Moderator: SC Moderators
[quote="Flyingroc Chung":164rcowp]Under the current system, are non-citizens allowed to file suit against citizens?[/quote:164rcowp]
Yes.
With my original codes of procedure, they'd have been required to pay securities in most circumstances. Goodness only knows how it will work under the current, ultra-vague rules.
Ash wrote [quote:3jsvnzia]Beathan, your above post consisted of nothing but an improper and unjustified attack on my character. The moderators will be notified.[/quote:3jsvnzia]
Not so. I have pointed out that you have all the hallmarks of a good attorney and advocate -- just not the hallmarks of a good judge. Who we have serve as judge is a matter of public concern. I think citizens have every right to express their concerns about the behavior, character, temperament and reasoning of our judges. I think citizens have this right with regard to all public officials. The UDHR seems to indicate so.
However, you have apparently now answered one of my questions about judicial independence -- do we want our judges to be independent from public criticism through speech? Apparently your answer is "yes." Mine remains "no."
Beathan
[quote="Ashcroft Burnham":2uj60kw8][quote="Flyingroc Chung":2uj60kw8]Under the current system, are non-citizens allowed to file suit against citizens?[/quote:2uj60kw8]
Yes.
With my original codes of procedure, they'd have been required to pay securities in most circumstances. Goodness only knows how it will work under the current, ultra-vague rules.[/quote:2uj60kw8]
hm...
If a non-citizen with deep pockets and many alts harasses a citizen by filing many suits against said citizen, what is the citizen's recourse?
If a non-citizen files harasses a citizen by filing *one* case, how can said citizen counter-sue?
[quote="Flyingroc Chung":16rwkbhi]hm...
If a non-citizen with deep pockets and many alts harasses a citizen by filing many suits against said citizen, what is the citizen's recourse?
If a non-citizen files harasses a citizen by filing *one* case, how can said citizen counter-sue?[/quote:16rwkbhi]
In real life, there is a concept of malicious prosecution and of vexatious litigants. We could do well to develop the same concepts through our common law.
To answer your specific point, a person can make a counter-allegation in a notice in response, which would then trigger the securities in the case of a non-citizen.
There is also, under the original, proper, procedures a power of strike-out for cases with no reasonable prospects of success.
[quote="Ashcroft Burnham":33g53lrs]
That's a reason to have a rule on securies for costs and other remedies, not to make arbitrary limits on our jurisdiction, as I have now explained many, many times.[/quote:33g53lrs]
Limiting our jurisdiction to our city limits is not "arbitrary".
[quote="Ashcroft Burnham":3ha97at7][quote="Aliasi Stonebender":3ha97at7]Limiting our jurisdiction to our city limits is not "arbitrary".[/quote:3ha97at7]
Yes it is.[/quote:3ha97at7]
We can keep that up all day.
Exactly what in the world possesses you to think we have one iota of authority outside of the sims of Colonia Nova and Neufreistadt?
[quote="Aliasi Stonebender":26kf4k4l]Exactly what in the world possesses you to think we have one iota of authority outside of the sims of Colonia Nova and Neufreistadt?[/quote:26kf4k4l]
I have addresed this issue a number of times before. The point is that our jurisdiction has [i:26kf4k4l]practical[/i:26kf4k4l] limits, as you often point out, those limits being the relevance and effectiveness of our ultimate penalty of banishment. Giving it additional [i:26kf4k4l]legal[/i:26kf4k4l] limits will make the system more complex and harder to use, since in each case other than the most obvious, the court will have to ask itself, "do we have jurisdiction here?".
As I have explained before, if a non-citizen were to harass or defraud a citizen somewhere on the mainland, why should we not banish that person from our lands? Anybody whom we want to banish has the right to a fair hearing: it is in the constitution. So, wherever there is a situation where there may conceivably be a good reason to banish somebody, our courts have and should have jurisdiction.
Of course, it would be quite absurd to purport to regluate affairs that are so disconnected from the CDS that banishment from it would be totally irrelevant. Any sort of private dispute between two non-citizens other than arising on CDS territory would almost certainly certainly fall into this category. The constitution limits to the court's jurisdiction to disputes "capable of being resolved in accordance with the law of the Confederation of Democratic Simulators". I should hope that you would trust our judges sufficiently that they would not be so insane as to hold that a dispute arising entirely outside the CDS, with no connexion to it at all, is capable of being resolved by our law.
[quote="Ashcroft Burnham":bol42d20][quote="Aliasi Stonebender":bol42d20]Exactly what in the world possesses you to think we have one iota of authority outside of the sims of Colonia Nova and Neufreistadt?[/quote:bol42d20]
I have addresed this issue a number of times before.
[/quote:bol42d20]
This doesn't make you right, only repetitive.
[quote:bol42d20]
I should hope that you would trust our judges sufficiently that they would not be so insane as to hold that a dispute arising entirely outside the CDS, with no connexion to it at all, is capable of being resolved by our law.[/quote:bol42d20]
Where government is, I [i:bol42d20]never[/i:bol42d20] rule out even the most insane things; so many of them occur in reality.
In any case, the practicalities ARE the definition; we cannot meaningfully impose a punishment outside our lands. This does not encroach on our ability to ban a non-citizen and give them a fair trial.
If I was to visit the UK and commit an offense, the fact that the UK may take action against me does not give them US jurisdiction, which is exactly what your argument reads as. Nor do I believe defrauding a citizen somewhere outside of the CDS gives us the right to ban someone; if anything, this should act as an encouragement to act within our reach, should you want the protection of our law.
[quote="Aliasi Stonebender":l5qik9vr] This doesn't make you right, only repetitive.[/quote:l5qik9vr]
It does mean, however, that people should read what I have previously written on the matter and expressly address that, rather than merely restating arguments that have already been made and that I have already answered elsewhere. I am being no more repetative than those who argue the other side.
[quote:l5qik9vr]Where government is, I [i:l5qik9vr]never[/i:l5qik9vr] rule out even the most insane things; so many of them occur in reality.[/quote:l5qik9vr]
That does not assist, since insane judges might give an insane interpretation to a jurisdiction rule and cause even more problems.
[quote:l5qik9vr]In any case, the practicalities ARE the definition; we cannot meaningfully impose a punishment outside our lands. This does not encroach on our ability to ban a non-citizen and give them a fair trial.
If I was to visit the UK and commit an offense, the fact that the UK may take action against me does not give them US jurisdiction, which is exactly what your argument reads as. Nor do I believe defrauding a citizen somewhere outside of the CDS gives us the right to ban someone; if anything, this should act as an encouragement to act within our reach, should you want the protection of our law.[/quote:l5qik9vr]
Why should we let people onto our lands who defraud our citizens?
I doubt we can extend our jurisdiction outside the CDS sims, and not only for practical reasons.
Giving protection to our citizens outside our frontiers may be seen as an advantage, but it echoes the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunboat_Diplomacy:37cs7dl1]gunboat diplomacy[/url:37cs7dl1] and that sentence by British Prime Minister Palmerston, who, defending the government stance in the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacifico_incident:37cs7dl1]Pacifico incident[/url:37cs7dl1], said
[quote:37cs7dl1]As the Roman, in days of old, held himself free from indignity, when he could say,[i:37cs7dl1] Civis Romanus sum[/i:37cs7dl1] , so also a British subject, in whatever land he may be, shall feel confident that the watchful eye and the strong arm of England will protect him from injustice and wrong.[/quote:37cs7dl1]
Do we want our citizens shout "I'm a CDS citizen" when a griefer is nearing them?
Also, let's accept that the mainland is open sea and we can judge and banish griefers or fraudsters there. But what about places that have some kind of regulation (but not a judiciary, or even a sanction system), say Caledon, Anshe Chung's estates, StarFleet places? What if one of our citizens comes to our judiciary and says "I've been defrauded by a shop in Caledon", and looks for a sentence, not for the sake of money, but for giving a bad publicity to the fraudster? What if the alleged fraudster is a good Caledon client and Caledon decides to retaliate and bans our whole Judiciary (or government, or citizenry)?
As long as we don't have gunboats to enforce our citizens rights abroad, and as in SL there's no such crimes as torture or genocide to reclaim [url=http://web.amnesty.org/pages/legal_memorandum:37cs7dl1]universal jurisdiction[/url:37cs7dl1] to our courts, I think it's prudent to keep our judiciary inside our frontiers, and let it earn enough respect to widen its scope, perhaps signing agreements that give it some kind of jurisdiction in places like Caledon.
I have no problem for two non-CDS citizen to bring their case, if they agree, before our courts, and pay for it. Only, everybody, including us, should have clear that would be an arbitration system.
Regarding a non-citizen suing a citizen (for something that happened in the CDS), I agree, as several people as said, to put some kind of escrow on the non citizen to ensure everybody has something similar to loose.
[quote="Fernando Book":2467c7zc]Do we want our citizens shout "I'm a CDS citizen" when a griefer is nearing them?[/quote:2467c7zc]
And do you think that anybody will take any notice? Look at it this way: if we were not a democracy with a judiciary, but just a group of people with a common interest sharing a sim, would we not want to ban people who had, for example, defrauded our citizens elsewhere? Why should we allow such people onto our territory?
[quote:2467c7zc]Also, let's accept that the mainland is open sea and we can judge and banish griefers or fraudsters there. But what about places that have some kind of regulation (but not a judiciary, or even a sanction system), say Caledon, Anshe Chung's estates, StarFleet places? What if one of our citizens comes to our judiciary and says "I've been defrauded by a shop in Caledon", and looks for a sentence, not for the sake of money, but for giving a bad publicity to the fraudster? What if the alleged fraudster is a good Caledon client and Caledon decides to retaliate and bans our whole Judiciary (or government, or citizenry)?[/quote:2467c7zc]
Aha, that is why we need a commonwealth with reciprocal enforcement of judgments.
[quote="Ashcroft Burnham":3f4tcy2v]
And do you think that anybody will take any notice? Look at it this way: if we were not a democracy with a judiciary, but just a group of people with a common interest sharing a sim, would we not want to ban people who had, for example, defrauded our citizens elsewhere? Why should we allow such people onto our territory?
[/quote:3f4tcy2v]
Because we don't [i:3f4tcy2v]know[/i:3f4tcy2v] that they've been defrauded. Most griefer cases are very simple; if there's a hundred banana-phones filling the Platz, and they all have the name of a certain avatar, it's an open-and-shut case.
A business deal, not necessarily, and if it doesn't directly involve the CDS I don't see it as [i:3f4tcy2v]our[/i:3f4tcy2v] business. It is not the responsibility of this co-operative to protect fools and the unfortunate in the whole of Second Life. Your position is much the same as saying we can ban someone who is a neighbor to a CDS citizen on the mainland for violating covenant there. After all, if they built a giant plywood penis there, surely they might do so here!
To be sure, if a non-CDS citizen wishes to pay the fee and place their case before us, that's acceptable and something I wish to encourage. Otherwise, I'm unwilling to ban someone from our sims simply because (a) a citizen wishes to file a case and (b) the other party can't be bothered to show up, leaving us with only the word of that citizen.
The Lindens may have expanded the size of the banlist, but they didn't expand it to quite that extent.
'course, I'm not a judge, and if you wish to lay more work on yourself, it's not my place to deny that. I'm arguing solely on principle.