[pp.int.general] Antonio - do you want to work with us in organizing this movement?

[Andrew Norton]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Actually, it could make such a ruling.

General precident in this is that it tends to be a 'stacking' effect,
rather than a looping one.

A valid complaint was filed prior to the Paris 'GA'. However, by
explicit statute said members were to step down at that event, and new
ones be elected.
So there's a choice of two court 'bodies' to hear the case. The one in
place at the time of the complaint, but whose term has since expired, OR
the body elected at the event in question and thus whose legitimacy is
uncertain.

While there are valid arguments either way, the sensible one would be to
have a composite body of them all, as either way it gives legitimacy to
the decision. Of course, as it's an extraordinary case, there also needs
to be an extraordinary level of transparency as well, which shouldn't be
too high a hurdle for anyone.

In addition, since the complaint was filed prior to the procedural
changes, and concerns the validity of those changes, the old method
should be used.

It's not that hard really.

In addition, more amusingly, since a valid complaint was filed in the
prescribed manner, and has not been acted upon in accordance with
statutes, then the body of the court may be liable for official
complaints themselves (and since they can't rule on themselves,
obviously) possibly including litigation (and we're back at 2 years ago)

But to just claim 'temporal paradox' is not helpful, or indeed accurate.

Andrew

On 6/5/2014 11:05 AM, Zbigniew Łukasiak wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 4:41 PM, Antonio Garcia <ningunotro at hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Show me where the rationality an due diligence of the process was NOT
>> ditched ;(.
>>
>> I have told you CLEARLY... where it was ditched. In the first stupid
>> sentence of the Court of Arbitration.
> 
> Right - the Court of Arbitration ruling was wrong.
> 
> But in fact the CoA could not rule that the very GA that elected them
> is invalid. The only ruling it could logically do is to rule that this
> is outside of its competence. And the current one also cannot nullify
> the chain of events that lead to its election - because it would also
> make itself invalid and thus also the very decision.
> 
> Is there any other way that would make you say - "OK - this was fair enough"?
> 
> Z.
> ____________________________________________________
> Pirate Parties International - General Talk
> pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
> http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general
> 


- -- 
Andrew Norton
http://ktetch.co.uk
Tel: +1(352)6-KTETCH [+1-352-658-3824]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJTkIr7AAoJECjjuYTW3X5HLz8H/Rs2qBI347VuiKsAgMmxidzA
fYQV8i/ff4xnq03q2WyjszrD+TdG81MmGYv1rnUJkKDKcRXjEbSklzoFCIxEvZMV
RN7outKAeX7eSXU72yPxNPGZ48tdXKzy3axM5VHwWVpPNEaMDogJf0egbVMeTFHO
YXS6llHkRV1S7YJ3g9IYg3mkT1PP4gCjH136chhW+ROZwdGrVaeVi6zTa1q7W8Cb
VjjsfHY/rgi9ZX6SFxAY2zn6DmR+gvGUzAFNPp8jyyzZBSMidh2nk8nLSUR9a3Vw
m/nxx3u7OI23VZDX9nGadlxTE2+2evRAVo15Yp2Av6DGJZsqENuR0kBmhJloRgs=
=fSr+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----