[pp.int.general] court of arbitration

[Maxime Rouquet]

On 03/22/2011 06:33 PM, Andrew Norton wrote:
> *sigh* since you've not bothered to read the statute (or if you did, you
> didn't understand them) you didn't understand the point I was making
> "(7) The Court of Arbitration shall have between three and seven
> Members. ***The provisions concerning the election of the Members of the
> Board and vacancies apply accordingly."***
Ok, I admit I forgot that part. However, I do not find in these statutes
why you say there should have been an extraordinary meeting...

Plus, in the statutes :
IX. General Assembly
(2) Extraordinary sessions can be held at the request of one third of
the Members or by a decision of the Board.

So if you really want your extraordinary meeting, please go convince the
Board or one third of the Members instead of spamming everybody on this
mailing-list. Otherwise we cannot have such a meeting anyway...

> Unfortunatly, I could not be there (...). THUS that's why we have a
> schedule. (...) That way we don't end up with a court packed by
> "the only 7 people to nominate themselves".
1) Everybody has his own problems, you could watch the live-stream.
2) The amendments to the statutes creating the Court of Administration
were voted on Saturday, so you would have heard about it if you had
taken care about the new statutes. Btw, once voted, they applied and
every Member had to accept them.
3) There were 8 candidates, most of them nominated by a Member party,
not by themselves.

> It's a paradoxical position that you're stuck in.
If you prove the Court of Arbitration is illegal I will vote so gladly,
and stop wasting my time and everyone's else arguing with you.

> What would you do if they decided that the French National Assembly was
> going to be elected in a different way?
If they asked every citizen to participate in the reorganization of
France's parliament during 2 days and decided to create a new organ on
the first by voting an amendment publicly known since a few weeks, I am
pretty sure I would not react like you...

> It's just not an acceptable method, that an election be called, held and
> concluded with no outside notice. It stinks, it's scummy, and it's the
> most corrupt way to do things while keeping a winked eye at democracy.
> Just whose idea was it?
I believe you speak about the General Assembly and everybody present.