Moderator: SC Moderators
The next General Meeting of the CDSF will be:
on Friday 22 December at 3pm (SL time)
in the Red House, Neufreistadt.
Agenda
1. Judiciary
2. Election
All are welcome for the first agenda item, the second one will be a closed meeting for CSDF members only.
[color=Black:2dxrm4bb][i:2dxrm4bb]Object-Name: notetaker 2.0.1[/i:2dxrm4bb][/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Sienna:2dxrm4bb][i:2dxrm4bb]Region: Neufreistadt (246528, 249600)[/i:2dxrm4bb][/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=DarkOliveGreen:2dxrm4bb][i:2dxrm4bb]Local-Position: (99, 80, 128)[/i:2dxrm4bb][/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=DarkGreen:2dxrm4bb][i:2dxrm4bb]Meeting on 2006-12-22[/i:2dxrm4bb][/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=DarkSlateBlue:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Those present[/b:2dxrm4bb]: [/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Navy:2dxrm4bb][i:2dxrm4bb]Patroklus Murakami is in the chair.[/i:2dxrm4bb][/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Indigo:2dxrm4bb][i:2dxrm4bb]Ashcroft Burnham has indicated consent to be recorded.[/i:2dxrm4bb][/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=DarkSlateGray:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Jon Seattle[/b:2dxrm4bb]: Have you all joined the CSDF?[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Indigo:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:2dxrm4bb]: Ahh, no, we're observers, just here for the first portion when you discuss our favourite topic. Then you'll throw us out when you discuss the election 
[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=DarkRed:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Michel Manen[/b:2dxrm4bb]: No I'm here as an interested citizen only..[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Indigo:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:2dxrm4bb]: Good evening, Moon 
[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=DarkOrange:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Moon Adamant[/b:2dxrm4bb]: hello everyone [/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=DarkOrange:2dxrm4bb][i:2dxrm4bb]Moon Adamant hugs Jon[/i:2dxrm4bb][/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Olive:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Oni Jiutai[/b:2dxrm4bb]: Hello, Moon.[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Navy:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Patroklus Murakami[/b:2dxrm4bb]: hi moon[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=DarkSlateGray:2dxrm4bb][i:2dxrm4bb]Jon Seattle hugs Moon[/i:2dxrm4bb][/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=DarkOrange:2dxrm4bb][i:2dxrm4bb]Moon Adamant has indicated consent to be recorded.[/i:2dxrm4bb][/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=DarkRed:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Michel Manen[/b:2dxrm4bb]: Hi Moon.. [/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=DarkOrange:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Moon Adamant[/b:2dxrm4bb]: and a meery yuletide to everyone [/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Navy:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Patroklus Murakami[/b:2dxrm4bb]: pls touch the recorder to indicate consent to be recorded[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=DarkOrange:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Moon Adamant[/b:2dxrm4bb]: merry*[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Indigo:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:2dxrm4bb]: Likewise [/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=DarkRed:2dxrm4bb][i:2dxrm4bb]Michel Manen has indicated consent to be recorded.[/i:2dxrm4bb][/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Olive:2dxrm4bb][i:2dxrm4bb]Oni Jiutai has indicated consent to be recorded.[/i:2dxrm4bb][/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=DarkSlateGray:2dxrm4bb][i:2dxrm4bb]Jon Seattle has indicated consent to be recorded.[/i:2dxrm4bb][/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Navy:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Patroklus Murakami[/b:2dxrm4bb]: merry christmas, and a happy new year to one and all[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Indigo:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:2dxrm4bb]: Yes, the new year thing, too [/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=DarkOrange:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Moon Adamant[/b:2dxrm4bb]: uh... gwyn says she'll be a bit late... someone asking for technical support[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Olive:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Oni Jiutai[/b:2dxrm4bb]: Seasons Greetings.[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Navy:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Patroklus Murakami[/b:2dxrm4bb]: tonight we have two items 1) judiciary, yet again and 2) election...[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=DarkSlateGray:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Jon Seattle[/b:2dxrm4bb]: Ah[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Navy:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Patroklus Murakami[/b:2dxrm4bb]: we'll kick you all out when we get on to to 2)[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Olive:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Oni Jiutai[/b:2dxrm4bb]: Fair enough [/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Indigo:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:2dxrm4bb]: It'll be past some of our bed-times by then anyway [/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Navy:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Patroklus Murakami[/b:2dxrm4bb]: jon, do u have any other items? moon, u too?[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=DarkSlateGray:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Jon Seattle[/b:2dxrm4bb]: Ah, yes, the SC commission[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=DarkOrange:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Moon Adamant[/b:2dxrm4bb]: none pat... in full xmas mood atm... [/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Navy:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Patroklus Murakami[/b:2dxrm4bb]: shall we begin with the judiciary?[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=DarkOrange:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Moon Adamant[/b:2dxrm4bb]: then i need another galss of madeira, but do start, please [/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=DarkOrange:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Moon Adamant[/b:2dxrm4bb]: glass*[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=DarkSlateGray:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Jon Seattle[/b:2dxrm4bb]: It seems we have the judiciary faction present.[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Navy:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Patroklus Murakami[/b:2dxrm4bb]: hehe, if i drink any more this week my liver will expire![/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=DarkRed:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Michel Manen[/b:2dxrm4bb]: There is no such faction..... hehehe[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Navy:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Patroklus Murakami[/b:2dxrm4bb]: well, u may have seen that i've proposed a way forward on the forums[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=DarkOrange:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Moon Adamant[/b:2dxrm4bb]: indeed[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Navy:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Patroklus Murakami[/b:2dxrm4bb]: it was clear from the commission that the two 'extremes' repeal or carrying on regardless are not the favoured options[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Indigo:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:2dxrm4bb]: Amongst the self-selected and not necessarily representative commission members...[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Navy:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Patroklus Murakami[/b:2dxrm4bb]: if we are to have a judiciary there needs to be further discussion[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Navy:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Patroklus Murakami[/b:2dxrm4bb]: my proposal is an attempt to structure that discussion[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=DarkOrange:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Moon Adamant[/b:2dxrm4bb]: the people at the comission were the people at the commission[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Navy:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Patroklus Murakami[/b:2dxrm4bb]: pfft ash[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Navy:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Patroklus Murakami[/b:2dxrm4bb]: comments? questions?[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=DarkSlateGray:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Jon Seattle[/b:2dxrm4bb]: Well, I hardly think the people who did not show up did so to support the "carry on" approach.[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Indigo:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:2dxrm4bb]: Yes - why do you favour more commissions rather than using the PJSP to monitor judicial performance?[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Indigo:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:2dxrm4bb]: Or any other given approach, Jon.[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=DarkOrange:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Moon Adamant[/b:2dxrm4bb]: i think it's quite irrelevant to wish we dragged the rest of citizens out of their houses into it[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Navy:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Patroklus Murakami[/b:2dxrm4bb]: i haven't proposed more commissons[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Indigo:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:2dxrm4bb]: I thought that you backed Beathan's ten committees idea.[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Navy:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Patroklus Murakami[/b:2dxrm4bb]: no,i didnt[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Indigo:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:2dxrm4bb]: Good evening, Gwyn [/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Green:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:2dxrm4bb]: hello all [/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Indigo:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:2dxrm4bb]: Ahh, perhaps I misread...[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Navy:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Patroklus Murakami[/b:2dxrm4bb]: i said we should continue the discussion inworld and on the forums[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=DarkRed:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Michel Manen[/b:2dxrm4bb]: Hi Gwyn[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=DarkOrange:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Moon Adamant[/b:2dxrm4bb]: hiya gwynnie [/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Navy:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Patroklus Murakami[/b:2dxrm4bb]: hi gwyn, nice entrance [/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=DarkSlateGray:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Jon Seattle[/b:2dxrm4bb]: Hi Gwyn, we need to have the judiciary debate at our meeting.[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Green:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:2dxrm4bb]: We "need" hmm? [/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=DarkSlateGray:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Jon Seattle[/b:2dxrm4bb]: *seem to[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Green:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:2dxrm4bb]: Ah![/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Green:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:2dxrm4bb]: Why?[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=DarkSlateGray:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Jon Seattle[/b:2dxrm4bb]: typo sorry.[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=DarkSlateGray:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Jon Seattle[/b:2dxrm4bb]: I am not sure.[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Indigo:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:2dxrm4bb]: What kind of discussion, Pat? D[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Indigo:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:2dxrm4bb]: Discussion of things already discussed and settled?[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Indigo:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:2dxrm4bb]: Or discussion of how the judiciary is actually performing?[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Green:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:2dxrm4bb]: Uh[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=DarkOrange:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Moon Adamant[/b:2dxrm4bb]: Pieer, if you're looking for the door, follow the gardenwalk[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Green:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:2dxrm4bb]: Isn't this the CSDf meeting?[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=DarkOrange:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Moon Adamant[/b:2dxrm4bb]: Pierre*, sorry[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Navy:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Patroklus Murakami[/b:2dxrm4bb]: well, i don't think that anything is *discussed and settled* and the debate is going to continue whatever we do[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=DarkOrange:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Moon Adamant[/b:2dxrm4bb]: and click on teh door to open[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Indigo:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:2dxrm4bb]: Forever?[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=DarkSlateGray:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Jon Seattle[/b:2dxrm4bb]: This is an attempt at the CSDF meeting.[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=DarkRed:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Michel Manen[/b:2dxrm4bb]: yes, and the first part is open to interested citizens[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=DarkOrange:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Moon Adamant[/b:2dxrm4bb]: indeed, michel[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Green:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:2dxrm4bb]: Ah, an *attempt* at the CSDF meeting.[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Green:2dxrm4bb][i:2dxrm4bb]Gwyneth Llewelyn is in a very cynic mood[/i:2dxrm4bb][/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Navy:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Patroklus Murakami[/b:2dxrm4bb]: so we might as well structure the debate and have a roadmap towards completion[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=DarkOrange:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Moon Adamant[/b:2dxrm4bb]: so let's discuss this constructively[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Green:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:2dxrm4bb]: Sorry ? that comes from the holiday season [/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Green:2dxrm4bb][i:2dxrm4bb]Gwyneth Llewelyn has indicated consent to be recorded.[/i:2dxrm4bb][/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=DarkOrange:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Moon Adamant[/b:2dxrm4bb]: and a merry sunreturn to you too, Gwyn 
[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=DarkRed:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Michel Manen[/b:2dxrm4bb]: i thought that would make us more caring and idealistic hehehe[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Green:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:2dxrm4bb]: thank you Moon ? happy Yuletide![/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Indigo:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:2dxrm4bb]: How about a structure and roadmap based on the PJSP monitoring judicial performance and reporting on that?[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Navy:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Patroklus Murakami[/b:2dxrm4bb]: but i don't know if the dpu will want to take a constructive view or campaign on this (like the simpletons)[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Indigo:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:2dxrm4bb]: The DPU seem to change their mind on the judiciary every week.[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=DarkRed:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Michel Manen[/b:2dxrm4bb]: Pat, have you seen their draft platform on the judiciary?[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Indigo:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:2dxrm4bb]: I suspect that they have internal splits on the topic.[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=DarkSlateGray:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Jon Seattle[/b:2dxrm4bb]: I have some questions. First, how do we keep the "as is" faction from dominating all the discussions.. and let others have a say?[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Indigo:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:2dxrm4bb]: Justice, as we know, always favoured an over-simplified and politically controlled model.[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Navy:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Patroklus Murakami[/b:2dxrm4bb]: michel, i've seen the simpletons views yes[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=DarkRed:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Michel Manen[/b:2dxrm4bb]: ok[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=DarkRed:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Michel Manen[/b:2dxrm4bb]: how to you intend, if at all, to oppose their dangerous deconstructionist project?[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=DarkSlateGray:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Jon Seattle[/b:2dxrm4bb]: Ash, that is quite a slanted summary of the situation.[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Indigo:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:2dxrm4bb]: How so?[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Indigo:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:2dxrm4bb]: Aha, Gwyn you now have clothes![/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=DarkSlateGray:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Jon Seattle[/b:2dxrm4bb]: You assume that you know what Justice favors for one. I am sure he would not claim to support a politically controled model.[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=DarkOrange:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Moon Adamant[/b:2dxrm4bb]: welcome Pierre .)[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Indigo:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:2dxrm4bb]: What he supports in fact entails political control.[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Teal:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Pierre Kerouac[/b:2dxrm4bb]: Hi Moon.[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Navy:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Patroklus Murakami[/b:2dxrm4bb]: hi pierre, feel free to join us[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Indigo:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:2dxrm4bb]: Hello, Pierre [/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Indigo:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:2dxrm4bb]: And what Justice favours has been abundantly clear all along.[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Olive:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Oni Jiutai[/b:2dxrm4bb]: Hello Pierre.[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Navy:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Patroklus Murakami[/b:2dxrm4bb]: pls touch the recorder to indicate consent to being recorded (we keep a public record of our meetings)[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=DarkSlateGray:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Jon Seattle[/b:2dxrm4bb]: Ash, in what way is it political control?[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Teal:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Pierre Kerouac[/b:2dxrm4bb]: Thank you, I don't want to interrupt, though.[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=DarkRed:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Michel Manen[/b:2dxrm4bb]: bonjour Pierre[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Teal:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Pierre Kerouac[/b:2dxrm4bb]: Bonjour Michel.[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Indigo:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:2dxrm4bb]: The Representative Assembly appointing judges, rather than the PJSP doing it, enables a political body - the legislature - to control the sort of people in the judicary and, for example, prevent anyone from becoming a judge who is likely to decide against the government in any given case.[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Green:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:2dxrm4bb]: On peut faire tous notres discussions en Fran?ais, pour etre differents [/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Green:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:2dxrm4bb]: *toutes[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Green:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:2dxrm4bb]: hmm[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Green:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:2dxrm4bb]: my french fails me [/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=DarkRed:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Michel Manen[/b:2dxrm4bb]: Je suis vivevment en faveur de cette proposition contribuant a la diversite culturelle de notre communaute![/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=DarkRed:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Michel Manen[/b:2dxrm4bb]: hihih[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Green:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:2dxrm4bb]: Bien ? on doit voter, donc [/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Indigo:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:2dxrm4bb]: Oui - what Michel said [/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=DarkSlateGray:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Jon Seattle[/b:2dxrm4bb]: Ah, Ash, and you have a way that frees the legislature from getting involved, I assume?[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Indigo:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:2dxrm4bb]: Yes, the PJSP, as we already have.[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=DarkOrange:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Moon Adamant[/b:2dxrm4bb]: lol, tu rigoles gwyn [/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=DarkSlateGray:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Jon Seattle[/b:2dxrm4bb]: But the PJSP is part of the judiciary.[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Indigo:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:2dxrm4bb]: No it's not.[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Indigo:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:2dxrm4bb]: In what sense do you claim that it is "part of" the judiciary?[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=DarkSlateGray:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Jon Seattle[/b:2dxrm4bb]: So you are saying the organization will police itself.[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=DarkRed:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Michel Manen[/b:2dxrm4bb]: smiles at Gwyyn[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=DarkRed:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Michel Manen[/b:2dxrm4bb]: Here we go..[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Indigo:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:2dxrm4bb]: No - the PJSP scrutinises the judiciary on behalf of the public.[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Navy:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Patroklus Murakami[/b:2dxrm4bb]: indeed, here we go [/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=DarkOrange:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Moon Adamant[/b:2dxrm4bb]: namaste Yoge [/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Navy:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Patroklus Murakami[/b:2dxrm4bb]: hi yoge [/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Indigo:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:2dxrm4bb]: I find the claim that the PJSP is "part of" the judiciary utterly bizarre.[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=DarkSlateGray:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Jon Seattle[/b:2dxrm4bb]: Hi Yoge! [/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Green:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:2dxrm4bb]: hello Yoge.[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Indigo:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:2dxrm4bb]: The judges or judicial administrators have no power to tell them what to do in any sense.[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Green:2dxrm4bb][i:2dxrm4bb]Gwyneth Llewelyn is reading the rewritten Constitution by Publius.[/i:2dxrm4bb][/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Teal:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Pierre Kerouac[/b:2dxrm4bb]: On pourrait, quelqu'un disait que les socialistes francais faisaient campagne dans SL[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Blue:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Yogeswari Padar[/b:2dxrm4bb]: namaste, all[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Green:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:2dxrm4bb]: Let me see what our Chair of the JC thinks about it...[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Indigo:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:2dxrm4bb]: They are completely independent from the judges and administrators in the sense that they are entirely free from their influence.[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=DarkRed:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Michel Manen[/b:2dxrm4bb]: Weel Ash.. maybe you can explain how a body set up under the Judiciary section of the Constitution is, in fact, NOT part of the Judiciary..[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Indigo:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:2dxrm4bb]: Because the section that sets a body up doesn't tell one whether the body is independent of any other body or not.[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Navy:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Patroklus Murakami[/b:2dxrm4bb]: well, the two don't follow, do they?[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Green:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:2dxrm4bb]: I was going to type that... [/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=DarkOrange:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Moon Adamant[/b:2dxrm4bb]: hmmm[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=DarkOrange:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Moon Adamant[/b:2dxrm4bb]: so it should say it?[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Green:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:2dxrm4bb]: ie. what the Constitution dos not explicitly say, is free to interpretation [/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Indigo:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:2dxrm4bb]: Independence of one body from another body is a function of, and only of, the capacity of the one body to influence the other.[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Navy:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Patroklus Murakami[/b:2dxrm4bb]: just because it's part of the judiciary Act doesn't mean it's part of the judiciary [/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Green:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:2dxrm4bb]: But since one cannot interpret the Constitution....[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Indigo:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:2dxrm4bb]: How can it be otherwise?[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=DarkOrange:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Moon Adamant[/b:2dxrm4bb]: but that's not what i asked[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Indigo:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:2dxrm4bb]: Indeed - are marshals of the peace part of the judiciary?[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=DarkOrange:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Moon Adamant[/b:2dxrm4bb]: well, then maybe the judiciary act is making reference to a lot of things that are not part of teh judiciary[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=DarkSlateGray:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Jon Seattle[/b:2dxrm4bb]: Ash, even if that were so, please tell me exacrtly what powers the PJSP has? It seems to me that all it can do is make suggestions.[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Navy:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Patroklus Murakami[/b:2dxrm4bb]: what was your question moon?[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Indigo:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:2dxrm4bb]: Yes, it is.[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=DarkOrange:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Moon Adamant[/b:2dxrm4bb]: shouldn't those ambiguities be set clear?[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Indigo:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:2dxrm4bb]: Jon, the same applies for the committees.[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Indigo:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:2dxrm4bb]: The PJSP can commence impeachment proceedings against any judge or the Chair of the JC.[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Indigo:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:2dxrm4bb]: It appoints judges.[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Indigo:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:2dxrm4bb]: It can write reports and make recommendations.[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=DarkSlateGray:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Jon Seattle[/b:2dxrm4bb]: Ah, committes of the RA have no power on their own.[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Indigo:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:2dxrm4bb]: It can investigate complaints.[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=DarkSlateGray:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Jon Seattle[/b:2dxrm4bb]: they make suggestions to the RA.[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Indigo:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:2dxrm4bb]: Indeed - so the PJSP is no less powerful.[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=DarkOrange:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Moon Adamant[/b:2dxrm4bb]: Pay, my question was justly that shouldn't the Jud Act then make clear the independence (or no) of the PJSP?[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=DarkSlateGray:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Jon Seattle[/b:2dxrm4bb]: Are you saying that the PJSP has no power?[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=DarkSlateGray:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Jon Seattle[/b:2dxrm4bb]: it can investigate, and then what?[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Indigo:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:2dxrm4bb]: Also, the PJSP has the power to call before it any judge and interrogate her or him about judicial performance.[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Teal:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Pierre Kerouac[/b:2dxrm4bb]: Can I ask whant the PJSP is?[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=DarkRed:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Michel Manen[/b:2dxrm4bb]: In my view, the PJSP has a number of different functions, and its powers differ greatly depending on which hat it wears at any particular time[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Indigo:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:2dxrm4bb]: Jon, I've just outlined all of the powers of the PJSP.[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=DarkSlateGray:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Jon Seattle[/b:2dxrm4bb]: So, it can ask questions, but do nothing about what it finds.[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=DarkOrange:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Moon Adamant[/b:2dxrm4bb]: but Ash[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Green:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:2dxrm4bb]: Ok, now, some food for thought.[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Green:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:2dxrm4bb]: Homework for you ?[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Indigo:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:2dxrm4bb]: It can investigate and then publish a recommendation.[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Navy:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Patroklus Murakami[/b:2dxrm4bb]: i think that clarity on the role of the PJSP would be a good thing perhaps we could clarify this in our ongoing discussion of the Judiciary?[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Green:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:2dxrm4bb]: http://www.aliasi.us/nburgwiki/tiki-ind ... as+amended[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Indigo:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:2dxrm4bb]: Either the judiciary itself or the legislature can then act on that recommendation.[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Green:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:2dxrm4bb]: This was posted by Publius,[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Green:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:2dxrm4bb]: taking into account all amendments,[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Navy:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Patroklus Murakami[/b:2dxrm4bb]: PJSP=public judiciary scrutiny panel[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Green:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:2dxrm4bb]: and putting it into a single text[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Green:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:2dxrm4bb]: Now, the interesting bit,[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Indigo:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:2dxrm4bb]: I have no idea why anybody thinks that the role is unclear: it's spelt out precisely in consecutively numbered paragraphs in the constitution.[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Teal:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Pierre Kerouac[/b:2dxrm4bb]: Gwyneth, was that homework for me?[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Green:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:2dxrm4bb]: Publius, like many normal and sane human beings,[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Green:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:2dxrm4bb]: has one Article VII ? The judiciary[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=DarkOrange:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Moon Adamant[/b:2dxrm4bb]: Pierre, the entire Judiciary Act and the terabytes of discussiona round it can be read at http://forums.neufreistadt.info[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Green:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:2dxrm4bb]: and several bodies listed under that very same article.[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Green:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:2dxrm4bb]: One of these bodies is ? surprise, surprise! ? the PJSP[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Indigo:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:2dxrm4bb]: Article VII establishes the Judiciary Commission and the Common Jurisdiciton, and an independent body to appoint judges and oversee the judiciary [/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Green:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:2dxrm4bb]: It's by far not the only one.[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Teal:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Pierre Kerouac[/b:2dxrm4bb]: Moon, thank you.[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Green:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:2dxrm4bb]: But definitely one "under the article for the Judiciary"[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Green:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:2dxrm4bb]: Now,[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=DarkOrange:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Moon Adamant[/b:2dxrm4bb]: yw Pierre [/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Green:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:2dxrm4bb]: the question that begs asking...[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Green:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:2dxrm4bb]: Did Publius amend the constitution correctly, based on what the RA did or not? [/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Green:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:2dxrm4bb]: If he did amend that correctly,[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Indigo:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:2dxrm4bb]: I can't see how that's relevant.[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Green:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:2dxrm4bb]: how can anyone really claim that the bodies that are listed under the article that is called *The Judiciary*[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Green:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:2dxrm4bb]: are NOT part of the Judiciary?[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Green:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:2dxrm4bb]: One can counter-argue and say:[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Green:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:2dxrm4bb]: "Publius did apply the amendments wrongly".[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Indigo:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:2dxrm4bb]: The question is not what subheading of the constitution it comes under (it would, after all, have been absurd to have a chapter *just* for the PJSP, and, since all of its functions *relate* to the judiciary, it makes sense to have it in Article VII.[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Indigo:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:2dxrm4bb]: )[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Green:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:2dxrm4bb]: I object, you honour.[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Green:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:2dxrm4bb]: *your[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Green:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:2dxrm4bb]: After all,[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Green:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:2dxrm4bb]: there are things related to the judiciary[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Green:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:2dxrm4bb]: which are under, say, the Scientific Council[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Indigo:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:2dxrm4bb]: Gwyn, this whole question about whether things are "part of the judiciary" is an example of the fallacy of the ambiguous middle, the ambiguous middle in this case being the concept of whether something is "part of the judiciary".[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Green:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:2dxrm4bb]: And the way the SC relates to the Judiciary[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Green:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:2dxrm4bb]: Well, if it's NOT part of the judiciary,[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Indigo:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:2dxrm4bb]: The meaningful question is: is the PJSP functionally indepenent from the judges and court administrators?[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Green:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:2dxrm4bb]: it should NOT be under the Judiciary's article,[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=DarkRed:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Michel Manen[/b:2dxrm4bb]: Now, Gwyn, do you agree that the PJSP has a supervisory function over the SC as well?[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Green:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:2dxrm4bb]: but under Article VIII ? Other Branches And regulatory Bodies[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Indigo:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:2dxrm4bb]: It should be under Article VII because it relates to the judiciary.[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Green:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:2dxrm4bb]: Well, so does the Sc [/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Indigo:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:2dxrm4bb]: But this is a wholly pointless debate about constitutional arrangement.[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Green:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:2dxrm4bb]: And yes, Michel, when the SC acts as a Court[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Green:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:2dxrm4bb]: Not at all, Ashcroft[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Green:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:2dxrm4bb]: There is something like "the intent of the legislator"[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Indigo:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:2dxrm4bb]: The real question is whether the PJSP is functionally independent from the people who decide cases and manage the courts.[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=DarkOrange:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Moon Adamant[/b:2dxrm4bb]: well, i for one think the Const should be the clearest as possible[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Indigo:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:2dxrm4bb]: I.e., those who exercise judicial power.[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Green:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:2dxrm4bb]: in setting things under the proper headings, because they intended it to be viewed in a certain light[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Indigo:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:2dxrm4bb]: Yes - because the PJSP relates to the judiciary.[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=DarkRed:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Michel Manen[/b:2dxrm4bb]: Would you say that the PJSP is independent of the SC Gwyn?[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Green:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:2dxrm4bb]: Ash ? so does the SC, and it's under a different article,[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Indigo:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:2dxrm4bb]: That's because it doesn't *just* relate to the judiciary.[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Green:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:2dxrm4bb]: repeating the same thing over and over again is no strategy ? I can repeat the same again and again as well[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Indigo:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:2dxrm4bb]: The PJSP does.[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Green:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:2dxrm4bb]: The PJSP *also* relates to the SC, as Michel pointed out,[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Indigo:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:2dxrm4bb]: Why don't you think, Gwyn, that the only relevant question is whether the PJSP is functionally independent of the judges and court administrators?[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=DarkOrange:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Moon Adamant[/b:2dxrm4bb]: but why shouldn't it clearly say so?[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Green:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:2dxrm4bb]: so I'm sorry Ash ? either the constitution is *wronlgly* amended (and I can envision that!), or I don't understand your stubbornness.[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Indigo:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:2dxrm4bb]: Because there's nothing unclear![/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Green:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:2dxrm4bb]: Ah ?[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=DarkOrange:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Moon Adamant[/b:2dxrm4bb]: really?[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Green:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:2dxrm4bb]: the point here is: *if* the PJSP was a superindependent body.[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Indigo:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:2dxrm4bb]: Independence is an emergant property of the fact that it can't be influenced by the judiciary.[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Teal:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Pierre Kerouac[/b:2dxrm4bb]: Can I ask why a judiciary power is more important than the normal democratic institutions you would find in any normal group of people?[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Green:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:2dxrm4bb]: the SC would have voted very differently when exercising the veto [/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Indigo:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:2dxrm4bb]: Well, that's irrelevant, I'm afraid.[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=DarkSlateGray:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Jon Seattle[/b:2dxrm4bb]: Welcome Rubaiyat. The judicial faction is visiting.[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=DarkOrange:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Moon Adamant[/b:2dxrm4bb]: hiya Rubaiyat [/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=SlateGray:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Rubaiyat Shatner[/b:2dxrm4bb]: Saluton.[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Navy:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Patroklus Murakami[/b:2dxrm4bb]: hi rubiyat, welcome/ pls touch the recorder to indicate consent to be recorded[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=DarkRed:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Michel Manen[/b:2dxrm4bb]: Pierre - its not more important - its functionally diffrent[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Green:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:2dxrm4bb]: Not at all. The SC based its decisions on *intent*[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=SlateGray:2dxrm4bb][i:2dxrm4bb]Rubaiyat Shatner has indicated consent to be recorded.[/i:2dxrm4bb][/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Indigo:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:2dxrm4bb]: The question is whether the Public Judiciary Scrutiny Panel is capable of being influenced by the judges or the court administrators in exercising its functions. Does anybody argue that it is not independent in that sense?[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Green:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:2dxrm4bb]: Hello Rubaiyat, welcome [/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Indigo:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:2dxrm4bb]: The SC based its decisions on what it beleived the intent to be.[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=DarkRed:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Michel Manen[/b:2dxrm4bb]: Gwyn... do you think the PJSP is idepedent of the SC sitting as a Court?[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Indigo:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:2dxrm4bb]: If it made a mistake, that doesn't change the meaning of the constitution.[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=DarkOrange:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Moon Adamant[/b:2dxrm4bb]: but Ash[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Green:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:2dxrm4bb]: politically independent. for sure, Michel.[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=DarkOrange:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Moon Adamant[/b:2dxrm4bb]: the PJSP can be impeached by the Chief Judge[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Indigo:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:2dxrm4bb]: The judges can be impeached by the RA or the SC.[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=DarkRed:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Michel Manen[/b:2dxrm4bb]: and tehrefore can dvise on the uality of service offered by the SC as a Ccourt?[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Indigo:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:2dxrm4bb]: Does that make the judiciary part of the legislature or SC?[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=DarkRed:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Michel Manen[/b:2dxrm4bb]: *advise[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Teal:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Pierre Kerouac[/b:2dxrm4bb]: Michel, I'm probably out of sink, a little, It seems to me a lot of thinking goes into the judiciary part of things, less on the general power structure.[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Green:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:2dxrm4bb]: I think so, Michel, let me get the relevant section, though, I haven't memorised the whole constitution yet ? hehe[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=DarkRed:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Michel Manen[/b:2dxrm4bb]: Pierre, the key structural question here is whether we will have a judiciary independent of political pressure or a judiciary dominatged by the party currently in power[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=DarkOrange:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Moon Adamant[/b:2dxrm4bb]: Pierre, i for one, quite agree with you[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Navy:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Patroklus Murakami[/b:2dxrm4bb]: oh pierre, there's been a *lot* of discussion on the geneal power structure, but perhaps some concern that the judiciary act has unbalanced things[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Indigo:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:2dxrm4bb]: Misplaced concern, I should add.[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=DarkRed:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Michel Manen[/b:2dxrm4bb]: thats another way of putting it .. hhehe[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=DarkOrange:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Moon Adamant[/b:2dxrm4bb]: as i said previously... the fact that people are concerned about it concerns me[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=DarkSlateGray:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Jon Seattle[/b:2dxrm4bb]: I think we are quickly becoming judiciary sim. But perhaps that is the point of all this?[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Green:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:2dxrm4bb]: Michel ? yes, 19 c) states: "(c) to investigate, other than in response to a complaint, the performance and quality of service of the Courts of Common Jurisdiction and Court of Scientific Council, and to publish the findings of such an investigation, and recommendations (if any) in respect thereof;"[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Teal:2dxrm4bb][b:2dxrm4bb]Pierre Kerouac[/b:2dxrm4bb]: Patroklus, I know I've missed most of the discussion, I'll just listen then.[/color:2dxrm4bb]
[color=Indigo:3luy70rc][b:3luy70rc]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:3luy70rc]: People's concerns would be more meaningul if they were based on the judiciary going wrong when it heard actual cases.[/color:3luy70rc]
[color=Green:3luy70rc][b:3luy70rc]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:3luy70rc]: so, yes, the Court of the SC is under the scrutiny of the PJSP as well, and I think that's a very good thing to have.[/color:3luy70rc]
[color=DarkOrange:3luy70rc][b:3luy70rc]Moon Adamant[/b:3luy70rc]: nevertheless, people's concerns exist and should be adressed[/color:3luy70rc]
[color=Indigo:3luy70rc][b:3luy70rc]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:3luy70rc]: The "concerns" at present seem to be an attempt by those who always wanted a different design to get one.[/color:3luy70rc]
[color=DarkRed:3luy70rc][b:3luy70rc]Michel Manen[/b:3luy70rc]: now Gwyn, if the PJSP can indeed do so with respect to the SC sitting as a court, why in your opinion can it not be just as impartial and independent when it evaluates not only the aulaity of service , but ALSO the Performance of our Courts of Justice?[/color:3luy70rc]
[color=Green:3luy70rc][b:3luy70rc]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:3luy70rc]: Well, we have discussed that endlessly ? there will never be a "consensus" on that.[/color:3luy70rc]
[color=DarkRed:3luy70rc][b:3luy70rc]Michel Manen[/b:3luy70rc]: *quality[/color:3luy70rc]
[color=Indigo:3luy70rc][b:3luy70rc]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:3luy70rc]: Indeed.[/color:3luy70rc]
[color=Indigo:3luy70rc][b:3luy70rc]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:3luy70rc]: That's why we should pick one option, and stick with it unless it goes seriously wrong in hearing cases.[/color:3luy70rc]
[color=DarkOrange:3luy70rc][b:3luy70rc]Moon Adamant[/b:3luy70rc]: well Ash, you yourself have proposed possible modifications to the present situation in Ash 3 proposal[/color:3luy70rc]
[color=Green:3luy70rc][b:3luy70rc]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:3luy70rc]: Oh, but I never claimed otherwise, Michel ? I think that the PJSP is rather politically independent.[/color:3luy70rc]
[color=Indigo:3luy70rc][b:3luy70rc]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:3luy70rc]: Independent of the judges, Gwyn?[/color:3luy70rc]
[color=Indigo:3luy70rc][b:3luy70rc]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:3luy70rc]: And of the court administrators?[/color:3luy70rc]
[color=DarkRed:3luy70rc][b:3luy70rc]Michel Manen[/b:3luy70rc]: So why are we then disagreeing on the role of the PJP Gwyn?[/color:3luy70rc]
[color=DarkRed:3luy70rc][b:3luy70rc]Michel Manen[/b:3luy70rc]: PJSP[/color:3luy70rc]
[color=Green:3luy70rc][b:3luy70rc]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:3luy70rc]: I just think that there is no fundament in claiming "it's not part of the judiciary" just because it's not influenced by other branches outside of it [/color:3luy70rc]
[color=Indigo:3luy70rc][b:3luy70rc]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:3luy70rc]: But if that's your understanding of what it means to be "part of the judiciary", then the concept is empty and useless for these purposes, isn't it?[/color:3luy70rc]
[color=Green:3luy70rc][b:3luy70rc]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:3luy70rc]: Please Ashcroft.[/color:3luy70rc]
[color=Green:3luy70rc][b:3luy70rc]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:3luy70rc]: really...[/color:3luy70rc]
[color=Green:3luy70rc][i:3luy70rc]Gwyneth Llewelyn *shakes head*[/i:3luy70rc][/color:3luy70rc]
[color=Indigo:3luy70rc][b:3luy70rc]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:3luy70rc]: And doesn't inform whether the body is impartial as to its scrutiny of the judges and court administrators.[/color:3luy70rc]
[color=DarkOrange:3luy70rc][b:3luy70rc]Moon Adamant[/b:3luy70rc]: so perhaps the way to go lies more in exploring the possibilities of compromise around Ash 3 or any other similar proposal[/color:3luy70rc]
[color=DarkRed:3luy70rc][b:3luy70rc]Michel Manen[/b:3luy70rc]: but we are talking here not about the SC as part of the philosophical branch, but as part of the judiciary.... and you agreed the PJSP is in fact independent of it...[/color:3luy70rc]
[color=Green:3luy70rc][b:3luy70rc]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:3luy70rc]: Next, you'll be proposing that the PJSP is not even part of the CDS, to make sure people don't "confuse" things...[/color:3luy70rc]
[color=Indigo:3luy70rc][b:3luy70rc]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:3luy70rc]: Gwyn, I didn't mean to be impolite. The point that I am making is that if being "part of the judiciary" means no more than being a body specified under Art. VII of the constitution, then that doesn't tell us anything about whether the PJSP is the right body to scrutinise the judiciary now or not.[/color:3luy70rc]
[color=Green:3luy70rc][b:3luy70rc]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:3luy70rc]: Once you start claiming things that are simply not written there, you can go whatever route you wish.[/color:3luy70rc]
[color=Indigo:3luy70rc][b:3luy70rc]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:3luy70rc]: I don't follow your point.[/color:3luy70rc]
[color=Green:3luy70rc][b:3luy70rc]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:3luy70rc]: My point is simple. There is a structure to the constitution.[/color:3luy70rc]
[color=Green:3luy70rc][b:3luy70rc]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:3luy70rc]: Either that structure has relevance, or it doesn't.[/color:3luy70rc]
[color=Indigo:3luy70rc][b:3luy70rc]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:3luy70rc]: The PJSP is part of the CDS in that it's a body provided for in the CDS's constitution, comprising of CDS citizens, with functions relating to the CDS judiciary.[/color:3luy70rc]
[color=Navy:3luy70rc][b:3luy70rc]Patroklus Murakami[/b:3luy70rc]: (ten more minutes on this folks, at most:))[/color:3luy70rc]
[color=Indigo:3luy70rc][b:3luy70rc]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:3luy70rc]: Gwyn, the question is precisely what relevance that it has.[/color:3luy70rc]
[color=Indigo:3luy70rc][b:3luy70rc]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:3luy70rc]: The relevance of things being under Art. VII is that they relate to the judiciary exclusively.[/color:3luy70rc]
[color=DarkOrange:3luy70rc][b:3luy70rc]Moon Adamant[/b:3luy70rc]: Ashcroft[/color:3luy70rc]
[color=Green:3luy70rc][b:3luy70rc]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:3luy70rc]: Well. I don't want things "outside" of frameworks.[/color:3luy70rc]
[color=DarkOrange:3luy70rc][b:3luy70rc]Moon Adamant[/b:3luy70rc]: i don't understand your position on this[/color:3luy70rc]
[color=DarkRed:3luy70rc][b:3luy70rc]Michel Manen[/b:3luy70rc]: well its the classic US division on how the constitutions should be interpreted: are we looking for intent here or for the literal interpretation of the text?[/color:3luy70rc]
[color=Indigo:3luy70rc][b:3luy70rc]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:3luy70rc]: I understand that, Gwyn.[/color:3luy70rc]
[color=DarkOrange:3luy70rc][b:3luy70rc]Moon Adamant[/b:3luy70rc]: if the change is irrelevant, then why don't make it?[/color:3luy70rc]
[color=Indigo:3luy70rc][b:3luy70rc]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:3luy70rc]: But that's not what the legislature voted for when it passed the Judiciary Act.[/color:3luy70rc]
[color=Green:3luy70rc][b:3luy70rc]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:3luy70rc]: So, I'll make sure that *my* opinion prevails on this [/color:3luy70rc]
[color=Indigo:3luy70rc][b:3luy70rc]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:3luy70rc]: We have to look at the constitution as it is, not necessarily how you'd like it to be [/color:3luy70rc]
[color=Green:3luy70rc][b:3luy70rc]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:3luy70rc]: Well[/color:3luy70rc]
[color=DarkOrange:3luy70rc][b:3luy70rc]Moon Adamant[/b:3luy70rc]: for teh sake of clarity alone?[/color:3luy70rc]
[color=Green:3luy70rc][b:3luy70rc]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:3luy70rc]: The way the constitution is +written*,[/color:3luy70rc]
[color=Green:3luy70rc][b:3luy70rc]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:3luy70rc]: it places the branches neatly under the articles that create those branches.[/color:3luy70rc]
[color=Indigo:3luy70rc][i:3luy70rc]Ashcroft Burnham listens to Moon, who may be about to make a good point...[/i:3luy70rc][/color:3luy70rc]
[color=DarkOrange:3luy70rc][b:3luy70rc]Moon Adamant[/b:3luy70rc]: quite honestly, it looks like the Jud Act is written on stone...[/color:3luy70rc]
[color=Green:3luy70rc][b:3luy70rc]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:3luy70rc]: Anything that is beyond that is mere speculation.[/color:3luy70rc]
[color=Indigo:3luy70rc][b:3luy70rc]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:3luy70rc]: (Incidentally, Gwyn, I'm used to a legal culture where headings and names are taken merely as useful approximate references, not an inherent part of the meaning...)[/color:3luy70rc]
[color=DarkOrange:3luy70rc][b:3luy70rc]Moon Adamant[/b:3luy70rc]: for clarity sake, move it to a section where it is immediately noticeable taht it is not part of the judiciary - or else add teh specific wording for it[/color:3luy70rc]
[color=Indigo:3luy70rc][b:3luy70rc]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:3luy70rc]: I think that Moon proposes a good compromise here [/color:3luy70rc]
[color=DarkRed:3luy70rc][b:3luy70rc]Michel Manen[/b:3luy70rc]: Well, I think that the Consitution indented to create a body - the PJSP - of elected citizens to monitor the qulity of service and performance of our public insstitutions - would everyone agree on this?[/color:3luy70rc]
[color=Green:3luy70rc][b:3luy70rc]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:3luy70rc]: Ah Michel,[/color:3luy70rc]
[color=Green:3luy70rc][b:3luy70rc]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:3luy70rc]: I'm not sure any more.[/color:3luy70rc]
[color=Navy:3luy70rc][b:3luy70rc]Patroklus Murakami[/b:3luy70rc]: yes michel, tho only with refernce to the judiciary [/color:3luy70rc]
[color=Green:3luy70rc][b:3luy70rc]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:3luy70rc]: It was what i was lead to believe orginally,[/color:3luy70rc]
[color=Green:3luy70rc][b:3luy70rc]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:3luy70rc]: now we're still discussing what "performance" means in this context, for instance.[/color:3luy70rc]
[color=DarkRed:3luy70rc][b:3luy70rc]Michel Manen[/b:3luy70rc]: (I didnt mean the RA of course Pat)[/color:3luy70rc]
[color=Green:3luy70rc][b:3luy70rc]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:3luy70rc]: I have heard that it might even imply "rewriting the constitution"[/color:3luy70rc]
[color=Green:3luy70rc][b:3luy70rc]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:3luy70rc]: Thus, implying that the PJSP has way more powers than what was "originally intended"[/color:3luy70rc]
[color=Green:3luy70rc][b:3luy70rc]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:3luy70rc]: Well, I agree that people might have been naive when agreeing on letting the JA pass.[/color:3luy70rc]
[color=DarkRed:3luy70rc][b:3luy70rc]Michel Manen[/b:3luy70rc]: Who supports that position Gwyn?[/color:3luy70rc]
[color=Green:3luy70rc][b:3luy70rc]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:3luy70rc]: I mean, when we discussed "performance", we were thinking on one thing[/color:3luy70rc]
[color=Green:3luy70rc][b:3luy70rc]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:3luy70rc]: apparently, the SC was not aware of the implications[/color:3luy70rc]
[color=Indigo:3luy70rc][b:3luy70rc]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:3luy70rc]: Performance means, surely, "how the judiciary performs in practice" [/color:3luy70rc]
[color=DarkRed:3luy70rc][b:3luy70rc]Michel Manen[/b:3luy70rc]: well[/color:3luy70rc]
[color=Navy:3luy70rc][b:3luy70rc]Patroklus Murakami[/b:3luy70rc]: i think we may have been too hasty in agreeing to a second elected body, even if it is supposedly limited to judicial oversight[/color:3luy70rc]
[color=Green:3luy70rc][b:3luy70rc]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:3luy70rc]: and after the JA was passed, the SC was removed the choice to *explain* what it has actually approved.[/color:3luy70rc]
[color=Green:3luy70rc][b:3luy70rc]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:3luy70rc]: Well Pat[/color:3luy70rc]
[color=Indigo:3luy70rc][b:3luy70rc]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:3luy70rc]: You can't really blame, though, Gwyn, the framers and proponents of the Act just because people in the SC made a mistake about it.[/color:3luy70rc]
[color=DarkRed:3luy70rc][b:3luy70rc]Michel Manen[/b:3luy70rc]: there are two issues that are very distinct: "Application" and "Design" issues[/color:3luy70rc]
[color=Green:3luy70rc][b:3luy70rc]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:3luy70rc]: there is no problem with elected bodies.[/color:3luy70rc]
[color=Indigo:3luy70rc][b:3luy70rc]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:3luy70rc]: Why is that, Pat?[/color:3luy70rc]
[color=Green:3luy70rc][b:3luy70rc]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:3luy70rc]: *If* you know what powers they actually have, under which scope they will be applied, and what framework applies to them.[/color:3luy70rc]
[color=Navy:3luy70rc][b:3luy70rc]Patroklus Murakami[/b:3luy70rc]: it sets up a 'dual power' situation that could be quite dangerous[/color:3luy70rc]
[color=Indigo:3luy70rc][b:3luy70rc]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:3luy70rc]: What's wrong with the idea of the PJSP?[/color:3luy70rc]
[color=Indigo:3luy70rc][b:3luy70rc]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:3luy70rc]: It was the perfect way out of the deadlock on judicial appointments.[/color:3luy70rc]
[color=Green:3luy70rc][b:3luy70rc]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:3luy70rc]: Ash ? exactly.[/color:3luy70rc]
[color=Indigo:3luy70rc][b:3luy70rc]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:3luy70rc]: What precise dangers do you envisage, Pat?[/color:3luy70rc]
[color=Green:3luy70rc][b:3luy70rc]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:3luy70rc]: The issue here is one of good faith really.[/color:3luy70rc]
[color=DarkRed:3luy70rc][b:3luy70rc]Michel Manen[/b:3luy70rc]: when the constitution says "quality of service", Gwyn, it referes to "Application" issues[/color:3luy70rc]
[color=Green:3luy70rc][b:3luy70rc]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:3luy70rc]: The SC acted on good faith on a common understanding of what the PJSP was.[/color:3luy70rc]
[color=DarkSlateGray:3luy70rc][b:3luy70rc]Jon Seattle[/b:3luy70rc]: May I change the topic slightly.[/color:3luy70rc]
[color=Indigo:3luy70rc][b:3luy70rc]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:3luy70rc]: What do you mean good faith, Gwyn?[/color:3luy70rc]
[color=Green:3luy70rc][b:3luy70rc]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:3luy70rc]: *AFTER* it was approved, however,[/color:3luy70rc]
[color=Navy:3luy70rc][b:3luy70rc]Patroklus Murakami[/b:3luy70rc]: two elected bodies = two potential sources of legislation[/color:3luy70rc]
[color=Green:3luy70rc][b:3luy70rc]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:3luy70rc]: it is now claimed to be something completely different.[/color:3luy70rc]
[color=DarkRed:3luy70rc][b:3luy70rc]Michel Manen[/b:3luy70rc]: when it says "performance" it refers to "design" issues[/color:3luy70rc]
[color=Navy:3luy70rc][b:3luy70rc]Patroklus Murakami[/b:3luy70rc]: both with democratic legitimacy[/color:3luy70rc]
[color=Green:3luy70rc][b:3luy70rc]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:3luy70rc]: And NOW, the SC cannot say anything about the subject any more ? the JA has removed its powers of doing so.[/color:3luy70rc]
[color=Indigo:3luy70rc][b:3luy70rc]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:3luy70rc]: Gwyn, it seems that people all assumed that everyone else shared their understanding of what the PJSP was, when, in fact, that understanding was different. But I'm still not clear on exactly what your understanding entails...[/color:3luy70rc]
[color=Indigo:3luy70rc][b:3luy70rc]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:3luy70rc]: Pat, the PJSP has no power to create legislation, so I don't follow that point at all.[/color:3luy70rc]
[color=Green:3luy70rc][b:3luy70rc]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:3luy70rc]: Well Michel, in my dictionary ? I admit, it's a limited one ? "performance" is measured by: how many cases are pending, how quickly a judgement is passed, etc[/color:3luy70rc]
[color=DarkRed:3luy70rc][b:3luy70rc]Michel Manen[/b:3luy70rc]: So, for example, the PJSP can only make recommendations regarding the SC's quality of service as a court- that is, its appliation of the rules, bot the entire design of the S as a Court[/color:3luy70rc]
[color=DarkOrange:3luy70rc][b:3luy70rc]Moon Adamant[/b:3luy70rc]: is it said specifically that it hasn't?[/color:3luy70rc]
[color=Green:3luy70rc][b:3luy70rc]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:3luy70rc]: It has the power to make *recommendations* on legislature,[/color:3luy70rc]
[color=Green:3luy70rc][b:3luy70rc]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:3luy70rc]: and that a power that comes from an *elected* body.[/color:3luy70rc]
[color=Green:3luy70rc][b:3luy70rc]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:3luy70rc]: What does that spell to you? [/color:3luy70rc]
[color=Indigo:3luy70rc][b:3luy70rc]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:3luy70rc]: Moon, the heirachy of sources of law does not include anywhere legislation "passed" by the PJSP.[/color:3luy70rc]
[color=Indigo:3luy70rc][b:3luy70rc]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:3luy70rc]: If it purported to make legislation, the courts would have to ignore it.[/color:3luy70rc]
[color=DarkOrange:3luy70rc][b:3luy70rc]Moon Adamant[/b:3luy70rc]: Ashcroft[/color:3luy70rc]
[color=DarkRed:3luy70rc][b:3luy70rc]Michel Manen[/b:3luy70rc]: when the constitution says the PJSP can make recommendations as to BOTH the quality of service and the performanct of our courts, it refers BOTH to application aND design issues[/color:3luy70rc]
[color=Green:3luy70rc][b:3luy70rc]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:3luy70rc]: If a publicly elected body publishes recommendation for new legislature, will the RA ignore it?[/color:3luy70rc]
[color=DarkOrange:3luy70rc][b:3luy70rc]Moon Adamant[/b:3luy70rc]: the thing is: if it isn't said speficically that it doesn't, it can be interpreted that it can[/color:3luy70rc]
[color=DarkOrange:3luy70rc][b:3luy70rc]Moon Adamant[/b:3luy70rc]: and as gwyn says[/color:3luy70rc]
[color=Indigo:3luy70rc][b:3luy70rc]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:3luy70rc]: As I said, Moon, if the PJSP purported to pass legislation, it would have no effect, because "legislation" of the PJSP does not count among the enumerated sources of law in teh constitution.[/color:3luy70rc]
[color=DarkOrange:3luy70rc][b:3luy70rc]Moon Adamant[/b:3luy70rc]: a recommendation issued by an elected body towards the scope of another elected body can conduce to deadlock[/color:3luy70rc]
[color=Green:3luy70rc][b:3luy70rc]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:3luy70rc]: Yes.[/color:3luy70rc]
[color=DarkOrange:3luy70rc][b:3luy70rc]Moon Adamant[/b:3luy70rc]: but imagine the following[/color:3luy70rc]
[color=DarkOrange:3luy70rc][b:3luy70rc]Moon Adamant[/b:3luy70rc]: PJSP recommends X, but RA decides on Y...[/color:3luy70rc]
[color=DarkRed:3luy70rc][b:3luy70rc]Michel Manen[/b:3luy70rc]: otherwise, you say there is no distinction between, on the one hand , "quality of service" and, on the other "quality of service AND performance" - and the Legislator (the RA) never says someting that has no meaning[/color:3luy70rc]
[color=Green:3luy70rc][b:3luy70rc]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:3luy70rc]: The PJSP says: "now the judiciary should disregard any laws passed by the RA, so that it performs better. RA, do you agree?"[/color:3luy70rc]
[color=Green:3luy70rc][b:3luy70rc]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:3luy70rc]: If the RA disagrees,[/color:3luy70rc]
[color=Green:3luy70rc][b:3luy70rc]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:3luy70rc]: the PJSP goes wild and says: "WE are the ones who know what's best for the judiciary, not YOU"[/color:3luy70rc]
[color=Indigo:3luy70rc][b:3luy70rc]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:3luy70rc]: Gwyn, the judiciary is constitutionally obliged to follow the laws of hte legislature.[/color:3luy70rc]
[color=DarkRed:3luy70rc][b:3luy70rc]Michel Manen[/b:3luy70rc]: of course not[/color:3luy70rc]
[color=Navy:3luy70rc][b:3luy70rc]Patroklus Murakami[/b:3luy70rc]: we *really* need to discuss the election. can ppl confine themselves to making closing remarks? then we can wrap up this section of the meeting?[/color:3luy70rc]
[color=Indigo:3luy70rc][b:3luy70rc]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:3luy70rc]: Gwyn, any citizens' group can say that.[/color:3luy70rc]
[color=Green:3luy70rc][b:3luy70rc]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:3luy70rc]: But if the PJSP is not part of the Judiciary....[/color:3luy70rc]
[color=DarkRed:3luy70rc][b:3luy70rc]Michel Manen[/b:3luy70rc]: all it can do is to make recommendations to citiznes[/color:3luy70rc]
[color=DarkRed:3luy70rc][b:3luy70rc]Michel Manen[/b:3luy70rc]: sorry to the RA[/color:3luy70rc]
[color=Indigo:3luy70rc][b:3luy70rc]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:3luy70rc]: Gwyn, I'm still totally, totally unclear on what, exactly, being "part of" the judiciary entails, on your account.[/color:3luy70rc]
[color=Green:3luy70rc][b:3luy70rc]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:3luy70rc]: Ah, but "any citizen" is one thing. A superindependent body, not part of any structure, publicly elected, with the citizens behind it, carries certainly much more weight than "any citizen"![/color:3luy70rc]
[color=Indigo:3luy70rc][b:3luy70rc]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:3luy70rc]: Or the judiciary, Michel.[/color:3luy70rc]
[color=Indigo:3luy70rc][b:3luy70rc]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:3luy70rc]: Practically, perhaps, but not constitutionally.[/color:3luy70rc]
[color=Green:3luy70rc][b:3luy70rc]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:3luy70rc]: It entails a scope and a mandate, Ash.[/color:3luy70rc]
[color=Green:3luy70rc][b:3luy70rc]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:3luy70rc]: Well[/color:3luy70rc]
[color=Indigo:3luy70rc][b:3luy70rc]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:3luy70rc]: And not necessarily even practically more than a lobby group with enough people in it.[/color:3luy70rc]
[color=DarkRed:3luy70rc][b:3luy70rc]Michel Manen[/b:3luy70rc]: but the ultimate decision making power remains with the RA, soesnt it Gwyn?[/color:3luy70rc]
[color=Green:3luy70rc][b:3luy70rc]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:3luy70rc]: I'm also a member of the political side of the CDS, and I worry more about politics than the judiciary [/color:3luy70rc]
[color=DarkRed:3luy70rc][b:3luy70rc]Michel Manen[/b:3luy70rc]: *doesn't[/color:3luy70rc]
[color=Green:3luy70rc][b:3luy70rc]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:3luy70rc]: Yes, Michel, but why artificially generate conflict?[/color:3luy70rc]
[color=Green:3luy70rc][b:3luy70rc]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:3luy70rc]: Why have two bodies at odds with each other?[/color:3luy70rc]
[color=Navy:3luy70rc][b:3luy70rc]Patroklus Murakami[/b:3luy70rc]: CLOSING remarks [/color:3luy70rc]
[color=Indigo:3luy70rc][b:3luy70rc]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:3luy70rc]: Gwyn, there's no other way to avoid the extremely dangerous possibility of the legislature eternally having the power to refuse to appoint any judge whom it dislikes or politically disfavours.[/color:3luy70rc]
[color=DarkOrange:3luy70rc][b:3luy70rc]Moon Adamant[/b:3luy70rc]: i would like to remind that any election transfers power from the electorate to the elected body...[/color:3luy70rc]
[color=DarkRed:3luy70rc][b:3luy70rc]Michel Manen[/b:3luy70rc]: For a simple reason: the RA is a political body...... let me give you an example[/color:3luy70rc]
[color=Green:3luy70rc][b:3luy70rc]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:3luy70rc]: Or perhaps put it into another way ? what prevents the PJSP effectively to focus on "gently nudging" the RA to pass "approrpiate" legislation for the judiciary?[/color:3luy70rc]
[color=Green:3luy70rc][b:3luy70rc]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:3luy70rc]: Exactly, Moon, so the PJSP does, indeed, get "power"[/color:3luy70rc]
[color=Green:3luy70rc][b:3luy70rc]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:3luy70rc]: Now the question is ? power to do ? what?[/color:3luy70rc]
[color=Indigo:3luy70rc][b:3luy70rc]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:3luy70rc]: What's to stop it from doing that even if you consider it "part of" the judiciary?[/color:3luy70rc]
[color=Indigo:3luy70rc][b:3luy70rc]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:3luy70rc]: The powers that the PJSP has are explicitly enumerated in the constitution.[/color:3luy70rc]
[color=DarkRed:3luy70rc][b:3luy70rc]Michel Manen[/b:3luy70rc]: in the 1970s UK, there were bery unstable govenments alternating between conservaties and labour in quick succession[/color:3luy70rc]
[color=Green:3luy70rc][b:3luy70rc]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:3luy70rc]: I'd claim that under this NEW and VERY WORRYING interpretation of the powers of the PJSP, the citizens give the PJSP the power, through their votes, to let the PJSP influence legislation.[/color:3luy70rc]
[color=Indigo:3luy70rc][b:3luy70rc]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:3luy70rc]: What do you mean by "influence"?[/color:3luy70rc]
[color=Indigo:3luy70rc][b:3luy70rc]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:3luy70rc]: "Persuade"?[/color:3luy70rc]
[color=Green:3luy70rc][b:3luy70rc]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:3luy70rc]: Now this CERTAINLY wasn't in our minds when we analysed the PJSP ? since its powers were VERY CLEARLY confined to a scope: the judiciary and its procedures.[/color:3luy70rc]
[color=Indigo:3luy70rc][b:3luy70rc]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:3luy70rc]: And what would stop the PJSP from doing that even on your interpretation, Gwyn?[/color:3luy70rc]
[color=Green:3luy70rc][b:3luy70rc]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:3luy70rc]: Procedures, not legislation.[/color:3luy70rc]
[color=Green:3luy70rc][b:3luy70rc]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:3luy70rc]: Procedures.[/color:3luy70rc]
[color=DarkRed:3luy70rc][b:3luy70rc]Michel Manen[/b:3luy70rc]: each time a party got in power, it invalidated what the other part did and implemented its own legilsation, which in turn was repealed by the other party when it got in power anad replaces with its agenda[/color:3luy70rc]
[color=Indigo:3luy70rc][b:3luy70rc]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:3luy70rc]: Indeed, what's to stop a private group setting up private elections in which any citizen can vote and doing the same thing?[/color:3luy70rc]
[color=DarkRed:3luy70rc][b:3luy70rc]Michel Manen[/b:3luy70rc]: Now, Gwyn, if the RA has absolute control over the judiciary[/color:3luy70rc]
[color=DarkRed:3luy70rc][b:3luy70rc]Michel Manen[/b:3luy70rc]: what is it to stop it[/color:3luy70rc]
[color=Indigo:3luy70rc][b:3luy70rc]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:3luy70rc]: Gwyn: the limits on the powers of the PJSP are those powers enumerated in the constitution.[/color:3luy70rc]
[color=DarkRed:3luy70rc][b:3luy70rc]Michel Manen[/b:3luy70rc]: from utterly changing the judiciary[/color:3luy70rc]
[color=DarkRed:3luy70rc][b:3luy70rc]Michel Manen[/b:3luy70rc]: each time a party with diffrent ideas comes to power?[/color:3luy70rc]
[color=Green:3luy70rc][b:3luy70rc]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:3luy70rc]: Not at all, Ash ? see, you've already made a good point on so many things that are not enumerated there.[/color:3luy70rc]
[color=Navy:3luy70rc][b:3luy70rc]Patroklus Murakami[/b:3luy70rc]: *coughs* time gentlemen please [/color:3luy70rc]
[color=DarkRed:3luy70rc][b:3luy70rc]Michel Manen[/b:3luy70rc]: Can you imagine the chaos and instability this will generate???[/color:3luy70rc]
[color=Green:3luy70rc][b:3luy70rc]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:3luy70rc]: And actually, nothing, Michel[/color:3luy70rc]
[color=DarkRed:3luy70rc][b:3luy70rc]Michel Manen[/b:3luy70rc]: The purpose of the PJSP[/color:3luy70rc]
[color=SlateGray:3luy70rc][b:3luy70rc]Rubaiyat Shatner[/b:3luy70rc]: time![/color:3luy70rc]
[color=Indigo:3luy70rc][b:3luy70rc]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:3luy70rc]: That doesn't make any sense: the PJSP can do only those things enumerated, but there are not restrictions on what of those enumerated things it may do.[/color:3luy70rc]
[color=Navy:3luy70rc][i:3luy70rc]Patroklus Murakami bangs shoe on the table[/i:3luy70rc][/color:3luy70rc]
[color=DarkOrange:3luy70rc][b:3luy70rc]Moon Adamant[/b:3luy70rc]: lol, hear hear Pat and Rubai .)[/color:3luy70rc]
[color=Navy:3luy70rc][b:3luy70rc]Patroklus Murakami[/b:3luy70rc]: enough of the judiciary already, at least for tonight [/color:3luy70rc]
[color=DarkRed:3luy70rc][b:3luy70rc]Michel Manen[/b:3luy70rc]: is to be such an independet body to provide the RA with an independent opinion on the quality of service and performance of the judiciary and avoild eactly such chaos and instablity[/color:3luy70rc]
[color=Navy:3luy70rc][b:3luy70rc]Patroklus Murakami[/b:3luy70rc]: thank you to our guests for their participation in the discussion[/color:3luy70rc]
[color=Indigo:3luy70rc][b:3luy70rc]Ashcroft Burnham[/b:3luy70rc]: And to make to the judiciary and RA recommendations about how to improve that performance, if necessary.[/color:3luy70rc]
[color=DarkRed:3luy70rc][b:3luy70rc]Michel Manen[/b:3luy70rc]: nothin more- nothing less[/color:3luy70rc]
[color=Olive:3luy70rc][b:3luy70rc]Oni Jiutai[/b:3luy70rc]: Thank you for having us.[/color:3luy70rc]
[color=Navy:3luy70rc][b:3luy70rc]Patroklus Murakami[/b:3luy70rc]: now bugger off so we can talk privately about the election[/color:3luy70rc]
[color=DarkOrange:3luy70rc][b:3luy70rc]Moon Adamant[/b:3luy70rc]: thank you all [/color:3luy70rc]
[color=DarkOrange:3luy70rc][b:3luy70rc]Moon Adamant[/b:3luy70rc]: LOL[/color:3luy70rc]
[color=Green:3luy70rc][b:3luy70rc]Gwyneth Llewelyn[/b:3luy70rc]: Yes, thank you for coming [/color:3luy70rc]
[color=DarkOrange:3luy70rc][b:3luy70rc]Moon Adamant[/b:3luy70rc]: you heard Pat [/color:3luy70rc]
[color=Olive:3luy70rc][b:3luy70rc]Oni Jiutai[/b:3luy70rc]: Bye.[/color:3luy70rc]
[color=Navy:3luy70rc][b:3luy70rc]Patroklus Murakami[/b:3luy70rc]: we love you really, but...[/color:3luy70rc]