Transcript of SC meeting, October 8th, 2006, 1/2

Announcements by the Dean of the Scientific Council

Moderator: SC Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Gwyneth Llewelyn
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1183
Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 8:00 am
Contact:

Transcript of SC meeting, October 8th, 2006, 1/2

Post by Gwyneth Llewelyn »

[16:00] [color=Black:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Diderot Mirabeau[/b:28hj47al]: just for the record I shall have to leave you in 45 minutes[/color:28hj47al]
[16:00] [color=Sienna:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:28hj47al]: Am I glad to hear that, Ash! :)[/color:28hj47al]
[16:00] [color=DarkOliveGreen:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:28hj47al]: ;-)[/color:28hj47al]
[16:00] [color=DarkGreen:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Char Linden[/b:28hj47al]: We are going back to Linden log ins only. Grid will remain open but just to let you know we are still investigating this current grid attack. Thank you and sorry.[/color:28hj47al]
[16:00] [color=Sienna:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:28hj47al]: Oh NO[/color:28hj47al]
[16:00] [color=Black:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Diderot Mirabeau[/b:28hj47al]: going back to linden logins[/color:28hj47al]
[16:00] [color=Sienna:28hj47al][i:28hj47al]Gwyneth Llewelyn kicks LL[/i:28hj47al][/color:28hj47al]
[16:00] [color=DarkOliveGreen:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:28hj47al]: Rats.[/color:28hj47al]
[16:00] [color=Sienna:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:28hj47al]: So, no Dianne :P[/color:28hj47al]
[16:00] [color=Sienna:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:28hj47al]: She'll kill us.[/color:28hj47al]
[16:01] [color=DarkOliveGreen:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:28hj47al]: Send her to kill LL instead.[/color:28hj47al]
[16:01] [color=Black:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Diderot Mirabeau[/b:28hj47al]: should we proceed in light of that?[/color:28hj47al]
[16:01] [color=Sienna:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:28hj47al]: Yes, Diderot, we should.[/color:28hj47al]
[16:01] [color=DarkOliveGreen:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:28hj47al]: Does one have to touch something?[/color:28hj47al]
[16:02] [color=DarkOliveGreen:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:28hj47al]: Hmm, new kind of chat logger.[/color:28hj47al]
[16:02] [color=Sienna:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:28hj47al]: Yes please, there is this mighty cube on the table to be touched.[/color:28hj47al]
[16:02] [color=Sienna:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:28hj47al]: Ok, thanks for coming, everybody :)[/color:28hj47al]
[16:03] [color=Sienna:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:28hj47al]: Pending request from the last meeting: looking at the last rewriting of the Judiciary Bill[/color:28hj47al]
[16:03] [color=DarkSlateBlue:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Flyingroc Chung[/b:28hj47al]: I would like to thank the italians for inventing pancetta.[/color:28hj47al]
[16:03] [color=Sienna:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:28hj47al]: and see if it's fine.[/color:28hj47al]
[16:03] [color=Sienna:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:28hj47al]: And then, going through the nominees for the Judiciary, and approve/disprove them.[/color:28hj47al]
[16:03] [color=Sienna:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:28hj47al]: lol FR :) Duly registered.[/color:28hj47al]
[16:04] [color=DarkSlateBlue:28hj47al][i:28hj47al]Flyingroc Chung accepted your inventory offer.[/i:28hj47al][/color:28hj47al]
[16:04] [color=Black:28hj47al][i:28hj47al]Diderot Mirabeau accepted your inventory offer.[/i:28hj47al][/color:28hj47al]
[16:04] [color=Navy:28hj47al][i:28hj47al]Fernando Book accepted your inventory offer.[/i:28hj47al][/color:28hj47al]
[16:04] [color=DarkOliveGreen:28hj47al][i:28hj47al]Ashcroft Burnham accepted your inventory offer.[/i:28hj47al][/color:28hj47al]
[16:04] [color=Sienna:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:28hj47al]: For the record, I'm giving everybody in the meeting[/color:28hj47al]
[16:04] [color=Sienna:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:28hj47al]: a copy of the text that was approved by the RA,[/color:28hj47al]
[16:04] [color=Sienna:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:28hj47al]: an amendment to the Judiciary Act[/color:28hj47al]
[16:05] [color=DarkOliveGreen:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:28hj47al]: It's full of spelling errors :-/ That's what happens when the bill author is at a conference when they make amendments...[/color:28hj47al]
[16:05] [color=Sienna:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:28hj47al]: Now, 2 comments[/color:28hj47al]
[16:05] [color=Sienna:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:28hj47al]: Well, Ash already pointed out the first.[/color:28hj47al]
[16:05] [color=DarkOliveGreen:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:28hj47al]: We'll need to have a "Judiciary (spelling correction) Bill" at the next RA ;-)[/color:28hj47al]
[16:06] [color=Sienna:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:28hj47al]: (2) shoud read: add Article VII, section 22: "Members of the representative Assembly shall not seerve as members of the Public Judiciary Scrutiny Panel,[/color:28hj47al]
[16:06] [color=Sienna:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:28hj47al]: as Chair of the Judiciary Commission, or as judges."[/color:28hj47al]
[16:06] [color=DarkOliveGreen:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:28hj47al]: See? Not hard to get the text right.[/color:28hj47al]
[16:06] [color=DarkOliveGreen:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:28hj47al]: /shakes head[/color:28hj47al]
[16:06] [color=DarkOliveGreen:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:28hj47al]: Grr, need new gestures.[/color:28hj47al]
[16:06] [color=Sienna:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:28hj47al]: Point two was also raised by Ashcroft in an IM for me.[/color:28hj47al]
[16:06] [color=Sienna:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:28hj47al]: *to[/color:28hj47al]
[16:07] [color=DarkOliveGreen:28hj47al][i:28hj47al]Ashcroft Burnham accepted your inventory offer.[/i:28hj47al][/color:28hj47al]
[16:07] [color=Sienna:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:28hj47al]: This is one case of vagueness.[/color:28hj47al]
[16:07] [color=DarkOliveGreen:28hj47al][i:28hj47al]Ashcroft Burnham *shakes head*[/i:28hj47al][/color:28hj47al]
[16:07] [color=DarkOliveGreen:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:28hj47al]: It works![/color:28hj47al]
[16:08] [color=Sienna:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:28hj47al]: The Judiciary Act, if you remember,[/color:28hj47al]
[16:08] [color=Sienna:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:28hj47al]: makes an amendment stating clearly how the impeachment procedures work.[/color:28hj47al]
[16:08] [color=Sienna:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:28hj47al]: Let me see if I can quote the relevant paragraph... just a moment...[/color:28hj47al]
[16:08] [color=DarkSlateBlue:28hj47al][i:28hj47al]Flyingroc Chung accepted your inventory offer.[/i:28hj47al][/color:28hj47al]
[16:08] [color=Black:28hj47al][i:28hj47al]Diderot Mirabeau accepted your inventory offer.[/i:28hj47al][/color:28hj47al]
[16:09] [color=DarkOliveGreen:28hj47al][i:28hj47al]Ashcroft Burnham accepted your inventory offer.[/i:28hj47al][/color:28hj47al]
[16:09] [color=Navy:28hj47al][i:28hj47al]Fernando Book declined your inventory offer.[/i:28hj47al][/color:28hj47al]
[16:09] [color=Indigo:28hj47al][i:28hj47al]The Resident you messaged is in 'busy mode' which means they have requested not to be disturbed. Your message will still be shown in their IM panel for later viewing.[/i:28hj47al][/color:28hj47al]
[16:09] [color=DarkOliveGreen:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:28hj47al]: Be careful, though - that wasn't the version that was passed. The impeachment procedures are the same, but this is what I had suggested to the RA, but was rejected in favour of the amendments that Gwyn gave you in the first notecard.[/color:28hj47al]
[16:09] [color=Sienna:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:28hj47al]: there is a sub-chapter titled: "Impeachment proceedings"[/color:28hj47al]
[16:09] [color=Sienna:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:28hj47al]: hmm[/color:28hj47al]
[16:10] [color=Sienna:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:28hj47al]: That was the text that was given to me on the RA meeting, Ashcroft.[/color:28hj47al]
[16:10] [color=Sienna:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:28hj47al]: Anyway:[/color:28hj47al]
[16:10] [color=Sienna:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:28hj47al]: 1. Impeachment is an order that a holder of public office cease to hold such public office, or is suspended from such office for any time with or without pay,[/color:28hj47al]
[16:10] [color=DarkOliveGreen:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:28hj47al]: Oh?[/color:28hj47al]
[16:10] [color=Sienna:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:28hj47al]: and/or is disqualified either permanently or for a term certain from holding any or all public office or offices.[/color:28hj47al]
[16:11] [color=Sienna:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:28hj47al]: So, clearly, this text states that "holders of public office" can be impeached.[/color:28hj47al]
[16:11] [color=Sienna:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:28hj47al]: And it follows:[/color:28hj47al]
[16:11] [color=Sienna:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:28hj47al]: 2. A person may only be impeached by the Scientific Council, sitting as a court, following a trial in accordance with law.[/color:28hj47al]
[16:11] [color=Sienna:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:28hj47al]: Now, on the remaining text,[/color:28hj47al]
[16:11] [color=Sienna:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:28hj47al]: if you read it carefully,[/color:28hj47al]
[16:11] [color=Sienna:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:28hj47al]: there is nothing stated *explicitly*[/color:28hj47al]
[16:11] [color=DarkOliveGreen:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:28hj47al]: 3. Only persons (or persons acting on behalf of bodies) specified in the text of the Constitution shall have the power to commence impeachment proceedings.[/color:28hj47al]
[16:11] [color=Sienna:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:28hj47al]: that there is any way for Panel members to be impeached.[/color:28hj47al]
[16:11] [color=Black:28hj47al][i:28hj47al]Diderot Mirabeau hushes the public gallery[/i:28hj47al][/color:28hj47al]
[16:12] [color=Sienna:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:28hj47al]: thank you Diderot :)[/color:28hj47al]
[16:12] [color=DarkOliveGreen:28hj47al][i:28hj47al]Ashcroft Burnham is quiet[/i:28hj47al][/color:28hj47al]
[16:12] [color=DarkSlateGray:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Jeska Linden[/b:28hj47al]: Hello everyone, we are investigating grid-wide griefing attacks, as such we have momentarily disabled scripts on the entire grid. We apologize for this and thanks for your patience. As soon as I have more information, I will pass it along.[/color:28hj47al]
[16:12] [color=Sienna:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:28hj47al]: Actually, I was going to quote #3 as well, so Ash is forgiven in his eagerness :)[/color:28hj47al]
[16:12] [color=Sienna:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:28hj47al]: *sigh*[/color:28hj47al]
[16:12] [color=Sienna:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:28hj47al]: Manual recording from this moment on...[/color:28hj47al]
[16:13] [color=Sienna:28hj47al][i:28hj47al]Gwyneth Llewelyn thinks of going over to Colonia Nova and get some wax tablets and a stylus :PÇ[/i:28hj47al][/color:28hj47al]
[16:13] [color=DarkOliveGreen:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:28hj47al]: LOL![/color:28hj47al]
[16:13] [color=Sienna:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:28hj47al]: Thankfully, Roman civilisation wasn't ruled by the Tao of Linden,[/color:28hj47al]
[16:13] [color=Sienna:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:28hj47al]: or they would have collapsed after 2 years :P[/color:28hj47al]
[16:13] [color=Sienna:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:28hj47al]: Anyway. Sorry for the ranting.[/color:28hj47al]
[16:14] [color=Sienna:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:28hj47al]: I hope you can see the problem here.[/color:28hj47al]
[16:14] [color=Sienna:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:28hj47al]: With the simple amendment by the RA,[/color:28hj47al]
[16:14] [color=Sienna:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:28hj47al]: although Panel members are clearly "hiolders of public office",[/color:28hj47al]
[16:14] [color=Sienna:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:28hj47al]: effectively, the Judiciary Act, as it stands, does not have a provision for impeaching them.[/color:28hj47al]
[16:15] [color=Sienna:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:28hj47al]: They would be the only body in our State that would be removed only by universal suffrage.[/color:28hj47al]
[16:15] [color=Sienna:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:28hj47al]: ashcroft raised some concerns that this would not be enough to guarantee their neutrality.[/color:28hj47al]
[16:15] [color=DarkOliveGreen:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:28hj47al]: Indeed.[/color:28hj47al]
[16:15] [color=Sienna:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:28hj47al]: I'll let you think a bit about it now.[/color:28hj47al]
[16:16] [color=Sienna:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:28hj47al]: We have, of course, a few options. 1) Rewrite and resubmit (again)[/color:28hj47al]
[16:16] [color=DarkOliveGreen:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:28hj47al]: While you're all thinking, I plan on proposing an amendment to the next RA, giving various bodies the power to impeach PJSP members on the grounds of "gross incompetence, corruption, or conduct tending to undermine the independence of the judiciary...[/color:28hj47al]
[16:16] [color=DarkOliveGreen:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:28hj47al]: ...in the Confederation of Democratic Simulators".[/color:28hj47al]
[16:16] [color=Sienna:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:28hj47al]: 2) Approve it, and get the RA amend the Judiciary Act on a subsequent bill.[/color:28hj47al]
[16:17] [color=DarkSlateBlue:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Flyingroc Chung[/b:28hj47al]: but if the RA does not approve a subsequent bill?[/color:28hj47al]
[16:17] [color=DarkOliveGreen:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:28hj47al]: Then judicial independence would be compromised.[/color:28hj47al]
[16:17] [color=DarkSlateGray:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Jeska Linden[/b:28hj47al]: Just a follow-up to the last note: When scripts are disabled, money transfers to objects function is also disabled to prevent any vendors from accepting L$. Thanks again for your patience everyone.[/color:28hj47al]
[16:18] [color=Sienna:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:28hj47al]: Exactly, FR. Informally, I have good reason to believe they will address it next time, but of course, that can be just an evil trick :)[/color:28hj47al]
[16:19] [color=Sienna:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:28hj47al]: Ah, I'll let you bring up your arguments first.[/color:28hj47al]
[16:19] [color=DarkOliveGreen:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:28hj47al]: (Who?)[/color:28hj47al]
[16:19] [color=Sienna:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:28hj47al]: The SC members :)[/color:28hj47al]
[16:19] [color=Black:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Diderot Mirabeau[/b:28hj47al]: I'm not sure that we can admit a bill on the grounds of postulated future intention[/color:28hj47al]
[16:20] [color=DarkSlateBlue:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Flyingroc Chung[/b:28hj47al]: ashcroft,am I correct in thinking that you do not want the SC to approve the Judiciay act in this form?[/color:28hj47al]
[16:20] [color=Black:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Diderot Mirabeau[/b:28hj47al]: the question to my mind must be .. would the provisions for the PJSP lead to a potentially unconstitutional situation as it stands[/color:28hj47al]
[16:21] [color=DarkOliveGreen:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:28hj47al]: I am concerned about judicial independence. However, the exact way in which the SC may exercise its powers are unclear. It seems to me that, given the vague text of the constitution on the point, there may be a less time-consuming means of doing it...[/color:28hj47al]
[16:21] [color=DarkOliveGreen:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:28hj47al]: ...than resubmitting the whole thing to the RA, and delaying again its passage into law.[/color:28hj47al]
[16:21] [color=Black:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Diderot Mirabeau[/b:28hj47al]: with the powers currently drawn up for this body it seems to me they could replace the ntire judiciary with their own cadre before the end of an election term[/color:28hj47al]
[16:21] [color=Sienna:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:28hj47al]: The SC has far less power than people attribute to us :)[/color:28hj47al]
[16:21] [color=DarkOliveGreen:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:28hj47al]: (In any event, it is woefeully unclear what the status of is of an Act passed by the RA that has not yet come before the SC for consideration).[/color:28hj47al]
[16:22] [color=Sienna:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:28hj47al]: It's not legally in effect, but that doesn't mean much.[/color:28hj47al]
[16:22] [color=Sienna:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:28hj47al]: In any case, Diderot...[/color:28hj47al]
[16:22] [color=DarkOliveGreen:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:28hj47al]: And whether, for example, the SC can veto part of an Act.[/color:28hj47al]
[16:22] [color=DarkOliveGreen:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:28hj47al]: Hmm, Gwyn, the constitution doesn't expressly say that...[/color:28hj47al]
[16:22] [color=Sienna:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:28hj47al]: the issue is not so terrible as it sounds, although it creates the precedent of having an elected body which is not subject to impeachment.[/color:28hj47al]
[16:23] [color=DarkOliveGreen:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:28hj47al]: And whose members cannot be removed even if proven to be corrupt.[/color:28hj47al]
[16:23] [color=Sienna:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:28hj47al]: Well, Ashcroft, the interpretation of that is on the particle "or". We can veto OR rewrite and resubmit :)[/color:28hj47al]
[16:23] [color=Sienna:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:28hj47al]: So, this is the worst case scenario.[/color:28hj47al]
[16:23] [color=Sienna:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:28hj47al]: A PJSP is elected. They're all corrupt.[/color:28hj47al]
[16:23] [color=Sienna:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:28hj47al]: They nominate a judge that is pro-government, and very clearly so.[/color:28hj47al]
[16:24] [color=Sienna:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:28hj47al]: The Judiciary Comission struggles to get that Judge out of their body,[/color:28hj47al]
[16:24] [color=Sienna:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:28hj47al]: which they can do,[/color:28hj47al]
[16:24] [color=DarkOliveGreen:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:28hj47al]: ~"Chairs of the SC will ratify bills passed by the Representative Assembly by simple majority vote and may resubmit the bill with modifications for vote."[/color:28hj47al]
[16:24] [color=Black:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Diderot Mirabeau[/b:28hj47al]: could the PJSP not in theory ensure the replacement of all judges with their own cadre with the subsequent twisted judicial prosecution of members of the electorate who may be assumed to vote against them seeking a penalty of banning?[/color:28hj47al]
[16:24] [color=Sienna:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:28hj47al]: but the PJSP does not appoint anybody. And they cross their arms saying "no more judges until we get the one we want"[/color:28hj47al]
[16:24] [color=DarkSlateBlue:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Flyingroc Chung[/b:28hj47al]: (verot) or (rewrite and resubmit) <--- I think that is how the SC has traditionally viewed that part of the constitution[/color:28hj47al]
[16:24] [color=DarkSlateBlue:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Flyingroc Chung[/b:28hj47al]: urgh *veto*[/color:28hj47al]
[16:24] [color=Sienna:28hj47al][i:28hj47al]Gwyneth Llewelyn agrees with FR on that[/i:28hj47al][/color:28hj47al]
[16:24] [color=Black:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Diderot Mirabeau[/b:28hj47al]: ah[/color:28hj47al]
[16:24] [color=DarkOliveGreen:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:28hj47al]: Diderot: the PJSP cannot remove judges. They are appointed for life, and can only be removed by impeachment before the Court of Scientific Council.[/color:28hj47al]
[16:25] [color=Black:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Diderot Mirabeau[/b:28hj47al]: that portrays the situation in a different light to me[/color:28hj47al]
[16:25] [color=Sienna:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:28hj47al]: So,effectively, the PJSP could paralyse the judiicary for six months :P[/color:28hj47al]
[16:25] [color=Sienna:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:28hj47al]: Thus, the importance of having a way to impeach them, since that would certainly be a gross failure of exercising their appointed duty,[/color:28hj47al]
[16:26] [color=Sienna:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:28hj47al]: but nobody could force them out of office. Except the citizens, after a term.[/color:28hj47al]
[16:26] [color=Sienna:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:28hj47al]: Also, I personally dislike the precedent,[/color:28hj47al]
[16:27] [color=Sienna:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:28hj47al]: since we cannot know if the RA will, or not, submit a bill to amend this (I'm pretty sure they will, but that's another story)[/color:28hj47al]
[16:27] [color=Sienna:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:28hj47al]: this would have the door open for introducing a subsequent body in the State without impeachments[/color:28hj47al]
[16:27] [color=Black:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Diderot Mirabeau[/b:28hj47al]: well .. in my view the precedent it sets out is for creating another body of governmental power of the same magnitude[/color:28hj47al]
[16:27] [color=Sienna:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:28hj47al]: and relying uopn this precdent to say" oh, we did it on the PJSP and it worked well, so why can't we have a Triumvirate Executive Dictatorship without impeachment?"[/color:28hj47al]
[16:28] [color=Black:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Diderot Mirabeau[/b:28hj47al]: and well .. it is quite a small power that they have or at least so it seems to me[/color:28hj47al]
[16:28] [color=DarkOliveGreen:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:28hj47al]: Slippery slope is always logically flawed.[/color:28hj47al]
[16:28] [color=Sienna:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:28hj47al]: What do you think, FR?[/color:28hj47al]
[16:29] [color=DarkSlateBlue:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Flyingroc Chung[/b:28hj47al]: I agree that allowing government offials that cannot be impeached[/color:28hj47al]
[16:29] [color=DarkSlateBlue:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Flyingroc Chung[/b:28hj47al]: will set a bad precedent[/color:28hj47al]
[16:29] [color=Sienna:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:28hj47al]: Even if this is only temporary, and amended next Saturday? :)[/color:28hj47al]
[16:30] [color=DarkOliveGreen:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:28hj47al]: "Bad precedent" is not the same as "contrary to the UNHDR or the LL ToS", though, is it?[/color:28hj47al]
[16:30] [color=Sienna:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:28hj47al]: We also are the trustees on the unnamed founding documents that establish the principles of Neufreistadt, Ashcroft :)[/color:28hj47al]
[16:30] [color=DarkOliveGreen:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:28hj47al]: Either it violates UNHDR Art. 10 (judicial independence), or it's a matter for the RA, surely?[/color:28hj47al]
[16:30] [color=DarkSlateBlue:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Flyingroc Chung[/b:28hj47al]: well, yes, the scenaqrio that gwyn raises[/color:28hj47al]
[16:30] [color=Sienna:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:28hj47al]: The ones that Diderot hates when I mention them ;)[/color:28hj47al]
[16:31] [color=DarkOliveGreen:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:28hj47al]: What's the source of law as to which doucments count as founding documents?[/color:28hj47al]
[16:31] [color=Black:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Diderot Mirabeau[/b:28hj47al]: you can look them up in the forums[/color:28hj47al]
[16:31] [color=Sienna:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:28hj47al]: Yes. You can look them up in the forums :)[/color:28hj47al]
[16:31] [color=DarkOliveGreen:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:28hj47al]: Ahh, but what's the source of law that attributes to those documents the status of "founding"?[/color:28hj47al]
[16:31] [color=Black:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Diderot Mirabeau[/b:28hj47al]: buried between various diatribe and mud-slinging among unspecified citizens[/color:28hj47al]
[16:32] [color=Sienna:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:28hj47al]: The Will of the Founding Mothers :)[/color:28hj47al]
[16:32] [color=DarkSlateBlue:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Flyingroc Chung[/b:28hj47al]: and ashcroft also, you have concerns that if this law passes SC muster, that it potentially harms judicial independence[/color:28hj47al]
[16:32] [color=DarkOliveGreen:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:28hj47al]: What's the source of law that states that the Will of the Founding Mothers shall specify which doucments count as founding?[/color:28hj47al]
[16:32] [color=Sienna:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:28hj47al]: Oh, it's in the constitution... wait...[/color:28hj47al]
[16:32] [color=DarkOliveGreen:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:28hj47al]: Flyingroc: as I said, either the Act is bad for not safeguarding judicial independence, or it's not bad at all.[/color:28hj47al]
[16:33] [color=DarkSlateBlue:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Flyingroc Chung[/b:28hj47al]: I think you are right[/color:28hj47al]
[16:33] [color=Sienna:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:28hj47al]: All branches of the government are bound to serve the public before themselves and to uphold the Universal Declaration Of Human Rights, Founding Philosophy, Constitution, local laws, the SL ToS, and Community Standards without exception.[/color:28hj47al]
[16:33] [color=Sienna:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:28hj47al]: We're talking about the "Founding Philosophy" here.[/color:28hj47al]
[16:33] [color=DarkOliveGreen:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:28hj47al]: Yes - what's the source of law that determines what shall count as the founding philosophy?[/color:28hj47al]
[16:33] [color=DarkSlateBlue:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Flyingroc Chung[/b:28hj47al]: thus the idea of "oh it will only be bad for a week" should not be really considered seriously[/color:28hj47al]
[16:33] [color=Sienna:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:28hj47al]: There is no "source of law", Ashcroft. In a sense, it's a religious thing :)[/color:28hj47al]
[16:34] [color=DarkOliveGreen:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:28hj47al]: Yes - the question is whether non-impeachable PJSP members, given the qualification requirement, undermines judicial independence or not.[/color:28hj47al]
[16:34] [color=Sienna:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:28hj47al]: It's divine appointment :)[/color:28hj47al]
[16:34] [color=Sienna:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:28hj47al]: Anyway, we digress.[/color:28hj47al]
[16:34] [color=DarkOliveGreen:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:28hj47al]: What's the basis upon which any branch of this government can claim to exercise authority other than by source of law?[/color:28hj47al]
[16:34] [color=Sienna:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:28hj47al]: "Members of the Philosophic branch are not bound by a strict literal interpretation of the Bill of Rights, Founding Philosophy, Constitution, or the strict adherence to legal precedence. "[/color:28hj47al]
[16:34] [color=DarkOliveGreen:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:28hj47al]: Gwyn: that's been repealed by the Judiciary Act :-D[/color:28hj47al]
[16:34] [color=Sienna:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:28hj47al]: "Rather members of the SC are required to draw upon their individual fields of expertise to solve complex social issues."[/color:28hj47al]
[16:34] [color=Sienna:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:28hj47al]: Which is not in effect ? yet ;)[/color:28hj47al]
[16:35] [color=DarkOliveGreen:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:28hj47al]: But that still doesn't tell us what *counts* as the founding philosophy.[/color:28hj47al]
[16:35] [color=DarkOliveGreen:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:28hj47al]: Or what will suffice as a means of determining what counts as the founding philosophy.[/color:28hj47al]
[16:35] [color=Sienna:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:28hj47al]: of course not. The "founding philosophy" is what was discussed when the constitution was designed.[/color:28hj47al]
[16:35] [color=DarkSlateGray:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Jeska Linden[/b:28hj47al]: Hello everyone - we're currently doing a rolling restart of the grid to help clean out the recent grey goo, this means each region will be restarted over the course of the next few hours. Thanks again for your patience.[/color:28hj47al]
[16:36] [color=Sienna:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:28hj47al]: Ack[/color:28hj47al]
[16:36] [color=DarkOliveGreen:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:28hj47al]: Ick.[/color:28hj47al]
[16:36] [color=DarkSlateBlue:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Flyingroc Chung[/b:28hj47al]: some people might say that the founding philosophy is what the SC says it is. ;-)[/color:28hj47al]
[16:36] [color=DarkOliveGreen:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:28hj47al]: What gives the SC the power to determine that, rather than having to rely on a specific documentary source?[/color:28hj47al]
[16:36] [color=Sienna:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:28hj47al]: Some would agree with you, FR :)[/color:28hj47al]
[16:37] [color=Sienna:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:28hj47al]: Ash... we're talking about what has been the working basis of the SC so far,[/color:28hj47al]
[16:37] [color=Sienna:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:28hj47al]: which is, I'd say, a week away of being changed.[/color:28hj47al]
[16:37] [color=Sienna:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:28hj47al]: So, it's pointless to argue much about it now.[/color:28hj47al]
[16:37] [color=DarkOliveGreen:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:28hj47al]: That people have done a thing in the past does not entail that they ever had the power to do so :-)[/color:28hj47al]
[16:37] [color=Sienna:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:28hj47al]: Of course they had that power,[/color:28hj47al]
[16:37] [color=Sienna:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:28hj47al]: you can argue as long as you wish,[/color:28hj47al]
[16:37] [color=Sienna:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:28hj47al]: and will fail to convince us otherwise.[/color:28hj47al]
[16:37] [color=DarkSlateBlue:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Flyingroc Chung[/b:28hj47al]: can we go back to the matter at hand?[/color:28hj47al]
[16:37] [color=DarkOliveGreen:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:28hj47al]: Hmm...[/color:28hj47al]
[16:38] [color=DarkSlateGray:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Jeska Linden[/b:28hj47al]: Just a follow up to the last message - you will get a warning before your region is restarted - then you can teleport to another region to prevent being logged out. Thanks everyone.[/color:28hj47al]
[16:38] [color=Sienna:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:28hj47al]: It's not "arguable", Ashcroft. End of discussion. Yes, FR, please.[/color:28hj47al]
[16:38] [color=DarkSlateBlue:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Flyingroc Chung[/b:28hj47al]: ok, is it possible for us to give a provisional approval?[/color:28hj47al]
[16:39] [color=Sienna:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:28hj47al]: There is nothing in the constitution that allows us to do that :P[/color:28hj47al]
[16:39] [color=Sienna:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:28hj47al]: We can't even hint to the RA: "ok, go ahead, IF you do this and that"[/color:28hj47al]
[16:40] [color=DarkSlateBlue:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Flyingroc Chung[/b:28hj47al]: can we exercise our power to be not bound by a strict adherence to the law? ;-)[/color:28hj47al]
[16:40] [color=DarkOliveGreen:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:28hj47al]: Wouldn't that create a paradox, as the thing that you'd be allowing would include repealing that power?[/color:28hj47al]
[16:40] [color=Sienna:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:28hj47al]: Ah, BTW, the new Judiciary Act will also have a much weaker role in deciding what is constitutional and not, in the future. I'm afraid we might not even be able to validate in the future if some bill violates basic human rights.[/color:28hj47al]
[16:41] [color=Sienna:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:28hj47al]: I mean, the SC under the new Judiciary Act.[/color:28hj47al]
[16:41] [color=DarkSlateBlue:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Flyingroc Chung[/b:28hj47al]: how so, gwyn?[/color:28hj47al]
[16:41] [color=DarkOliveGreen:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:28hj47al]: The part about resubmitting and rewriting has been retained.[/color:28hj47al]
[16:41] [color=DarkRed:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Brian Livingston[/b:28hj47al]: Hey Ranma[/color:28hj47al]
[16:41] [color=DarkOrange:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Ranma Tardis[/b:28hj47al]: pardon my method of arrival[/color:28hj47al]
[16:41] [color=Black:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Diderot Mirabeau[/b:28hj47al]: colleagues I am sorry but I am afraid I am unable to stay with you .. as you know it is already late in CET and I expected this meeting to be a brief one[/color:28hj47al]
[16:41] [color=Sienna:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:28hj47al]: Well, the preamble that gave us the power to philosophise will have been removed...[/color:28hj47al]
[16:41] [color=Sienna:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:28hj47al]: Yes, me to, lol[/color:28hj47al]
[16:41] [color=Sienna:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:28hj47al]: *too[/color:28hj47al]
[16:41] [color=DarkOliveGreen:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:28hj47al]: Yes - in future, you will have to do things more precisely.[/color:28hj47al]
[16:42] [color=Black:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Diderot Mirabeau[/b:28hj47al]: I do not expect here is any way in which I can make myself useful in this last minute of presence?[/color:28hj47al]
[16:42] [color=Sienna:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:28hj47al]: No, in future, we will not have the power to prevent the RA to do whatever they please.[/color:28hj47al]
[16:42] [color=Black:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Diderot Mirabeau[/b:28hj47al]: *ther[/color:28hj47al]
[16:42] [color=Sienna:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:28hj47al]: Well,[/color:28hj47al]
[16:42] [color=DarkOliveGreen:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:28hj47al]: That's not true, Gwyn: you will still be able to veto for unconstitutionality.[/color:28hj47al]
[16:42] [color=DarkSlateBlue:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Flyingroc Chung[/b:28hj47al]: hm, I dont read it that way, gwyn[/color:28hj47al]
[16:42] [color=Sienna:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:28hj47al]: I'd like to have a vote on the Act as it stands with the proposal amendament[/color:28hj47al]
[16:43] [color=Sienna:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:28hj47al]: Ah. Actually, Ashcroft, that veto will become less and less important over time. Almost all issues are *always* because of the things that are NOT in the constitution.[/color:28hj47al]
[16:43] [color=DarkOliveGreen:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:28hj47al]: And even founding documents, only you must interpret them strictly.[/color:28hj47al]
[16:43] [color=Sienna:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:28hj47al]: Well, we'll see what happens.[/color:28hj47al]
[16:43] [color=DarkSlateBlue:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Flyingroc Chung[/b:28hj47al]: I've always held the position that the Sc had too much power anyway. :-/[/color:28hj47al]
[16:43] [color=Black:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Diderot Mirabeau[/b:28hj47al]: in other words people sitting on the SC are expected to spend their spare time acting as legal automatons[/color:28hj47al]
[16:44] [color=Sienna:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:28hj47al]: Indeed, SC, and this is the people's will, so we shouldn't contradict them.[/color:28hj47al]
[16:44] [color=DarkOliveGreen:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:28hj47al]: Diderot: that is a wholly inaccurate representation of how law is interpreted.[/color:28hj47al]
[16:44] [color=Sienna:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:28hj47al]: *FR[/color:28hj47al]
[16:44] [color=Black:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Diderot Mirabeau[/b:28hj47al]: so a vote, Dean?[/color:28hj47al]
[16:45] [color=Sienna:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:28hj47al]: Indeed.[/color:28hj47al]
[16:45] [color=Sienna:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:28hj47al]: We should do a double vote:[/color:28hj47al]
[16:45] [color=Sienna:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:28hj47al]: 1) veto the amendment on the Judiciary Act (ie. have the RA rewrite it again)[/color:28hj47al]
[16:45] [color=Sienna:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:28hj47al]: 2) rewrite it and resubmit[/color:28hj47al]
[16:45] [color=DarkSlateBlue:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Flyingroc Chung[/b:28hj47al]: Well, in any case, let mesay that I think that the issue sraised of a non-impeacheable judiciary panel is sufficiently problematic[/color:28hj47al]
[16:46] [color=Sienna:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:28hj47al]: I agree FR[/color:28hj47al]
[16:46] [color=Sienna:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:28hj47al]: personally, I vote to rewrite and resubmit[/color:28hj47al]
[16:46] [color=DarkOliveGreen:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:28hj47al]: On the grounds, each of you, of violation of judicial independence?[/color:28hj47al]
[16:46] [color=Sienna:28hj47al][b:28hj47al]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:28hj47al]: we have already the proposed change somewhere on the log anyway.[/color:28hj47al]

"I'm not building a game. I'm building a new country."
  -- Philip "Linden" Rosedale, interview to Wired, 2004-05-08

PGP Fingerprint: CE8A 6006 B611 850F 1275 72BA D93E AA3D C4B3 E1CB

User avatar
Gwyneth Llewelyn
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1183
Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 8:00 am
Contact:

Transcript of SC meeting, October 8th, 2006, 2/2

Post by Gwyneth Llewelyn »

[16:47] [color=Sienna:2pdl72vq][b:2pdl72vq]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:2pdl72vq]: Well, we don't have the power to vote on the grounds of violation of judicial independence, actually :)[/color:2pdl72vq]
[16:47] [color=DarkOliveGreen:2pdl72vq][b:2pdl72vq]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:2pdl72vq]: Yes you do: UNHDR Art. 10/[/color:2pdl72vq]
[16:47] [color=DarkOliveGreen:2pdl72vq][b:2pdl72vq]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:2pdl72vq]: .[/color:2pdl72vq]
[16:47] [color=Sienna:2pdl72vq][b:2pdl72vq]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:2pdl72vq]: Ah ok. Yes.[/color:2pdl72vq]
[16:47] [color=DarkOliveGreen:2pdl72vq][b:2pdl72vq]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:2pdl72vq]: :-)[/color:2pdl72vq]
[16:47] [color=Sienna:2pdl72vq][b:2pdl72vq]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:2pdl72vq]: thank you[/color:2pdl72vq]
[16:47] [color=DarkOliveGreen:2pdl72vq][b:2pdl72vq]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:2pdl72vq]: You're welcome.[/color:2pdl72vq]
[16:47] [color=DarkOliveGreen:2pdl72vq][b:2pdl72vq]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:2pdl72vq]: Is that the ground, then?[/color:2pdl72vq]
[16:47] [color=Black:2pdl72vq][b:2pdl72vq]Diderot Mirabeau[/b:2pdl72vq]: I concur .. on the grounds of the potential for infringement of citizens rights that can occur by having the judiciary blocked from political wrangling for 6 months and lacking a mechanism by which to dispose of PJSP members acting grossly incompetently[/color:2pdl72vq]
[16:47] [color=Sienna:2pdl72vq][b:2pdl72vq]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:2pdl72vq]: FR, what sayeth thee? :)[/color:2pdl72vq]
[16:48] [color=Sienna:2pdl72vq][i:2pdl72vq]Gwyneth Llewelyn thinks that FR is having dinner :)[/i:2pdl72vq][/color:2pdl72vq]
[16:49] [color=DarkOliveGreen:2pdl72vq][b:2pdl72vq]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:2pdl72vq]: Ahh.[/color:2pdl72vq]
[16:49] [color=DarkOliveGreen:2pdl72vq][b:2pdl72vq]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:2pdl72vq]: Gwyneth, was the potential for infringement of judicial independence your reason?[/color:2pdl72vq]
[16:50] [color=Sienna:2pdl72vq][b:2pdl72vq]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:2pdl72vq]: Actually, I was going to bring up the potential for violation of the human rights at the same time of failing to provide a structure similar to the principles of the branches of government.[/color:2pdl72vq]
[16:50] [color=DarkSlateBlue:2pdl72vq][b:2pdl72vq]Flyingroc Chung[/b:2pdl72vq]: actually, I was loking up article 10...[/color:2pdl72vq]
[16:50] [color=Sienna:2pdl72vq][b:2pdl72vq]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:2pdl72vq]: Ah ok.[/color:2pdl72vq]
[16:50] [color=DarkOliveGreen:2pdl72vq][b:2pdl72vq]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:2pdl72vq]: I don't quite follow, Gwyn: what right other than that to an independent judiciary do you think is violated?[/color:2pdl72vq]
[16:50] [color=Sienna:2pdl72vq][b:2pdl72vq]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:2pdl72vq]: Well, we have 2 out of 3 votes anyway, and we can release Diderot from duty,[/color:2pdl72vq]
[16:50] [color=Sienna:2pdl72vq][b:2pdl72vq]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:2pdl72vq]: since we wont appoint anyone today :P[/color:2pdl72vq]
[16:51] [color=Black:2pdl72vq][b:2pdl72vq]Diderot Mirabeau[/b:2pdl72vq]: international standards proscribe that the right o a fair trial is also the right o a timely trial[/color:2pdl72vq]
[16:51] [color=DarkSlateBlue:2pdl72vq][b:2pdl72vq]Flyingroc Chung[/b:2pdl72vq]: but I was thinking that the problem might be with article 8[/color:2pdl72vq]
[16:51] [color=Sienna:2pdl72vq][b:2pdl72vq]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:2pdl72vq]: Ok, let's hear that, FR.[/color:2pdl72vq]
[16:51] [color=Black:2pdl72vq][i:2pdl72vq]Diderot Mirabeau thanks the Dean for releasing him of his duty[/i:2pdl72vq][/color:2pdl72vq]
[16:51] [color=DarkOliveGreen:2pdl72vq][b:2pdl72vq]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:2pdl72vq]: Remember, though, a member of the SC can sit as a judge of common jurisdiction when there aren't any available judges of common jurisdiction.[/color:2pdl72vq]
[16:51] [color=Sienna:2pdl72vq][b:2pdl72vq]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:2pdl72vq]: Sleep well, dear Diderot :)[/color:2pdl72vq]
[16:52] [color=DarkSlateBlue:2pdl72vq][b:2pdl72vq]Flyingroc Chung[/b:2pdl72vq]: Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.[/color:2pdl72vq]
[16:52] [color=Black:2pdl72vq][i:2pdl72vq]Diderot Mirabeau waves goodbye discretely to the college of chairs[/i:2pdl72vq][/color:2pdl72vq]
[16:52] [color=DarkSlateBlue:2pdl72vq][b:2pdl72vq]Flyingroc Chung[/b:2pdl72vq]: bye diderot[/color:2pdl72vq]
[16:52] [color=Sienna:2pdl72vq][b:2pdl72vq]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:2pdl72vq]: Well, that right is guaranteed, FR.[/color:2pdl72vq]
[16:52] [color=DarkSlateBlue:2pdl72vq][b:2pdl72vq]Flyingroc Chung[/b:2pdl72vq]: not if a corrupt judiciary panel is voted into office[/color:2pdl72vq]
[16:53] [color=DarkSlateBlue:2pdl72vq][b:2pdl72vq]Flyingroc Chung[/b:2pdl72vq]: with no way of removing them[/color:2pdl72vq]
[16:53] [color=DarkSlateBlue:2pdl72vq][b:2pdl72vq]Flyingroc Chung[/b:2pdl72vq]: with no way of removing them[/color:2pdl72vq]
[16:53] [color=Sienna:2pdl72vq][b:2pdl72vq]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:2pdl72vq]: Oh. Ok. We can add that as well, if you wish.[/color:2pdl72vq]
[16:53] [color=DarkOliveGreen:2pdl72vq][b:2pdl72vq]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:2pdl72vq]: Do you not also have concernes about judicial independence?[/color:2pdl72vq]
[16:53] [color=Sienna:2pdl72vq][b:2pdl72vq]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:2pdl72vq]: We'll list both 8 and 10.[/color:2pdl72vq]
[16:53] [color=DarkOliveGreen:2pdl72vq][b:2pdl72vq]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:2pdl72vq]: :-)[/color:2pdl72vq]
[16:53] [color=Sienna:2pdl72vq][b:2pdl72vq]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:2pdl72vq]: Also, since it's a power we will be only employing one last time,[/color:2pdl72vq]
[16:54] [color=Sienna:2pdl72vq][b:2pdl72vq]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:2pdl72vq]: I'll certainly mention that the lack of an impeachment over the PJSP,[/color:2pdl72vq]
[16:54] [color=Sienna:2pdl72vq][b:2pdl72vq]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:2pdl72vq]: is contrary to the whole *structure* of the State bodies.[/color:2pdl72vq]
[16:54] [color=DarkOliveGreen:2pdl72vq][b:2pdl72vq]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:2pdl72vq]: The other thing...[/color:2pdl72vq]
[16:54] [color=Sienna:2pdl72vq][b:2pdl72vq]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:2pdl72vq]: Governmental or non-governmental.[/color:2pdl72vq]
[16:54] [color=DarkSlateGray:2pdl72vq][b:2pdl72vq]Jeska Linden[/b:2pdl72vq]: Update: Scripts are still disabled, along with the money transfers to objects function. We are in the process of beginning a rolling restart which will help clean out any remaining goo and all us to reopen login again. Thanks for your patience.[/color:2pdl72vq]
[16:54] [color=DarkOliveGreen:2pdl72vq][b:2pdl72vq]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:2pdl72vq]: Is that the new Act doesn't prevent the Chancellor from being a judge.[/color:2pdl72vq]
[16:55] [color=DarkOliveGreen:2pdl72vq][b:2pdl72vq]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:2pdl72vq]: (My revised version did, but that wasn't adopted).[/color:2pdl72vq]
[16:55] [color=DarkOliveGreen:2pdl72vq][b:2pdl72vq]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:2pdl72vq]: Judicial independence demands that the Chancellor not also be a judge :-)[/color:2pdl72vq]
[16:55] [color=Sienna:2pdl72vq][b:2pdl72vq]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:2pdl72vq]: Ah yes ? Justice Soothsayer said as much, when I talked to him.[/color:2pdl72vq]
[16:55] [color=DarkOliveGreen:2pdl72vq][b:2pdl72vq]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:2pdl72vq]: All this would have been avoided if only they'd adopted my version in the first place.[/color:2pdl72vq]
[16:55] [color=Sienna:2pdl72vq][i:2pdl72vq]Gwyneth Llewelyn *shrugs*[/i:2pdl72vq][/color:2pdl72vq]
[16:55] [color=Sienna:2pdl72vq][b:2pdl72vq]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:2pdl72vq]: their choice :)[/color:2pdl72vq]
[16:56] [color=DarkOrange:2pdl72vq][b:2pdl72vq]Ranma Tardis[/b:2pdl72vq]: it had it problems[/color:2pdl72vq]
[16:56] [color=DarkOliveGreen:2pdl72vq][b:2pdl72vq]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:2pdl72vq]: And also the current version doesn't stop the Chancellor from being on the PJSP...[/color:2pdl72vq]
[16:56] [color=DarkOliveGreen:2pdl72vq][b:2pdl72vq]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:2pdl72vq]: ...which was, again, fixed in my version.[/color:2pdl72vq]
[16:56] [color=DarkOrange:2pdl72vq][b:2pdl72vq]Ranma Tardis[/b:2pdl72vq]: well another easy rewrite[/color:2pdl72vq]
[16:56] [color=DarkOliveGreen:2pdl72vq][b:2pdl72vq]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:2pdl72vq]: It's already been rewritten. They didn't adopt that version.[/color:2pdl72vq]
[16:57] [color=DarkOrange:2pdl72vq][b:2pdl72vq]Ranma Tardis[/b:2pdl72vq]: well this is the process of democracy[/color:2pdl72vq]
[16:57] [color=DarkOrange:2pdl72vq][b:2pdl72vq]Ranma Tardis[/b:2pdl72vq]: in the us congress debate and rewriting can take some time[/color:2pdl72vq]
[16:57] [color=DarkOliveGreen:2pdl72vq][b:2pdl72vq]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:2pdl72vq]: This is the process of people not doing what they ought to do.[/color:2pdl72vq]
[16:57] [color=DarkOliveGreen:2pdl72vq][b:2pdl72vq]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:2pdl72vq]: And bad consequences ensuing as a result.[/color:2pdl72vq]
[16:57] [color=Sienna:2pdl72vq][b:2pdl72vq]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:2pdl72vq]: Hmm well, Ash[/color:2pdl72vq]
[16:57] [color=Sienna:2pdl72vq][b:2pdl72vq]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:2pdl72vq]: On the notecard I have,[/color:2pdl72vq]
[16:58] [color=Sienna:2pdl72vq][b:2pdl72vq]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:2pdl72vq]: 24. A person may not simultaneously serve as a member of the Public Judiciary Scrutiny Panel and: [16:58] Gwyneth Llewelyn: (d) the Chancellor, or any person to whom the Chancellor delegates any of her or his powers; or[/color:2pdl72vq]
[16:58] [color=Sienna:2pdl72vq][b:2pdl72vq]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:2pdl72vq]: etc.[/color:2pdl72vq]
[16:58] [color=DarkOliveGreen:2pdl72vq][b:2pdl72vq]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:2pdl72vq]: Yes, that was the one that wasn't approved, though.[/color:2pdl72vq]
[16:58] [color=DarkOliveGreen:2pdl72vq][b:2pdl72vq]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:2pdl72vq]: That one was the one that provided for impeachment for PJSP membesr.[/color:2pdl72vq]
[16:58] [color=Sienna:2pdl72vq][b:2pdl72vq]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:2pdl72vq]: Ah yes. ok.[/color:2pdl72vq]
[16:58] [color=DarkOliveGreen:2pdl72vq][b:2pdl72vq]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:2pdl72vq]: Those are the secitons that the RA should have passed, but didn't.[/color:2pdl72vq]
[16:58] [color=Sienna:2pdl72vq][b:2pdl72vq]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:2pdl72vq]: I wish there was a way to search inside notecards :P[/color:2pdl72vq]
[16:58] [color=DarkOliveGreen:2pdl72vq][b:2pdl72vq]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:2pdl72vq]: Quite.[/color:2pdl72vq]
[16:59] [color=DarkOrange:2pdl72vq][b:2pdl72vq]Ranma Tardis[/b:2pdl72vq]: why didnt they?[/color:2pdl72vq]
[16:59] [color=DarkOliveGreen:2pdl72vq][b:2pdl72vq]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:2pdl72vq]: Ask Justice.[/color:2pdl72vq]
[16:59] [color=DarkOliveGreen:2pdl72vq][b:2pdl72vq]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:2pdl72vq]: It was his idea.[/color:2pdl72vq]
[16:59] [color=DarkOrange:2pdl72vq][b:2pdl72vq]Ranma Tardis[/b:2pdl72vq]: he is only one[/color:2pdl72vq]
[16:59] [color=DarkOliveGreen:2pdl72vq][b:2pdl72vq]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:2pdl72vq]: Nonetheless, the idea came from him and everyone followed.[/color:2pdl72vq]
[16:59] [color=DarkOrange:2pdl72vq][b:2pdl72vq]Ranma Tardis[/b:2pdl72vq]: hmmm yes[/color:2pdl72vq]
[16:59] [color=Sienna:2pdl72vq][b:2pdl72vq]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:2pdl72vq]: Yes, it was an unanimous approval.[/color:2pdl72vq]
[17:00] [color=Sienna:2pdl72vq][b:2pdl72vq]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:2pdl72vq]: So, FR, do we have your vote on this? :)[/color:2pdl72vq]
[17:00] [color=DarkOrange:2pdl72vq][b:2pdl72vq]Ranma Tardis[/b:2pdl72vq]: I have to admit you have got me to rethinking my position[/color:2pdl72vq]
[17:00] [color=DarkOliveGreen:2pdl72vq][b:2pdl72vq]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:2pdl72vq]: :-)[/color:2pdl72vq]
[17:00] [color=DarkSlateBlue:2pdl72vq][b:2pdl72vq]Flyingroc Chung[/b:2pdl72vq]: yes[/color:2pdl72vq]
[17:00] [color=DarkOliveGreen:2pdl72vq][b:2pdl72vq]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:2pdl72vq]: I must to bed.[/color:2pdl72vq]
[17:00] [color=DarkOliveGreen:2pdl72vq][b:2pdl72vq]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:2pdl72vq]: HAve a good evening...[/color:2pdl72vq]
[17:00] [color=DarkOliveGreen:2pdl72vq][b:2pdl72vq]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:2pdl72vq]: :-)[/color:2pdl72vq]
[17:00] [color=DarkSlateBlue:2pdl72vq][b:2pdl72vq]Flyingroc Chung[/b:2pdl72vq]: I mean no[/color:2pdl72vq]
[17:00] [color=Sienna:2pdl72vq][b:2pdl72vq]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:2pdl72vq]: LOL FR![/color:2pdl72vq]
[17:00] [color=Sienna:2pdl72vq][b:2pdl72vq]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:2pdl72vq]: And good night, Ash :D[/color:2pdl72vq]
[17:00] [color=DarkOliveGreen:2pdl72vq][b:2pdl72vq]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:2pdl72vq]: Sweet dreams.[/color:2pdl72vq]
[17:00] [color=DarkOliveGreen:2pdl72vq][b:2pdl72vq]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:2pdl72vq]: :-)[/color:2pdl72vq]
[17:00] [color=DarkOrange:2pdl72vq][b:2pdl72vq]Ranma Tardis[/b:2pdl72vq]: night[/color:2pdl72vq]
[17:00] [color=DarkSlateBlue:2pdl72vq][b:2pdl72vq]Flyingroc Chung[/b:2pdl72vq]: I mean, I vote to have have it resubmitted to the RA[/color:2pdl72vq]
[17:00] [color=Sienna:2pdl72vq][b:2pdl72vq]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:2pdl72vq]: Please state your intention *clearly*. FR, for the record ;)[/color:2pdl72vq]
[17:00] [color=Sienna:2pdl72vq][b:2pdl72vq]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:2pdl72vq]: Ok[/color:2pdl72vq]
[17:00] [color=Sienna:2pdl72vq][b:2pdl72vq]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:2pdl72vq]: That is clear to me :)[/color:2pdl72vq]
[17:00] [color=DarkOrange:2pdl72vq][b:2pdl72vq]Ranma Tardis[/b:2pdl72vq]: record script is broken[/color:2pdl72vq]
[17:01] [color=Sienna:2pdl72vq][b:2pdl72vq]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:2pdl72vq]: Aye, it is, Ranma. I should have asked you if you give approval to log the transcript :)[/color:2pdl72vq]
[17:01] [color=Sienna:2pdl72vq][b:2pdl72vq]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:2pdl72vq]: It'll be copy & paste, I'm afraid.[/color:2pdl72vq]
[17:01] [color=DarkSlateBlue:2pdl72vq][b:2pdl72vq]Flyingroc Chung[/b:2pdl72vq]: are we adjourned?[/color:2pdl72vq]
[17:01] [color=DarkOrange:2pdl72vq][b:2pdl72vq]Ranma Tardis[/b:2pdl72vq]: I give my approval[/color:2pdl72vq]
[17:01] [color=Sienna:2pdl72vq][b:2pdl72vq]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:2pdl72vq]: thank you Ranma![/color:2pdl72vq]
[17:02] [color=DarkOrange:2pdl72vq][b:2pdl72vq]Ranma Tardis[/b:2pdl72vq]: tried to use the box :)[/color:2pdl72vq]
[17:02] [color=Sienna:2pdl72vq][b:2pdl72vq]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:2pdl72vq]: Yes, we are adjourned. Unless you want to discuss something else?[/color:2pdl72vq]
[17:02] [color=DarkSlateBlue:2pdl72vq][b:2pdl72vq]Flyingroc Chung[/b:2pdl72vq]: well[/color:2pdl72vq]
[17:02] [color=DarkSlateBlue:2pdl72vq][b:2pdl72vq]Flyingroc Chung[/b:2pdl72vq]: lol[/color:2pdl72vq]
[17:02] [color=DarkSlateBlue:2pdl72vq][b:2pdl72vq]Flyingroc Chung[/b:2pdl72vq]: off the record[/color:2pdl72vq]
[17:02] [color=Sienna:2pdl72vq][b:2pdl72vq]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:2pdl72vq]: Ok, meeting adjourned then![/color:2pdl72vq]

"I'm not building a game. I'm building a new country."
  -- Philip "Linden" Rosedale, interview to Wired, 2004-05-08

PGP Fingerprint: CE8A 6006 B611 850F 1275 72BA D93E AA3D C4B3 E1CB

Post Reply

Return to “Scientific Council Announcements”