[quote="Patroklus Murakami":uo546t0k]Ash, I can see how a perverse reading of the Constitution as amended would lead you to think that forum moderation appeals are a matter the Courts of Common Jurisdiction could consider. But that is a usurpation of the service role of the Scientific Council and counter to the moderation rules guiding these forums. No one, myself included, imagined that the Judiciary Act would mean that forum moderation would become the task of the Courts.[/quote:uo546t0k]
Pat, it was clearly set out in [url=http://forums.neufreistadt.info/viewtop ... m:uo546t0k]my original post on developing our judicial system[/url:uo546t0k] (look under "classification of originating process") that moderatorial appeals would be a matter for Courts of Common Jurisdiction under the legal system that was then proposed and is now implemented. Furthermore, the original code of procedure made clear that notices of moderatorial appeal were to be filed in a Court of Common Jurisdiction. It cannot, therefore, be the case that it was not anticipated in advance that the Courts of Common Jurisdiction would have the power to hold moderatorial appeals. I do not agree, I am afraid, that it is "perverse" to read the constitution, which provides,
[quote="The constitution":uo546t0k]9. Subject to any powers of the Scientific Council when sitting as a court expressly stated in the text of this Constitution, Courts of Common Jurisdiction, and only Courts of Common Jurisdiction, shall have the power when giving judgment on a disputed matter between two or more parties (who must be residents of SecondLife or bodies corporate, including states, recognised as such by the law of the Confederation of Democratic Simulators, but who need not be citizens of the Confederation of Democratic Simulators): –
(a) to make binding determinations of the rights, duties, powers, privileges, immunities, liabilities and disabilities of any or all such parties according to the law of the Confederation of Democratic Simulators;
(b) to make binding determinations of any facts in dispute between any or all such parties, provided that making such determinations are necessary in order to make such a determination as mentioned in paragraph (a) above, or (c) below;
(c) subject to either (i) a party formally accepting, or (ii) a court finding as a fact at a trial held in accordance with law that a party's conduct is culpable, to impose upon that party in respect of that conduct any penalty, including, but not limited to, banishment from any or all territory of the Confederation of Democratic Simulators, either permanently or for such shorter period as shall be specified by the court, and forfeiture of any SecondLife asset (including debts and other such duties owed thereto), either immediately or suspended on such conditions as the court may prescribe;
(d) to make any non-penal orders such as to give effect to the rights, duties, powers, privileges, immunities, liabilities and disabilities of any party according to the law of the Confederation of Democratic Simulators, including any law relating to judicial procedure, or any other person or body on behalf of whom any party makes any claim, or to give effect to any penalty imposed by any Court of Common Jurisdiction in accordance with paragraph (c) above; and
(e) to order that any person be removed from the court-house at which any trial or any other hearing is being held, or, if he or she refuses so to be removed, banished from the Confederation of Democratic Simulators for the duration of that trial or other hearing (and for up to one hour thereafter) on the ground that that person is disrupting court proceedings, improperly interfering with the administration of justice, or attempting to do so,[/quote:uo546t0k]
as so entailing; since hearing an appeal of forum moderation would entail making binding determinations of the rights, duties, powers, privileges, immunities, liabilities and disabilities of any or all such parties according to the law of the Confederation of Democratic Simulators on a disputed matter between two or more such parties, it follows that such an appeal must be heard in a Court of Common Jurisdiction.
Furthermore, nobody is suggesting that front-line forum moderation is the domain of the courts; only that appeals should be heard in Courts of Common Jurisdiction, rather than the Court of Scientific Council (whose jurisdiction is confined to impeachment hearings and special appeals from Courts of Common Jurisdiction).
Indeed, even if the Scientific Council were to purport to sit otherwise than as a court and hear a moderatorial appeal, nothing would stop any of the parties thereto (or any third party substantially affected by the decision) seeking judicial review of the Council's decision in a Court of Common Jurisdiction, since the Scientific Council's decisions only bind the Courts of Common Jurisdiction (1) when it is ratifying legislation (and then only to the extent that the Courts of Common Jurisdiction must follow ratified legislation), and (2) when it is sitting as a court.
There is nothing, I suppose, that would stop the Scientific Council reviewing its own decision on the application of any party, but, given the expressly enumerated powers of the Council set out in the constitution as regards the jurisdiction of the Courts of Common Jurisdiction, that would not bind any Court of Common Jurisdiction should any party wish to take it further.
[quote:uo546t0k]You're not really helping your case here. Some citizens are out to paint you as a power-crazed megalomaniac who wants to take over the CDS (and SL, if we include non-citizen paranoiacs); it doesn't help matters if you unilaterally extend the Courts' remit to the detriment of the existing government institutions.[/quote:uo546t0k]
Why do you think that it is a detriment to the Scientific Council if it is no longer burdened with moderatorial appeals? Indeed, some may question the independence of an appeals process where it is the same body hearing the appeal as made the decision against which the appeal is being heard.
In any event, I cannot imagine how stating that the Courts of Common Jurisdiction always have had power to hear moderatorial appeals is any reason to believe that I am some sort of megalomaniac, especially since, obviously, I would not hear this particular case myself, since the thread in question involves me.
[/quote:1xhhj2mx]
