Is everyone working on one of these? P.S.S., what are you planning for your court reform?
-Aris On Sun, Oct 1, 2017 at 2:55 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote: > I like these ideas and will try to incorporate them into my upcoming courts > overhaul. > ---- > Publius Scribonius Scholasticus > p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com > > > >> On Oct 1, 2017, at 2:00 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: >> >> >> >> So, CFJ 3563 read as follows: >> The Green card o. issued emself in the below message was illegally >> issued, as the green card e issued nichdel was legally issued. >> and the caller barred Publius Scribonius Scholasticus. >> >> This left the Caller, o, nichdel and Publius with conflicts of interest >> or being ineligible to be assigned. A difficulty. Further, it just >> seems to be a miscarriage of justice to lump multiple cards into one >> CFJ. >> >> I suggest the following criminal process reforms with the following >> principles (not rushing to do it this week, this is for discussion): >> >> 1. Only a defendant (the carded) can call a case questioning whether >> the card was correct. E can bar someone of course. >> >> 2. E can do it for free (protecting eir right as per R217, and removing >> incentives for bundling cards into one CFJ). >> >> 3. Standards of evidence are specified for this type of case (beyond a >> reasonable doubt? or should it be preponderance of evidence). >> >> 4. Any case questioning a Card that doesn't use this process (e.g. >> called by a non-defendant) should be DISMISSED and referred to this >> process. >> >> The trickiest part is how punishment effects are applied - how to >> suspend (or not suspend then) during this process. >> >> Thoughts? >> >> >> >
