tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9192922.post5800075105798042840..comments2024-03-29T11:22:18.208+00:00Comments on Mabinogogiblog: Tunisian Green Party Calls for ElectionsDocRichardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08903964792092284406noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9192922.post-10150525154389889702011-01-15T21:33:05.813+00:002011-01-15T21:33:05.813+00:00Hi Tern "Since 7 July 1999 all court or other...Hi Tern "Since 7 July 1999 all court or other legal decisions are open-endedly faultable on their logic, instead of final. "Open to open-ended fault finding by any party"."<br /><br />Can you source this? Is it an admission from a court, a policy decision, or what?<br /><br />Cheers<br />RichardDocRichardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08903964792092284406noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9192922.post-56674117111331604332011-01-15T14:12:45.764+00:002011-01-15T14:12:45.764+00:00Just mailed this to Tunisie Verte:
I'm in Sco...Just mailed this to Tunisie Verte:<br /><br />I'm in Scotland. It seems to me that must be of great benefit to advancing democracy and UN human rights enquiries, in Tunisia now, to know that a massive democratic advance in the nature of law, which applies to most of the world if people want to lay claim to it, applies to Tunisia. <br /><br />This advance, called "the court change", is still under a media silence in the West, and has always been ignored by the big aid agencies whose leaderships are only interested in their own political careers. Nobody has ever presented any argument against it being right. The reasons why it exists are set out clearly step by step. It starts in Europe, keep reading and 6 pargaraphs in you will reach the explanation of how it can apply to Tunisia.<br /><br />COURT CHANGE IN 185 COUNTRIES: decisions are not final.<br /> <br />Since 7 July 1999 all court or other legal decisions are open-endedly faultable on their logic, instead of final. "Open to open-ended fault finding by any party". Its shifting of power in favour of ordinary people ensures that it has been under a media silence. Still, it is on publicly traceable record through petitions 730/99 in the European, PE6 and PE360 in the Scottish, parliaments.<br /> <br />This follows from my European Court of Human Rights case 41597/98 on a scandal of insurance policies requiring evictions of unemployed people from hotels. This case referred to violation of civil status from 13 May 1997, yet the admissibility decision claimed the last stage of decision taken within Britain was on 4 Aug 1995. ECHR has made itself illegal, by issuing a syntactically contradictory nonsense decision that reverses the physics of time, and calling it final. This violates every precedent that ECHR member countries' laws recognise the chronology of cause and effect, in court evidence. <br /> <br />Hence, the original ECHR is now, and since then, an illegal entity, because it broke all preexisting precedent that courts recognise the correct order of time, and it claimed a power of finality to issue decisions whose content is a factual impossibility. But for the original ECHR to lapse in this way, also breaches the European Convention's section on requiring an ECHR to exist. Hence, this section requires the member countries to create a new ECHR that removes the original's illegality. The source of the illegality being left standing was in the claimed power of final decision. Hence, the only way the new court can remove the illegality is by being constituted such that its decisions are not final. If decisions are not final, the only other thing they can be is open-endedly faultable. <br /><br />This requires the courts in the member countries to be compatible with open-ended decisions and with doing in-country work connected to them. Hence, legal decisions within the member countries' courts also cease to be final and become open-ended, in all the Council of Europe countries.<br /> <br />The concept of "leave to appeal" is abolished and judges no longer have to be crawled to as authority figures. Every party in a case is automatically entitled to lodge a fault finding against any decision, stating reasons. These are further faultable in return, including by the original fault finder, stating reasons. A case reaches its outcome when all fault findings have been answered or accepted.<br /> <br />World trade irreversibly means jurisdictions are not cocooned but have overlapping cases. When a case overlaps an affected and unaffected country, the unaffected country becomes affected, through having to deal with open ended case content open-endedly, that can affect any number of other cases open-endedly. Open-endedness is created in its system.<br /> <br />So the court change is of far-reaching international interest. Anyone can add to the list of court change countries outside the Council of Europe, showing autocracies, pending their freer futures, as well as democracies. <br /><br />Tunisia through the Lord Shaftesbury murder trial. <br /> <br />Then rest of list, starting with the United States:ternhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17710224070068773971noreply@blogger.com