Beathan has posted a proposal [url=http://forums.neufreistadt.info/viewtop ... 4:29b8bmey]here[/url:29b8bmey] for a way forward. I think this is a positive move and I think it can form the basis for a way out of our current impasse. Like Beathan I agree that we need to consider the issues raised in the Commission on the Judiciary Act a few at a time and agree amendments that bring the JA closer to a system we can all live with (if not love ). I'm not sure that the 'Commission and sub-committees' approach will work though so I'm suggesting an alternative approach here.
I propose that we agree to invest a substantial portion of our time (the first three months of the next legislative term) sorting out the Judiciary and agreeing amendments to the Judiciary Act which address the many problems that some citizens see with it. For convenience, I suggest we take the ten agenda items set by the Commission Co-chairs and devote two weeks to considering the agenda items two or three at a time (though in a slightly different order). During those two weeks we should, as a community, discuss the underlying principles and develop proposals for amendments to the JA through a mixture of inworld meetings and Forum discussion and then, at the end of each two-week period, the RA would vote on any proposal(s) submitted.
Timetable
[list:29b8bmey]w/c 22 January 2007. Agenda items 3, 4 and 5 'Relation of the Judiciary with the other branches of state', 'Judges' and 'SC'.
w/c 5 February. Agenda items 6 and 7 'Privacy and Protection' and 'Juries'
w/c 19 February. Agenda items 8, 9 and 10 'Financial issues', 'Formalities and procedures' and 'Citizens and non-citizens'
w/c 5 March. The PJSP begins formal consideration of agenda items 1 and 2 and prepares a report on the Judiciary in operation along with recommendations for change by 26 March.
[/list:u:29b8bmey]
Agenda Items (with revised questions)
[i:29b8bmey][b:29b8bmey]1) Test of the Judiciary Act [/b:29b8bmey][/i:29b8bmey]
This should take place at the end of our period of reflection and amendment. I suggest that the PJSP should prepare a report on the operation of the Judiciary over the previous six months and put forward any final recommendations for change to the RA (without prejudice to other changes being necessary at some future point).
[i:29b8bmey][b:29b8bmey]2. Complexity of the Judiciary [/b:29b8bmey][/i:29b8bmey]
Again, this is best covered at the end of the six month period when the Judiciary has had time to operate. The goal of simplification of the Judiciary and the other branches of government (I would prefer to call it 'better regulation') should be an ongoing one.
[i:29b8bmey][b:29b8bmey]3. Relation of the Judiciary with the other branches of state [/b:29b8bmey][/i:29b8bmey]
a) What is "judicial independence"? How do we define it, and how do we guarantee it?
b) What is the jurisdiction of the Judiciary? What are the limits to the power of the Judiciary? How do we put in checks and balances to prevent 'rule by Judges'?
[i:29b8bmey][b:29b8bmey]4. Judges [/b:29b8bmey][/i:29b8bmey]
How should judges be selected and appointed? Is there need for peer qualification? Are the judicial selection procedures appropriate? What should be the duration of the term of office of judges?
[i:29b8bmey][b:29b8bmey]5. SC [/b:29b8bmey][/i:29b8bmey]
Is the new role of the SC appropriate? Should it act as the final court of last resort? Should it have any role in supervising the judiciary?
[i:29b8bmey][b:29b8bmey]6. Privacy and protection [/b:29b8bmey][/i:29b8bmey]
Does the system provide for sufficient privacy/protection of the parties? To what extent has the public a 'need to know'?
[i:29b8bmey][b:29b8bmey]7. Juries [/b:29b8bmey][/i:29b8bmey]
Should we have juries?
[i:29b8bmey][b:29b8bmey]8. Financial issues[/b:29b8bmey] [/i:29b8bmey]
Who should set court costs? Should attorneys fees be part of costs? Who should handle money collected or disbursed by the judiciary? Who should pay the court costs?
[i:29b8bmey][b:29b8bmey]9. Formalities and procedures [/b:29b8bmey][/i:29b8bmey]
Should the procedures mandate formalities that are not required to operate the system? Should these be made optional?
[i:29b8bmey][b:29b8bmey]10. Citizens and non-citizens [/b:29b8bmey][/i:29b8bmey]
Up to now most of the discussion has assumed that the court will be used to result conflicts between citizens. In a case that involves a citizen and a non-citizen the citizen has much more to lose -- as much as hundreds of dollars invested in CDS properties, court costs, and reputation in their home community. Non-citizens may more easily file cases using an alt (because they are less well known), and at most risk banning from CDS regions. If a person is banned they can always re-enter using an alt. The Non-citizen has very little to loose. How can we preserve universal access to the courts while creating a level playing field? Can we protect citizens from cases filed for the purpose of retribution or to defame a citizen at very low risk by non-citizens?