Comments on the Code of Procedure

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

Moderator: SC Moderators

User avatar
Fernando Book
Forum Admin
Forum Admin
Posts: 92
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2006 2:39 pm

Post by Fernando Book »

[quote="michelmanen":sdxvb9ys]It's [u:sdxvb9ys][b:sdxvb9ys]in[/b:sdxvb9ys][/u:sdxvb9ys]valuable advice.....

(...)

..sau chiar si in romaneste, daca cunosti limba lui Eminescu.
[/quote:sdxvb9ys]

Sorry for the eyesore.

At least Romanian is a Latin language...

O, rămii

;)

Dexter Leopold
Casual contributor
Casual contributor
Posts: 21
Joined: Sun Dec 10, 2006 8:56 am

Post by Dexter Leopold »

I have just completed a draft of the first Notice in the Ordinary, which will be promptly filed upon a final consultation with my client.

I had yet to join the discussion on the Code of Procedure because I felt that I could not intelligently discuss the Code without using it first. I understand this is a novel concept to some.

After actually "using" the Code for the purposes for which it was created, I must report that I found it very easy to navigate and understand. This made me wonder what all the opponents of the Code have been talking about? Is the Code lengthy? Yes, however, this a complete legal system we're talking about! Specific procedures are absolutely necessary for a legal system that is "fair" to all that are involved. The hallmark to fair system is predictability and consistency, which is precisely what such a Code provides. Laying out specific rules to follow puts everyone on notice of what is expected of them, and ensures everyone is treated equally. Lindens and/or RL monetary, as well as participation in the CDS, is at stake here. I can't speak for anyone else, but these are very important things to me! Creating some ad hoc, figure it out as we go, system only ensures that the next person to be involved in the legal process will not receive the same treatment as his/her predecessor.

I must also say how troubling I found a previous comment from an RL attorney in the U.S. that this Code is more elaborate, difficult to understand, and longer than that which is used in the U.S.?! I would love to know what jurisdiction in the U.S. where that is the case, or if that person ever opened up a rule book in practice! We're not fixing speeding tickets here people, we're creating a real, functioning system. The Code as it stands has provided the groundwork for just that.

If anyone has any specific questions for one who has used the Code, please feel free to email me at [email protected], or IM me. I would be happy to discuss my experience with anyone.

Dex

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

Post by Beathan »

Dex --

I made that comment. I am licensed in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, North Carolina and Alaska. I have a complex commercial litigation practice, which involves both state and federal cases throughout the Pacific Northwest. I have also practiced in Native American tribal courts in the Pacific Northwest. I stand by my assessment of this Code.

Beathan

Let's keep things simple enough to be fair, substantive enough to be effective, and insightful enough to be good.
Dexter Leopold
Casual contributor
Casual contributor
Posts: 21
Joined: Sun Dec 10, 2006 8:56 am

Post by Dexter Leopold »

I stand by my observation that there is nothing "complex" about this Code. I would like to know what everyone feels is so "complex" about it? What is it that you are having a hard time understanding because of this alleged "complexity?"

Seriously though, when I used the Code (and I would suggest people try it in practice rather than assuming in thoery), I could easily locate the requirements for drafting and serving the Notice I was creating. You don't have to read the whole Code everytime you are using it. For example, I don't have to carefully sift through appellate procedure if I'm drafting an originating notice. If I have a question on discovery matters in RL, I don't carefully go through the sections on appellate procedure, I go to the section on discovery. That's why a table of contents is helpful, like the one in the State Supreme Court Rules where I practice. By the way, the Supreme Court Rules themselves in my jurisdiction are just slightly longer than 95 pages lol. Sounds like I need to move!

I would like to ask again, are these matters really not that important to opponents of this Code? Does one person's legal problems/issues not deserve the utmost care and attention that this detailed Code provides? I remain at a loss as to what the issues are for intelligent adults.

-Dex

Gxeremio Dimsum
Veteran debater
Veteran debater
Posts: 205
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2006 6:37 pm

Post by Gxeremio Dimsum »

[quote="Dexter Leopold":1e2jx5n8] Creating some ad hoc, figure it out as we go, system only ensures that the next person to be involved in the legal process will not receive the same treatment as his/her predecessor. [/quote:1e2jx5n8]

So you feel we would have been better off without letting the US judicial system evolve?

[quote:1e2jx5n8]I must also say how troubling I found a previous comment from an RL attorney in the U.S. that this Code is more elaborate, difficult to understand, and longer than that which is used in the U.S.?! I would love to know what jurisdiction in the U.S. where that is the case, or if that person ever opened up a rule book in practice! We're not fixing speeding tickets here people, we're creating a real, functioning system. The Code as it stands has provided the groundwork for just that.[/quote:1e2jx5n8]

What we're doing for the vast majority of cases will be of less material value than speeding tickets, which in my area usually cost somewhere in the neighborhood of US$200. That would be about L$54,000. For this reason, I like your "not fixing speeding tickets" analogy, since perhaps we should strive to make our system at least as easy as that real-world one.

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

Post by Ashcroft Burnham »

[quote="Gxeremio Dimsum":4iz0rs8m]What we're doing for the vast majority of cases will be of less material value than speeding tickets, which in my area usually cost somewhere in the neighborhood of US$200. That would be about L$54,000. For this reason, I like your "not fixing speeding tickets" analogy, since perhaps we should strive to make our system at least as easy as that real-world one.[/quote:4iz0rs8m]

If you measure worth only in terms of money, it is hardly surprising that your view of justice is skewed.

Ashcroft Burnham

Where reason fails, all hope is lost.
Gxeremio Dimsum
Veteran debater
Veteran debater
Posts: 205
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2006 6:37 pm

Post by Gxeremio Dimsum »

[quote="Ashcroft Burnham":237v7nq7][quote="Gxeremio Dimsum":237v7nq7]What we're doing for the vast majority of cases will be of less material value than speeding tickets, which in my area usually cost somewhere in the neighborhood of US$200. That would be about L$54,000. For this reason, I like your "not fixing speeding tickets" analogy, since perhaps we should strive to make our system at least as easy as that real-world one.[/quote:237v7nq7]

If you measure worth only in terms of money, it is hardly surprising that your view of justice is skewed.[/quote:237v7nq7]

For someone who has complained to the moderators about being called "unreasonable," your use of demeaning, rude, and even libelous language is astounding.
Obviously I don't measure worth only in terms of money, or I certainly would not waste valuable money-earning time on forum conversations which go nowhere.

Dexter Leopold
Casual contributor
Casual contributor
Posts: 21
Joined: Sun Dec 10, 2006 8:56 am

Post by Dexter Leopold »

I do believe that a judicial system should have room to "evolve." However, the process of evolution naturally requires a starting point to evolve from. We have been provided an excellent starting point with the current Code. The US judicial system evolved through "practice," so let's practice with what we have and evolve from there, where through practice, the need for evolution becomes apparent.

I laugh at the proposition that the US system of fixing tickets is the model of justice of which we should look up to.

I yet again must ask opponents of this Code what is so difficult about it? The only aspect of drafting the Notice that took any amount of time was putting together the facts, which would have to be part of any system. Unless of course "facts" aren't really that important, which would explain much that I've read here.

If someone has the time to read all these posts, then they have the time to read the Code. Unless of course there is an unspoken ulterior motive behind this, in which case, people need to be honest and just say so.

Thanks for your time.
[/quote]

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

Post by Beathan »

Dexter --

I have read the Code. So have most of its critics. We have provided detailed and cogent arguments against it. We continue to do so. We now also have an alternative to the Code, which if ratified by the SC (as it should be) will replace the Code. It is better than the Code -- even if the Code were workable (which is doubted).

Your argument so far is that you think you have been able to do the notice of case right under the Code. This is not enough to make the Code's opponents comfortable. You have not justified any other part of the Code. Further, until a court rules on your notice, your belief that you did it right is speculative.

The real problem with the Code is that, even if it would be a good Code for a RW justice system, it is poorly suited to SL. This is a cogent criticism.

Beathan

Last edited by Beathan on Sun Dec 10, 2006 8:17 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.
User avatar
Ashcroft Burnham
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1093
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2006 3:21 pm

Post by Ashcroft Burnham »

[quote="Beathan":2kaa8a8q]I have read the Code. So has most of its critics. We have provided detailed and cogent arguments against it.[/quote:2kaa8a8q]

"It's too complex" is hardly detailed.

[quote:2kaa8a8q]Your argument so far is that you think you have been able to do the notice of case right under the Code. This is not enough to make the Code's opponents comfortable. You have not justified any other part of the Code. Further, until a court rules on your notice, your belief that you did it right is speculative.[/quote:2kaa8a8q]

Then why do you insist that a court never gets a chance to rule on it under the current procedures? I note that your experience of the code is even less: why should your criticisms not also, therefore, be dismissed as speculation?

[quote:2kaa8a8q]The real problem with the Code is that, even if it would be a good Code for a RW justice system, it is poorly suited to SL. This is a cogent criticism.[/quote:2kaa8a8q]

It would be only if there was a solid line of [i:2kaa8a8q]reasoning[/i:2kaa8a8q] by which you reached that conclusion.

Ashcroft Burnham

Where reason fails, all hope is lost.
Gxeremio Dimsum
Veteran debater
Veteran debater
Posts: 205
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2006 6:37 pm

Post by Gxeremio Dimsum »

[quote="Dexter Leopold":482fx858]I laugh at the proposition that the US system of fixing tickets is the model of justice of which we should look up to.[/quote:482fx858]

Perhaps you misunderstand, or I wasn't clear. We aren't trying to emulate the system, but the ease of the system. How much time do complainants have to give to SL legal matters? For most, about as much time as they have to take care of speeding tickets. In addition, most of the time the amount of money involved will be much smaller than in the case of speeding tickets, and the long-term consequences of the outcomes of the case (again, in most situations) are no greater than a ding on the driving record and potentially higher insurance premiums or driving school as the result of a speeding ticket.

[quote:482fx858]I yet again must ask opponents of this Code what is so difficult about it? The only aspect of drafting the Notice that took any amount of time was putting together the facts, which would have to be part of any system. Unless of course "facts" aren't really that important, which would explain much that I've read here.

If someone has the time to read all these posts, then they have the time to read the Code. Unless of course there is an unspoken ulterior motive behind this, in which case, people need to be honest and just say so.[/quote:482fx858]

It may not be difficult, for those who have time to delve into it, but it is certainly cumbersome and complex. You may have seen the comments I made earlier about my motives, which are to have the kind of judicial system that I can use and make appeals to confidently.

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

Post by Diderot Mirabeau »

[quote="Dexter Leopold":3fy13uti]I have just completed a draft of the first Notice in the Ordinary, which will be promptly filed upon a final consultation with my client.

I had yet to join the discussion on the Code of Procedure because I felt that I could not intelligently discuss the Code without using it first. I understand this is a novel concept to some.

After actually "using" the Code for the purposes for which it was created, I must report that I found it very easy to navigate and understand. This made me wonder what all the opponents of the Code have been talking about?[/quote:3fy13uti]

[quote="Dexter Leopold":3fy13uti]]I yet again must ask opponents of this Code what is so difficult about it? The only aspect of drafting the Notice that took any amount of time was putting together the facts, which would have to be part of any system. Unless of course "facts" aren't really that important, which would explain much that I've read here.

If someone has the time to read all these posts, then they have the time to read the Code. Unless of course there is an unspoken ulterior motive behind this, in which case, people need to be honest and just say so. [/quote:3fy13uti]

So you have RL experience as a lawyer, joined the CDS and are now working here as a barrister .. I am curious as to how you think that your experience is relevant in so far as much of the criticism leveled against the extensiveness and complexity of the judiciary apparatus is based on the fact that it almost inherently necessitates the hiring of lawyers in order to obtain justice?

I notice you have jumped into this debate leveling several insinuated accusations against the debaters here as regards the question of whether arguments are based on experience or not and whether or not we carry 'ulterior motives.'

I get the impression that your initial contributions to the debate show a degree of insensitivity to the fact that you have entered a community with a long history that people care about. A community that was always about a lot more than litigation and establishing the perfect procedural code. And a community therefore that is at the moment devoting a great deal of its resources to discussing whether its needs are best served by establishing a judiciary system so complex as to necessitate the hiring in of RL legal expertise in order to be represented properly or if we can make do with a system that serves to mitigate conflicts between citizens in a fair, transparent and as simple as possible manner.

So in conclusion I'd like to hear your argument for why your experience filling in a notice is relevant to those who argue that a judiciary for a small community should enable the citizen to achieve justice without having to resort to professional lawyers?

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

Post by Beathan »

Dexter --

There is a new procedure in place now. However, with some minor tweaking, your notice should still work -- and everything else should work better.

Beathan

Let's keep things simple enough to be fair, substantive enough to be effective, and insightful enough to be good.
Publius Crabgrass
Passionate Protagonist
Passionate Protagonist
Posts: 143
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 5:12 pm

Post by Publius Crabgrass »

Dexter,

One of the criticisms of the long version of the code of procedure is that it is a system only a lawyer can love. Announcing that you like it, and happen to be an RL lawyer, doesn't exactly disprove the criticism. :D

In any event, once the SC approves the revised bill with the shorter rules, your draft Notice in the Ordinary could easily become a Rule 1 initiating notecard. All that is needed is a "short and simple statement of the facts of the case".

Dexter Leopold
Casual contributor
Casual contributor
Posts: 21
Joined: Sun Dec 10, 2006 8:56 am

Post by Dexter Leopold »

I joined this "debate" for the simple purpose of providing my thoughts after actually using the Code of Procedure. As I mentioned in my first post here, I felt it was only appropriate to comment on the Code after using it, rather than discuss what it might be like to use it. I thought it may be nice to inject into the conversation some practical experience with the Code, and make myself available for any specific questions one may have regarding my experience.

I must say that I am a bit perplexed that my RL legal experience has some how made me less qualified to share my thoughts on the Code, or that my RL legal experience somehow makes my comments less/not at all "relevant" to some.

All of that aside, I think everyone who actively participated in this "debate" cares deeply about the CDS, otherwise they would not have spent their time engaging in this endless debate. I myself do not question anyone's commitment to the CDS.

I will gladly continue to practice under whatever system is in place. Thank you.

Post Reply

Return to “Judiciary Discussion”