Public consultation: Codes of Procedure

Forum to discuss issues pertaining to the organisation and operations of the judiciary.

Moderator: SC Moderators

User avatar
Ashcroft Burnham
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1093
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2006 3:21 pm

Public consultation: Codes of Procedure

Post by Ashcroft Burnham »

The first issue of the [url=http://neufreistadt.info/code-of-proced ... l:vhbrbwff]Code of Procedure[/url:vhbrbwff] has just been made. People can now commence proceedings in our courts.

This is a first draft of the code, so, naturally, it will need refinement. It will be refined based on practical experience and [i:vhbrbwff]constructive[/i:vhbrbwff] feedback in this thread. Any genuinely constructive feedback would be appreciated.

Ashcroft Burnham

Where reason fails, all hope is lost.
Justice Soothsayer
Pundit
Pundit
Posts: 375
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2006 1:14 pm

Post by Justice Soothsayer »

95 pages, 35,000 words, complete with fashion advice for Gwyneth.

Publius Crabgrass
Passionate Protagonist
Passionate Protagonist
Posts: 143
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 5:12 pm

Post by Publius Crabgrass »

That is, BTW, constructive feedback. It's way too long. Look at some RL small claims courts or regulations for proceedings before administrative agencies for models. The job can be done with a lot less specificity and not be off-putting to the community.

Diderot Mirabeau
Master Word Wielder
Master Word Wielder
Posts: 453
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Public consultation: Codes of Procedure

Post by Diderot Mirabeau »

Your reason for withholding early publication of fragments of the judicial qualification procedure before its completion was so as not to give interested applicants the opportunity to get an early glimpse of the test and thus get an unfair advantage compared to other applicants, I believe.

May I ask what is the reason for you having withheld this 95 page document from publication before it reached this volume?

As for the content of the document I have no comment on it other than what I have already presented as my views in the Simplicity Party discussion. I notice that your idiosyncratic argumentation for the dignity of wearing silly costumes in court has managed to persuade yourself that it be justified to force every one of our judges et al to dress out in this quaint costume.

User avatar
Pelanor Eldrich
Veteran debater
Veteran debater
Posts: 246
Joined: Fri May 26, 2006 10:07 am

Nice work Ashcroft.

Post by Pelanor Eldrich »

Nice work and a Herculean effort. I'll be filing my case ASAP. I don't have any constructive criticism to offer at the moment. I like the robes, and I've always liked the robes.

Last edited by Pelanor Eldrich on Wed Dec 06, 2006 9:27 am, edited 3 times in total.
Pelanor Eldrich
Principal - Eldrich Financial
Diderot Mirabeau
Master Word Wielder
Master Word Wielder
Posts: 453
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 6:28 am

Re: Nice work Ashcroft.

Post by Diderot Mirabeau »

[quote="Pelanor Eldrich":2gzkxtp2]Nice work on a Herculean effort. I'll be filing my case ASAP.[/quote:2gzkxtp2]

Boy are you a fast reader or what!

Beathan
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1364
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 3:42 pm

Post by Beathan »

This is a herculean effort. However, I note that Hercules himself diverted a river to clean out the stables. He did not dig it out himself. He certainly didn't leave it to others to dig out.

My point? I feel deeply sorry for the party or attorney who is buried under this procedure and then given the task of trying to find their way to the light and justice. This is not a legal system people can use. It is a legal system that people must avoid.

At best, this proposal opens the door to a thriving ADR practice in the CDS. I called Gwyneth's chart "exhibit one in the case for repeal of the Judicary Act." This surely is "exhibit 2." One more exhibit and I may need a bigger briefcase.

Beathan

Let's keep things simple enough to be fair, substantive enough to be effective, and insightful enough to be good.
User avatar
Ashcroft Burnham
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1093
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2006 3:21 pm

Post by Ashcroft Burnham »

[quote="Beathan":3caafre3]My point? I feel deeply sorry for the party or attorney who is buried under this procedure and then given the task of trying to find their way to the light and justice. This is not a legal system people can use.[/quote:3caafre3]

People use legal systems of far greater complexity every day. I daresay that you yourself use such a system.

How many replies here are based on having read the code, rather than having skimmed it and looked at the length and nothing else?

[quote:3caafre3]At best, this proposal opens the door to a thriving ADR practice in the CDS.[/quote:3caafre3]

Why don't you do that? That would be the perfect way of testing the two systems side-by-side, and seeing which, in the long term, really worked better, rather than having to rely on speculaiton as you insist that people do now.

Ashcroft Burnham

Where reason fails, all hope is lost.
Beathan
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1364
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 3:42 pm

Post by Beathan »

Ash wrote [quote:3q9vb9ba]People use legal systems of far greater complexity every day. I daresay that you yourself use such a system.

How many replies here are based on having read the code, rather than having skimmed it and looked at the length and nothing else? [/quote:3q9vb9ba]

I have read the Code. It is more complicated than the RL Codes I usually apply. It is also longer, unless we consider RL case authority interpreting and applying RL Code, which we shouldn't do because there will be such cases under this Code, too, if and when judges get the chance to try to apply it. If the current complications look bad to people, I shudder to think at what is to come if we stay on this course.

Beathan

Let's keep things simple enough to be fair, substantive enough to be effective, and insightful enough to be good.
User avatar
Ashcroft Burnham
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1093
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2006 3:21 pm

Post by Ashcroft Burnham »

[quote="Beathan":umoano9f]O have read the Code. It is more complicated than the RL Codes I usually apply.[/quote:umoano9f]

More complicated linguistically or in practice?

[quote:umoano9f]It is also longer, unless we consider RL case authority interpreting and applying RL Code, which we shouldn't do because there will be such cases under this Code, too, if and when judges get the chance to try to apply it.[/quote:umoano9f]

Two points:

1. it is not very long compared to [url=http://www.dca.gov.uk/civil/procrules_f ... m:umoano9f]this[/url:umoano9f] real life code that is used every day; and

2. people will not ever need to read every section of it, just the parts that apply. Think of it as Microsoft Word for the judiciary: most people use ever only a tiny subset of the functions, but each set of people use a [i:umoano9f]different[/i:umoano9f] tiny subset of the functions. This legal system is a Microsoft Word legal system. Justice Soothsayer, etc. seem to want a WordPad legal system. It seems to me that you want a Notepad legal system. All of that is better than the Casio pocket calculator legal system that we had before, but, if somebody is giving you Microsoft Word for free, you do not say "whoa, that has way more features than I need! I'll stick with notepad, thank you".

Ashcroft Burnham

Where reason fails, all hope is lost.
Beathan
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1364
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 3:42 pm

Post by Beathan »

Ash writes [quote:3leks2qb]More complicated linguistically or in practice? [/quote:3leks2qb]

Well, that is hard to answer given that we have no practice. I would say that it is procedurally more complicated and is harder to read than the Codes I am used to (although comparable to the English Code I read as linked by Ash some time ago).

This might arise from the inherent American drive to "Keep it Simple Stupid" -- or, as I put it, to have laws that even a judge can understand. I am willing to grant that English judges, like English people in general, might be more able to speak and understand the English language than are Americans. After all, in the words of Henry Higgins, speaking of English, "In America they haven't spoken it in years."

That said, we are a commuity of many nations. We need a Code that does not privilege the unique abilities and talents of any one of them.

Further, I don't see complications as features of a program. I see them as bugs. I'm an American -- I need people to keep things simple or I get lost.

Beathan

Let's keep things simple enough to be fair, substantive enough to be effective, and insightful enough to be good.
User avatar
Ashcroft Burnham
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1093
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2006 3:21 pm

Post by Ashcroft Burnham »

[quote="Beathan":29bwxwbs]Ash writes [quote:29bwxwbs]More complicated linguistically or in practice? [/quote:29bwxwbs]

Well, that is hard to answer given that we have no practice. I would say that it is procedurally more complicated and is harder to read than the Codes I am used to (although comparable to the English Code I read as linked by Ash some time ago).

This might arise from the inherent American drive to "Keep it Simple Stupid" -- or, as I put it, to have laws that even a judge can understand. I am willing to grant that English judges, like English people in general, might be more able to speak and understand the English language than are Americans. After all, in the words of Henry Higgins, speaking of English, "In America they haven't spoken it in years."

That said, we are a commuity of many nations. We need a Code that does not privilege the unique abilities and talents of any one of them.[/quote:29bwxwbs]

Actually, I have gone to great pains to avoid technical language in our Code, and, where it must be used, I define it precisely using common register words. Unlike your US Federal code, therefore, people unfamilliar with specific legal terminology are at no disadvantage providing that they actually read it.

[quote:29bwxwbs]Further, I don't see complications as features of a program. I see them as bugs. I'm an American -- I need people to keep things simple or I get lost.[/quote:29bwxwbs]

So, you write all your letters in Notepad, do you, or else you get lost in the features of MS Word?

Ashcroft Burnham

Where reason fails, all hope is lost.
Beathan
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1364
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 3:42 pm

Post by Beathan »

Like many US attorneys, I use wordperfect. More, I typically use a dictophone and a paralegal, who assures me that she also considers the "features" of Word to be bugs rather than features.

I acknowledge your attempt to avoid legal jargon, although I think that the English Code also has some jargon in it. It is not the specific language I object to so much as the sheer amount and density of it. It is unnecessary and ponderous, two things I consider fatal to our purpose of getting a system that people can and will use up and running.

Beathan

Last edited by Beathan on Wed Dec 06, 2006 3:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Let's keep things simple enough to be fair, substantive enough to be effective, and insightful enough to be good.
Justice Soothsayer
Pundit
Pundit
Posts: 375
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2006 1:14 pm

Post by Justice Soothsayer »

[quote="Ashcroft Burnham":3526wbhm] This legal system is a Microsoft Word legal system. Justice Soothsayer, etc. seem to want a WordPad legal system. It seems to me that you want a Notepad legal system. All of that is better than the Casio pocket calculator legal system that we had before, but, if somebody is giving you Microsoft Word for free, you do not say "whoa, that has way more features than I need! I'll stick with notepad, thank you".[/quote:3526wbhm]

Actually, I prefer WordPerfect. Alt-F3 "reveal code" is a marvelous feature.

I see several significant problems with the Code of Procedures beyond its length and legalese, and am still considering it. I'll post more on it in a day or so for further digesting.

Diderot Mirabeau
Master Word Wielder
Master Word Wielder
Posts: 453
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 6:28 am

Post by Diderot Mirabeau »

[quote="Ashcroft Burnham":1vo9v87y]Think of it as Microsoft Word for the judiciary [..] if somebody is giving you Microsoft Word for free, you do not say "whoa, that has way more features than I need! I'll stick with notepad, thank you".[/quote:1vo9v87y]
What an apt analogy considering this excerpt from the Wikipedia definition of [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloatware:1vo9v87y]bloatware[/url:1vo9v87y]:
[quote="Wikipedia":1vo9v87y]A common example of software bloat is the evolution of word processing programs, which have for long been deemed especially resource-hungry in the range of typical productivity applications. It can be argued that the basic tasks — writing and simple type-setting — have been possible since the first such programs were introduced around 1970, and that more advanced features bring needless weight to those who rarely need them.[/quote:1vo9v87y]
Coincidentally, the analogy is valid on several more points. For example, even if Microsoft Word were given away for free (which it isn't) it still requires you to pay a 150 USD license to Microsoft for the underlying Windows operating system to even get it to run (think: the legal profession). Furthermore, the underlying code is not accessible to anyone except those who designed it unlike for example the [url=http://www.openoffice.org:1vo9v87y]OpenOffice[/url:1vo9v87y] Writer.

Post Reply

Return to “Judiciary Discussion”