Damn, guys, this was really painful to read. You are either completely misunderstanding how EOS works, or you are willfully trying to deceive people. Both options are really bad from a BP which has been with EOS since the beginning.

You can't just call on somebody to stop obeying the constitution. If there is something that you disagree with, you need to ask the community to amend the constitution. You really can't try to pressure parties of the ecosystem to disobey constitution if you don't like certain rules.

How the hell you can expect that the stability of the chain will be preserved if people should act against he constitution? If one part of the constitution is completely ignored, then all the other parts can be also ignored. This will lead to the situation where everyone can try to do whatever they want, as long as they think won't cause them too much problems.

ECAF began with the stated aim of trying to solve a number of diverse problems. These ranged from contractual disputes, to DAO-type hacks, to theft of tokens.

It was the constitution which does all this. ECAF is just there to make the decision over disputes arising from the constitution.

However, it has become clear that several elements of this body are not fit for purpose. In particular, there is lack of clarity over the scope and intended purpose of ‘arbitration’ - and even what arbitration is.

The constitution is a multiparty contract and everything that's in the constitution defines the scope of arbitration. The community has its own ruleset and it uses arbitration to get a judgement if a rule has been broken. There really shouldn't be any lack of clarity about it at this point.

ECAF appears to be willing to look at and issue ‘orders’ to block producers about situations that fall outside the normal definition of arbitration.

ECAF will look at all cases that the community asks it to look at. Just because multiparty contract similar to EOS's constitution is not common, it doesn't mean it's somehow invalid. If you want to move certain kind of disputes out of ECAF's jurisdiction, then you need to ask the community to amend the constitution. ECAF doesn't have any power over the ruleset, it just does what the community asks it to do. It was created to serve the community.

But such an exception has not yet been achieved in law, so currently when ECAF issues ‘orders’ for block producers to move private property from one account to another, both ECAF and block producers are doing so outside of any legal framework. Normally a court order is required before property can be lawfully ‘restored’.

Yeah, but how well the normal procedures have been working with blockchains? Really badly, I'd say. That's why I like how EOS has taken the initiative to create something better. If the existing justice systems are really inefficient at protecting private property on the blockchain, then it makes sense for the community to protect themselves. This is achieved by including disputes about property rights under the jurisdiction of EOS base-layer arbitration.

Even though this is something new, I don't think that existing judicial systems will look at it as something illegal. On the contrary, my guess is that they will more likely say something like "wow, that's a great innovation!" and support it.