Hypothetical question about checks and balances

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

Moderator: SC Moderators

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

Hypothetical question about checks and balances

Post by Gxeremio Dimsum »

Ash was understandably tired (late hours!) and was unable to respond to a real concern I have related to the issue of checks on judicial power.

Hypothetically, IF the system were implemented as Ash intends and the chief judge arbitrarily decided to ban someone or take away their property, what could be done about it?

The answer will help me understand the system.

I have also said that I have no plan to use the system as described here, and would prefer some other method of dispute resoluton, or if none were unavailable just deal with it on my own. But what if someone wanted to take me to court and I didn't want to go? Or if I wanted to use arbitration, but they insisted on court?

Last edited by Gxeremio Dimsum on Wed Dec 13, 2006 8:23 am, edited 1 time in total.
Oni Jiutai
Seasoned debater
Seasoned debater
Posts: 69
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2006 3:42 pm

Post by Oni Jiutai »

I'll take a stab it, but I write in haste, so please don't hold any silly errors against me:

a. No Judge can issue any order without there being a case, so if no case exists (i.e. the Judge has simply ordered banishment) the order is invalid and whomever does the actual banning should just ignore it.

b. If that went wrong (i.e. you were banned when you shouldn't have been) you can appeal the SC, because the Judge has acted outside his jurisdiction.

c. If there is a case, but the Judge acts arbitrarily, you can appeal. At that point 3 Judges will review his decision. They should then overturn it.

d. In certain circumstances, depending on exactly what the Judge had done, you could also appeal the outcome of the case to the SC.

e. In a real emergency crisis, and if everything else fails, the RA could pass an act saying "The Judge's order of X is overturned and Gxeremio Dimsum is un-banned." This would be the Constitutional equivalent of dropping a nuke and should be avoided, but I think it would work. If a normal Act wouldn't work a Constitutional amendment would - although again, this should be avoided (by neither the Judges or the RA acting foolishly in the first place).

Also, separately, if a Judge is makes an arbitrary decision to ban somebody, he should be impeached, which either the Chair of the Judiciary Commission, the RA or the SC can do.

Last edited by Oni Jiutai on Wed Dec 13, 2006 7:16 am, edited 1 time in total.
Oni Jiutai
Seasoned debater
Seasoned debater
Posts: 69
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2006 3:42 pm

Post by Oni Jiutai »

If you're being sued I don't think you have any choice about attending court (or having a decision made in your absence). But this would be true in any system, because otherwise people with bad cases wouldn't turn up and the whole thing would fall flat on its face.

I don't know the answer to the arbitration question. My guess would be that you'd ask the Court for an order that the case should go to arbitration. Compulsory arbitration is rare in RL in my experience (compulsory mediation is more common but still reasonably rare). There's no particular reason to think that need be so in SL.

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

Post by Ashcroft Burnham »

I would have answered, but Oni has written everything that needs to be written about the matter.

Ashcroft Burnham

Where reason fails, all hope is lost.
Ranma Tardis

Post by Ranma Tardis »

[quote="Oni Jiutai":18vxqgb6]If you're being sued I don't think you have any choice about attending court (or having a decision made in your absence). But this would be true in any system, because otherwise people with bad cases wouldn't turn up and the whole thing would fall flat on its face.

I don't know the answer to the arbitration question. My guess would be that you'd ask the Court for an order that the case should go to arbitration. Compulsory arbitration is rare in RL in my experience (compulsory mediation is more common but still reasonably rare). There's no particular reason to think that need be so in SL.[/quote:18vxqgb6]

So I would have to take off from my real life job to protect a two dollar American investment? I do not have access to SL during the day (Central time, North American) from 7am to about 6pm. Then I need to get some sleep at night 9pm to 6am. I do not do any business in SL so the change of a court battle is remote but anything is possible.
I also refuse to pay money to some SL lawyer to protect my two dollar investment. I think any legal action at all would amount to hundreds of American dollars.
It would seem that the current plan would enable people to make an alt or alts and be able to drive anyone they wish from the CDS. If they have legal abilities it would be such a simple thing for them to do.
Without a positive ID (invading our RL identities) theirs no way to screen for alts. Also the value of what most of the citizens want to "protect" using the legal system is much lower than the costs. Further our SL identities can be slandered at will by throw away alts.
We need to come up with a system to prevent this abuse.

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

Post by Ashcroft Burnham »

[quote="Ranma Tardis":1g3z40b5]So I would have to take off from my real life job to protect a two dollar American investment? I do not have access to SL during the day (Central time, North American) from 7am to about 6pm. Then I need to get some sleep at night 9pm to 6am. I do not do any business in SL so the change of a court battle is remote but anything is possible.
I also refuse to pay money to some SL lawyer to protect my two dollar investment. I think any legal action at all would amount to hundreds of American dollars.[/quote:1g3z40b5]

The Code of Procedure that I designed ensured that courts were explcitly required to take into account timezones and work schedules in scheduling hearings. I cannot imagine that anybody would ever have to take time off work, as hearings would be conducted on week-ends.

[quote:1g3z40b5]It would seem that the current plan would enable people to make an alt or alts and be able to drive anyone they wish from the CDS. If they have legal abilities it would be such a simple thing for them to do.
Without a positive ID (invading our RL identities) theirs no way to screen for alts. Also the value of what most of the citizens want to "protect" using the legal system is much lower than the costs. Further our SL identities can be slandered at will by throw away alts.
We need to come up with a system to prevent this abuse.[/quote:1g3z40b5]

Do not be so sure about alts: there is somebody working right now to test an ingenious identity provider system in the CDS that might solve that very problem.

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":lepd83jy]
The Code of Procedure that I designed ensured that courts were explcitly required to take into account timezones and work schedules in scheduling hearings. I cannot imagine that anybody would ever have to take time off work, as hearings would be conducted on week-ends. [/quote:lepd83jy]

That's good. Could it be used as a delaying tactic, though? This is another question where the reality of our inability to force people to do things could make this system useless.

[quote:lepd83jy]Do not be so sure about alts: there is somebody working right now to test an ingenious identity provider system in the CDS that might solve that very problem.[/quote:lepd83jy]

I spoke with the person you referred me to on this system and he really has no ingenious plan as far as I can tell. In fact, he was asking ME how he could carry it out. There is no way to force LL to disclose customer info to connect alts, and in any case alts are easily created under fraudulent names.

On the question of alts, I have 2 alts and am quite public about it. However, many people are not, and probably can't and shouldn't be forced to disclose their alts. The only thing I think MIGHT pass muster is to ask people to disclose their names at the time they apply for citizenship, but of course even that is open to fraud and would not stop non-citizen alts from doing whatever they wanted to.

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

Post by Gxeremio Dimsum »

[quote="Ashcroft Burnham":2rh4hn2w]I would have answered, but Oni has written everything that needs to be written about the matter.[/quote:2rh4hn2w]

Thanks, Oni. My concerns about summary banishment are somewhat relieved. :)

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

Post by Beathan »

Dimsum --

If you want your fears of summary banishment to resume with full force, read the thread on Juries in the Commission discussions. Apparently, on his own authority, based on his own take on the evidence, a Judge can convert any case -- even a civil action for breach of contract -- into a banishment criminal trial, during the trial, and impose banishment at the end of it.

Yikes!

Beathan

Last edited by Beathan on Wed Dec 13, 2006 11:02 am, 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.
Oni Jiutai
Seasoned debater
Seasoned debater
Posts: 69
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2006 3:42 pm

Post by Oni Jiutai »

But probably not without a request for an amendment, consideration of the effect of the amendment, informing the party effected, giving them time for consideration and a chance to respond.

Unless the Judge [i:7fryqj79]wanted[/i:7fryqj79] to get slapped down on appeal.

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

Post by Beathan »

Oni --

Yes, one would hope so -- but if we were proceeding with that kind of deliberation, we might as well require dismissal and refiling. Further, we would then not run into the problem Ashcroft indicates of having a jury trial case without having time to get a jury. If we give a defendant enough time to prepare a defense, we give the court enough time to get a jury (if juries are possible and workable). Thus, Ashcroft's problem, as he described inthe jury thread, is only a problem if judges are acting in the manner you describe as improper.

Beathan

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="Oni Jiutai":49yzzcrm]But probably not without a request for an amendment, consideration of the effect of the amendment, informing the party effected, giving them time for consideration and a chance to respond.

Unless the Judge [i:49yzzcrm]wanted[/i:49yzzcrm] to get slapped down on appeal.[/quote:49yzzcrm]
Assume Beathan maliciously called me a corrupt legislator open to accepting bribes, and I sue him for defamation in our new courts. When I win, does that mean the judge can order Beathan banished? Do I have to ask for his banishment as a remedy before banishment is imposed, or can the court do so on its own motion?

Assume further that I don't ask for Beathan's banishment, but only for an apology, which Beathan refuses to provide upon being ordered by the court to do so. Can the court (again on its own motion, or only after being asked) banish Beathan for refusing to obey?

Hmm. Maybe we need a new thread on remedies?

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

Post by Beathan »

Justice --

I think that we do need a new thread on remedies. I also think we need to discuss whether different remedies require different burdens of proof, as iRL (at least in the US).

Further, although I don't believe I would ever say that you were a corrupt legislator open to accepting bribes, I would say that such behavior does not appear to be an impediment to legislative office or re-election in Louisiana and New Jersey.

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":2ld91ap8]Dimsum --

If you want your fears of summary banishment to resume with full force, read the thread on Juries in the Commission discussions. Apparently, on his own authority, based on his own take on the evidence, a Judge can convert any case -- even a civil action for breach of contract -- into a banishment criminal trial, during the trial, and impose banishment at the end of it.[/quote:2ld91ap8]

Beathan, you well know that the point that I was making was that my original code of procedures made this impossible, whereas the new ultra-vague rules allow it in theory. You have deliberately taken this out of context, I believe for the purposes of deception.

Ashcroft Burnham

Where reason fails, all hope is lost.
User avatar
Ashcroft Burnham
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1093
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2006 3:21 pm

Post by Ashcroft Burnham »

[quote="Justice Soothsayer":b0qv3ssx]Assume Beathan maliciously called me a corrupt legislator open to accepting bribes, and I sue him for defamation in our new courts. When I win, does that mean the judge can order Beathan banished? Do I have to ask for his banishment as a remedy before banishment is imposed, or can the court do so on its own motion?

Assume further that I don't ask for Beathan's banishment, but only for an apology, which Beathan refuses to provide upon being ordered by the court to do so. Can the court (again on its own motion, or only after being asked) banish Beathan for refusing to obey?

Hmm. Maybe we need a new thread on remedies?[/quote:b0qv3ssx]

The answers to these questions are manifestly unclear on the rules of procedure that you introduced. In my rules, the answers would be quite clear: if a party was alledging culpability, that would have to be expressly pleaded. In theory, a pleading could be amended, but a late amendment to add an allegation of culpability would almost certainly not be allowed, and, if it was, would permit the other party plenty of time to respond, and any delay caused would be compensated in costs. A party would specifically have to ask for a penal order, and, although a party would have been able to have pleaded something like, "A penal order, greater than public admonishment, at the discretion of the court", it would be clear to all concerned that banishment was on the table if that was invoked.

As to breach of court orders, the principle is that those would require separate proceedings to be taken for a breach of court order. A breach of court order would be more likely to result in banishment than any other given wrongdoing (because, if one breaches orders, the only order than can be forced on one is banishment), but would not be absolutely certain. Again, culpability would have to be pleaded and a penalty specifcially requested.

None of this, however, is clear on your rules.

Ashcroft Burnham

Where reason fails, all hope is lost.
Post Reply

Return to “Judiciary Discussion”