Callipygian wrote:Let's just add at least one fact to the thread. The SC met on Nov 27th, and at the end of that meeting set the date for the next meeting. You can find this information in the transcript of the Nov 27 meeting at http://forums.slcds.info/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3622. which was posted on the same day.
Beathan submitted his petitions on the 29th, 2 days after that, and as far as I can see first mentioned his RL commitments for that day on Dec 7, in a post here: http://forums.slcds.info/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=3653 , so short of some psychic ability or prior access to Beathan's RL calendar, I fail to see how
they announced the meeting at a time when I had previously stated I would be busy
You might also note that the agenda items says: 3. Discussion of handling of and next steps regarding the two petitions submitted to the SC by Beathan Vale - not a hearing or review.
Soro will be posting the transcript of the Dec 11 meeting.
Calli --
The fundamental problem here is that the SC is not following the statutorily prescribed procedure for hearings on Petitions.
The relevant statute is NL 5-15, which, at section 6, provides the following procedure:
The Code of Procedure issued on December 5, 2006 is hereby replaced with the following:
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 procedure would have ensured that my Petitions be heard at a time I was available and would also provide me with a real right of appeal from an unfavorable result.
I have asked, but received no answer whatsoever, why the SC is not following the prescribed procedure.
Further, Calli, if a citizen is expected to conduct a detailed review of the SC transcripts to determine when the SC is going to hear that citizen's Petitions, perhaps the SC should be expected to review the RA transcripts (as the RA has the authority to regulate the SC and prescribe its procedure). If you had done so, you would have seen the following in our first meeting:
"[2011/12/03 11:29] Anna Toussaint: the meeting next week will be on Saturday, December 10 at 9 am SLT
[2011/12/03 11:29] Shep Titian: I suggest bi-monthkly
[2011/12/03 11:29] Anna Toussaint: that is my suggestion
[2011/12/03 11:29] Patroklus Murakami: fortnightly works for me too
[2011/12/03 11:30] Anna Toussaint: however, if we do not have a budget ...
[2011/12/03 11:30] Beathan Vale: Anna -- I'm judging a debate tournament then -- I might be able to log in, but I might have to request a 7 day vote
[2011/12/03 11:30] Rosie Gray: that's a long time between meetings to acomplish anything
[2011/12/03 11:30] Beathan Vale: Rosie -- we can do a lot of trenchwork on the forums
[2011/12/03 11:30] Anna Toussaint: you mean for nezxt week, Beathan?
[2011/12/03 11:30] Beathan Vale: yes
[2011/12/03 11:30] Anna Toussaint: noted
[2011/12/03 11:31] Anna Toussaint: rthere will be a 7-day vote"
Beathan
Let's keep things simple enough to be fair, substantive enough to be effective, and insightful enough to be good.
