the end of the term of the Chancellor that constituted it, and shall be charged with the powers and obligations as follows:

1. The Commission is charged with considering how the CDS could improve, develop and implement a stable, efficient, effective, legitimate and independent Judiciary branch of government.

2. The Commission will hold a full and participatory set of discussions inworld and on the CDS forums for its term of service.

3. The Commission will present a report to the RA in the first scheduled meeting of the RA following the Commissions term of service] with recommendations (and draft legislation if needed) in any area concerning the administration of justice and enforcement of law in the CDS.

4. The Commission will number not less than three and not more than eleven members, including the Minister of Law, and shall hold public meetings inworld not less than once per month. These meetings may include closed sessions attended by Commissioners only, but must include public meetings open to all citizens of not less than one hour duration. Additionally, the Commission forum must be open to participation by all citizens. Citizens wishing to serve on the Judiciary Commission must apply for a position on the Commission within one month of its formation. The Minister of Law shall select the members of the Commission, subject to the advice and consent of the RA, and shall make a good faith effort to ensure that the broadest possible range of viewpoints is represented on the Commission. Commissioners, other than the Minister of Justice, shall not be considered public servants and may hold offices other than and in addition to that of Commissioner.

[Fernando Book]

Beathan,

You need #2 to be approved as a Constitutional Amendment, as the Constitution reserves for the RA the role of beginning the impeachment of the SC.

[michelmanen]

This predetermines too many matters which should rightly be under the purview of the Commission, before any hearings are actually held. Let's let the Commission run its course and see what it recommends. Pelanor and Gelf are interested to be on it, and so am I. I am sure at least one RA member from the CDS and SP will be too. Hopefully we can convince Jamie Pallisades to also participate. That would be a strong Commisson indeed, with all parties and a mix of old and new citizens and quite a bit of legal expertise. The RA will always be free to adopt all, some, none of the Commission's recommendations and add (or not) to it as it thinks fit. My recommendation is therefore to set up a Commission with the greatest room of maneouvre possible and let it run its course. That will, of course, not only not stop you - but actively encourage you to submit your proposal to the Commission and try to persuade it to adopt some of your suggestions.

[Jon Seattle]

[quote="CARE (Michel)":28lov4l0]2. The Commission is charged with considering how the CDS could develop and implement a stable, efficient, effective, legitimate and independent Judiciary branch of government.[/quote:28lov4l0]Does this imply that the SC is not (at least one of) stable, efficient, effective, legitimate or independent? If so, which of these is the SC lacking in your view?

[quote="CARE (Michel)":28lov4l0]7. The RA will consider and adopt appropriate legislation in each of the four areas specified above by 1 December 2007.[/quote:28lov4l0]I can't imagine the RA ever agreeing to support this clause. We reserve the right [u:28lov4l0]not[/u:28lov4l0] to adopt legislation if we feel that it is the best course.

[Pelanor Eldrich]

I support this in principle. We haven't actually heard any cases to date, nor have we either a penal code nor documented sentencing in absentia of banned griefers.

The SC is a great institution and I'm happy to see that the proposed commission be chaired by our esteemed Dean. This is about building, not pointing fingers at the SC, it's no one's fault.

We have a many lawyers and a very wide range of political/legal viewpoints here. This is a good thing. It may very well be that nothing concrete can be agreed upon by Dec. 1st.

We may also want to take a look at the E-Justice project Gwyn has mentioned, as well as resources at Ben Noble's Secondlife Life Bar Association and Havard Law School's Berkman Island. Other alternatives are the Metaverse Republic or using Beathan's Arbitration Act.

In addition to doing our own thing, we have many more other options on the table now for "outsourcing" a legal system. Given the acrimony of the last debate, maybe the forums isn't the best way to hash it out.

[michelmanen]

John wrote:

[quote:2fcjqtak]CARE (Michel) wrote:
2. The Commission is charged with considering how the CDS could develop and implement a stable, efficient, effective, legitimate and independent Judiciary branch of government.

Does this imply that the SC is not (at least one of) stable, efficient, effective, legitimate or independent? If so, which of these is the SC lacking in your view?
[/quote:2fcjqtak]

It implies nothing. It states a goal. Do you disagree with it?

[quote:2fcjqtak]CARE (Michel) wrote:
7. The RA will consider and adopt appropriate legislation in each of the three areas specified above by 1 December 2007.

I can't imagine the RA ever agreeing to support this clause. We reserve the right not to adopt legislation if we feel that it is the best course.[/quote:2fcjqtak]

Sure. Change it to:

[b:2fcjqtak]7. The RA will consider the JC's Report within 2 weeks of its submission. Should it decide to adopt appropriate legislation in any or all of the four areas specified above, the votes in the RA should take place no later than by 1 December 2007.[/b:2fcjqtak]

[Jon Seattle]

[quote="Pelanor Eldrich":20tfya80]The SC is a great institution and I'm happy to see that the proposed commission be chaired by our esteemed Dean. This is about building, not pointing fingers at the SC, it's no one's fault.[/quote:20tfya80]If the SC works well (and as far as I can tell, it works very well) then 'fixing' the judiciary should not be a high priority. We could very well end up with something worse, or even much worse..

The main issue with the SC, as far as I can see, is finding enough qualified and willing volunteers to invest a sizable chunk of their free time to the long SC meetings and tiring discussions. This would be even more of a problem in a much expended judiciary. How do we solve that?

As for, once again, massively reworking our constitution and judiciary, I think we have much more important things to do.

[michelmanen]

[quote:1mbq5vw4]As for, once again, massively reworking our constitution and judiciary, I think we have much more important things to do.[/quote:1mbq5vw4]

Glad to know your opinion. Let's find out what the other 75 citizens of our community think.

[quote:1mbq5vw4]If the SC works well (and as far as I can tell, it works very well) then 'fixing' the judiciary should not be a high priority. [/quote:1mbq5vw4]

See my 3 Questions regarding the SC on another thread: [url:1mbq5vw4]http://forums.neufreistadt.info/viewtopic.php?t=1224[/url:1mbq5vw4]

[Beathan]

Michel --

My proposal, in fact, does not predetermine the discussions at all. Yours, on the contrary, does. For instance, your proposal presupposes that we don't have a working judiciary. This is not certain -- our current system is simple and workable, but it has not been tried. Further, your proposal specifies the areas of the Commission's discussion and presupposes that the Commission will recommend (and the RA will enact) legislation on all these points.

I think that one of the greatest improvements of my version is that it removes the words " a) establishing a CDS system of courts (including selection of qualified judges); b) drafting a CDS code of procedure; and c) adopting a CDS system of arbitration compatible with the above." In doing so, it frees the Commission to consider the possibility of keeping or enhancing our current system and procedure. I think that the stating the Commission should consider topics "in any area concerning the administration of justice and enforcement of law in the CDS" is a far less predetermined, far more useful way of charging this Commission with a task.

Beathan

[Beathan]

Fernando --

Right you are. I would change the language to:

"2. The [Minister of Law shall evaluate the administration of justice in the CDS, [i:316ylfpo] recommend that the RA [/i:316ylfpo] institute impeachment actions against any member of the SC or other judicial officer, [i:316ylfpo] recommend that the RA [/i:316ylfpo] institute an action to remove an arbitrator from the role of arbitrators maintained by the SC, and make recommendations to the Chancellor and to the RA as to the improvement of the administration of justice in the CDS. "

Beathan