tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2352189175211648260.post9185878636702021628..comments2023-10-24T14:45:41.342+02:00Comments on K’s Law: R 2/12 - A Case For An Rorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07992102028406713066noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2352189175211648260.post-82589073695530815232013-02-13T00:51:31.048+01:002013-02-13T00:51:31.048+01:00@Anonymous:
There's no safeguard to that. Once...@Anonymous:<br />There's no safeguard to that. Once everybody is out to get you, they will get you.<br /><br />In real life, you are dealing with professionals. A 3-person Division or Board will not fail to record a statement when explicitly requested to record it. They might have a different view on the law or on the facts, but they will not on purpose send you to the wrong room and quickly hold the OP in your absence.<br /><br />As already noted, in R 2/12 such a request was not made.Myshkinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2352189175211648260.post-51124213492230660772013-02-12T13:02:05.826+01:002013-02-12T13:02:05.826+01:00@Myshkin:
So, would the failure of a Division or a...@Myshkin:<br />So, would the failure of a Division or a Board to record a statement, on request, in the minutes therefore be a substantial procedural violation? If so, how would such a violation be corrected? Perhaps you say that such a failure could never occur. I would hope that that could be the case. But "never" is a very strong word to use when dealing with people and institutions. So where is the safeguard against this type of violation, in the EBoA's test?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2352189175211648260.post-18530107304267558462013-02-12T01:19:26.248+01:002013-02-12T01:19:26.248+01:00@Anonymous:
If a representative explicitly request...@Anonymous:<br />If a representative explicitly requests the recording in the minutes of a statement he makes, then a Division or Board will record that statement in the minutes.<br /><br />In the present case, the representative had made no such request.Myshkinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2352189175211648260.post-71461487084167186452013-02-11T13:07:21.144+01:002013-02-11T13:07:21.144+01:00I have empathy for the representative before the B...I have empathy for the representative before the Board, who, feeling himself wronged, must then rely on a magic phrase appearing in a document over the creation of which he has no control, to dispute the correctness of proceedings before the entity that produced that document. The representative, by rule, cannot himself produce reliable evidence of what happened at the proceedings as a consequence of the ban on recording devices, and so must rely on the bona fides of those he accuses of improper conduct. But how could the EBoA address the situation where a Board allows a substantial procedural violation or violates the right to be heard, interntionally or otherwise, and then seeks to avoid discovery of the error by selective reporting in the minutes. No human institution can claim to be free of such a possibility, yet in such an event there could be no redress as the EBoA's self-determined rules would prevent action being taken.<br /><br />Let us then hope with our hearts that the BoA members non angli sed angeli sunt.<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com