This version of Wittenberg is now the legal national forum for Talossa! Feel free to explore it, and to check out the threads for feedback, requests and criticisms to make sure Wittenberg is tailored to you.

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Viteu

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7
Wittenberg / Re: Wittiquette discussion
« on: February 18, 2020, 09:21:50 PM »
Regarding libel/slander, collectively known as defamation, Talossa has adopted a more US appraoch because, like the US and unlike the UK, Talossa has a codified constituional right to free speech.

Even without that constituional protection, the UK goes a bit to the extreme. The person suing for defamation does not have to prove the statement is defamatory. The accused had to prove its not. It completely reverses the burden of proof.

All of that said, I don't support a rule about this other than if something is considered defamatory, an admin can edit a post to highlight unsubstantiated claims. Otherwise the admins will start acting in a quasi-judicial function.  Not to mention, a rule will have a chilling effect on free speech.

The Senate / Re: Nice room
« on: February 05, 2020, 04:32:31 PM »
Smoking Senators and guests have been banished to the parking lot behind Greene Hall.

I'm literally smoking as cig as I'm reading this new rule.

Wittenberg / Re: Sad news for all Talossans
« on: January 31, 2020, 12:46:48 PM »
May his memory be for a blessing.

The Hopper / Re: Judiciary Amendment of 2020
« on: January 28, 2020, 10:32:44 AM »
Any feedback on this before I submit it for the clark?

Wittenberg / Re: Talossan judicial precedents
« on: January 22, 2020, 07:28:11 AM »
I appreciate that.  I've decided to clarify this matter up a bit in my closing statement. I'm also weighing whether that closings statement should be video.

In the interim, you can see a recent outtake of my closing statement at:

Wittenberg / Re: Talossan judicial precedents
« on: January 20, 2020, 10:15:14 PM »
Well, okay. But I'm interested on whether you think that the Cort agreeing to hear the second case against 47RZ28 was (a) a violation of stare decisis; (b) analogous to a NY "motion to re-argue"; (c) a different case which was presented and argued properly, which I think are all the possible options. If I'd known the King was going to bring this up I would have asked you myself.

Can you all give me until tomorrow to respond? I obviously have some reading to do.

Wittenberg / Re: Talossan judicial precedents
« on: January 20, 2020, 10:14:02 PM »
Alright. I'm done for the night. I do believe in jurisprudence and stare decisis. I spent hours researching Talossan jurisprudence to discuss it in my interview. AD, I think you misunderstood me. I'd appreciate if you could reread.what I put. I also suggest you look up this motion in your home jurisdiction (it exists). Say what you want about me, but do not paint me as an activist judge who will cast aside jurisprudence. You will get from me not only someone who truly believes in stare decisis, but has been writing an article for three years on the topic. I'd be the first person on that Cort that can discuss the topic thoroughly. You saying that I don't care about jurisprudence or stare decisis is actually a very hurtful personal attack because it's a bedrock to my legal philosophy. I hope you will take a step back and reconsider what said.

Wittenberg / Re: Talossan judicial precedents
« on: January 20, 2020, 10:04:38 PM »
Everyone. Stop. You're misunderstanding.

A motion to reargue/renew does not undermine stare decisis or judicial precedence.

This motion is available at all NY's court levels. They're quite common at the trial level, and maybe success is more possible but still rare. It does not upset stare decisis because it's usually the court got the facts or law wrong. The last time I saw it happen was I had won a motion to sever and then a motion to dismiss. In the underlying action, the clerk never removed my client from the matter. When the law secretary wrote up a new order after other motions, somehow I was back in a second third-party action. Surprisingly, my adversary, who lost her motion, moved to renew to clarify the parties. I was taken out.

The motions are also made at the appeallate level. They are not a bad thing. They're rarely granted. They don't hurt stare decisis because it's usually done pretty quickly.

Now, if the Court issues a decision and interprets a new law, but goes the other way, they could hurt. The Court should explain why it upsetting stare decisis.

Stare decisis is very strong in NY, and I think my analogy got misconstrued. NY courts can fix something if they got it wrong, but it's not like this is common place. So can we take a step back here?

Wittenberg / Re: Talossan judicial precedents
« on: January 20, 2020, 09:54:02 PM »
I'm "going on" about it?  Please.  You yourself had mentioned it already in that very thread, and V had talked at some length, and quite sensibly, about stare decisis and how it applies in Talossa.  I was wondering what he thought about (arguably) the most famous and (certainly) the most important case in which stare decisis was, I think we can all agree, entirely ignored.

In this case, too, I'd note that there wasn't any "petition to re-argue", nor any re-argument.  Simply the Cort announcing a different decision in a case they'd already decided.  It's certainly germane to ask the nominee whether he thought that was a good course, procedurally.

-- John R


Let me clear this up for you -- I declined to answer because I haven't studied the politics of the matter. I did not know about the election and the change, as your worded it, so I couldn't speak. But I tried to answer by relating it a procedure used in common law traditions. I was not trying to evade, but not comment on something that probably needs a good few hours on Witt to learn more about.

Wittenberg / Re: Talossan judicial precedents
« on: January 20, 2020, 09:49:37 PM »
The cort decided, and then later it accepted a new case looking at the same principle with different evidence and arguments.

Which is what V said happened in New York regularly. QED.

That's not at all what I said. I said that there is such a thing as a motion to renew/reargue. You file that with the Court that decided your motion,. But so file an appeal. Motions to renew/reargue are *Rarely* granted. If pressed, I can say I've maybe come across four times (one Court of Appeals and three Appellate Division cases) it's happened in all of the extensive research I've done. In fact, I said it's extremely rare.

Wittenberg / Re: Talossan judicial precedents
« on: January 16, 2020, 09:39:48 AM »
More from the peanut gallery:

Quote from: @agbdavis
So in what way could you assure us of your impartiality when confronting a case, as you most certainly will be asked to do, concerning an institution you have sworn to abolish and a person you have sworn you despise?

If AD's line of questioning makes sense, it would entail that no Talossan of Republican beliefs could sit on the High Cort: which would disqualify at least one or two of the incumbents.
No it wouldn't. A personal grudge is not the same as philosophical differences, unless you want me to believe that all republicans want John obliterated as a matter of principle.

Yes it is.  Republicans, by their nature, want to see the monarchy obliterated.  I do not want to see John, personally, obliterated. I want to see the monarchy abolished.  But I want that done through the democratic process. I stated that several times already.  The question was repetitive.

The Hopper / Re: Judiciary Amendment of 2020
« on: January 12, 2020, 12:32:27 PM »
Anyone know the HTML to turn off html? the last should be an 8, not  8)

Also, is Sen. Ardpresteir on new Witt? As a former Justice and jurist in his home jurisdiction, I'd like to get his input.

The Hopper / Judiciary Amendment of 2020
« on: January 12, 2020, 12:31:05 PM »
FINAL VERSION BEFORE HOPPER. Please Note I have added statutory language that would come into effect upon implementation.

I posted this in old Witt at

I have updated the numbering scheme to follow Section 3 of Article VIII of the 2017 Org Law per Senator Platschisch's concern. 


Confirmation is not a foregoing conclusion. But if it is, this may be the final bill I try to pass. I tried to fix many of the issues others had with the Judiciary Reform Amendment.

The Judiciary Amendment of 2020 and the Judiciary Statute of 2020

WHEREAS, in July 2019, the Ziu of the Kingdom of Talossa adopted the Still Into This Amendment in the third Clark (“53RZ18”) over the objections of the King;

WHEREAS the Chancery submitted 53RZ18 as Referendum 1 in the General Election for the 54th Cosa;

WHEREAS the people ratified 53RZ18, with the resultant promulgation by the King occurring by operation of law;

WHEREAS the following shall shall supplant that part of the 2017 Organic Law within two months of adoption by the Ziu and ratification by referendum;

WHEREAS 53RZ18 was a step towards cleaning up the Organic Law and did not seek to substantively modify the organs of the State;

WHEREAS the Ziu recognizes that the Judiciary of the Kingdom of Talossa must be adaptable and responsive to the dynamic needs of Talossa;

WHEREAS continuity in and of law is tantamount to an effective judiciary;

WHEREAS it would be helpful to include the appropriate statutory legislation to be implemented upon adoption of the following;

THEREFORE, the Ziu amends the 2017 Organic Law by deleting in whole Article VIII: The Courts as contained in 53RZ18 and adopted by the people;

BE IT FURTHER KNOWN, upon the foregoing being deleted, the Ziu and the people of Talosssa adopt as Article VIII: The Courts the following:

The Courts

Section 1.

The judicial power of the Kingdom of Talossa shall be vested in one Cort pü Inalt, in English the Uppermost Cort, and in such inferior courts as the Ziu may from time to time ordain and establish.

Section 2.

The judicial authority of the Cort pü Inalt shall extend to all matters, in law and equity, arising out of a case or controversy; and in all matters affecting ambassadors, public ministers, the State of the Kingdom of Talossa (including its organs), and a Province or other subdivision recognized by this Organic Law, the Cort pü Inalt shall have original jurisdiction. In all other cases, the Cort pü Inalt shall have appellate jurisdiction both as to law and fact over all inferior corts established by the Ziu. Nothing stated herein shall limit the authority of the Cort pü Inalt from remanding a matter to which the Cort pü Inalt has original jurisdiction to an inferior cort as it deems necessary.

Section 3.

The Cort pü Inalt shall consist of a permanent seat designated as Senior Judge, and two permanent seats designated as Puisne Judge. The Judges shall be ordered according to their seniority on the Cort pü Inalt, with the senior most Judge occupying the seat of Senior Judge.

The Ziu may enlarge the number of seats designated Puisne Judge to no more than eight, and may decrease the number of seats designated Puisne Judge to no less than two, provided that, in addition to the requirements for other legislation, two-thirds of the Cosa and a majority of the Senate support modification in two consecutive Cosas.

Neither a reigning King or his or her Consort, nor a Regent during his or her regency, nor the Secretary of State, nor the Seneschal, nor any other member of the Cabinet shall be a Judge of the Cort pü Inalt.

Section 4.

Any member of the Ziu may nominate a person to an open seat on the Cort pü Inalt. The nominee shall be approved by two-thirds support in the Cosa and majority support in the Senate. Upon such approval, the King shall appoint the nominee as a Judge of Cort pü Inalt.

If the King shall decline to appoint a nominee, then, upon approval by two-thirds support of the Cosa and majority support in the Senate, the nominee shall be considered appointed.

Every Judge of the Cort pü Inalt shall be subject to a re-appointment in intervals of five years, measured from when their initial appointment. These intervals may be increased two to no more than 10 years provided that any legislation retroactively applies to all sitting members of the Cort pü Inalt and is supported by two-thirds of the Cosa and a majority of the Senate in two consecutive Cosas.
Unless otherwise set by law, re-appointment shall be deemed automatic if no member of the Ziu has requested a re-appointment vote in the Cosa immediately preceding the expiration of the Judge's term; and re-appointment shall only require a simple majority of each house in the Ziu. The Ziu may modify the foregoing provided the requirements of re-appointment never exceed that for appointment.

Section 5.

A Judge shall remain on the Cort pü Inalt for the duration of their term, until they choose to retire, or, as prescribed by law, until such time as the Ziu shall remove him or her from their seat or until he or she can no longer perform their duties on account of incapacitation.
In the event that a sitting Judge of the Cort pü Inalt acts in a manner that offends the Ziu in the Judge's official and individual capacity, or is found guilty or has pleaded guilty to a crime in Talossa, a member of the Ziu may move for a Notice of Reprimand, which shall set forth an individual charge with the stated punishment contained therein, which shall not exceed removal from his or her seat as Judge.
To impose the sanction of removal, a Notice of Reprimand must receive, in addition to requirements of other legislation, two-thirds support in the Cosa and majority support in the Senate.

Section 6.

Until such time as inferior corts are established, a Judge may sit as a nisi prius cort in all civil and criminal matters.

No decision or order issued by an inferior cort or nisi prius cort shall bind a coordinate cort.

The decisions or orders of the Cort pü Inalt shall bind all lower corts according to the doctrine of stare decisis provided that that the panel was composed of no less than three Judges after necessary recusal. The Cort pü Inalt may, as it deems appropriate, issue decisions or orders that are non-binding provided that it explicitly states that intention in the decision or order.

A nisi prius cort or an inferior cort deviating from binding precedent must state so with clarity and refer the matter for appellate review.
Notwithstanding any contrary proscription, the King, the Secretary of State, or the Senechal may refer an issue to the Cort pü Inalt for an advisory opinion provided that any such panel reviewing the position is composed of no less than three Judges after any necessary recusal, there lacks a live case or controversy that would otherwise determine the issue, and there is a reasonably need for resolution of the question.

A matter arising under the Covenants of Rights and Freedoms is appealable as of right to the Cort pü Inalt. In all other instances, the Cort pü Inalt may not be compelled to exercise its appellate authority. However, when declining to do so, the Cort pü Inalt must issue an order declaring such, and no such declaration shall be deemed as the Cort pü Inalt adopting or setting as binding precedent the appealed from decision or order.

The Cort pü Inalt, and any other cort existing under this article, shall interpret all matters through the lens of the Covenants of Rights and Freedoms.

Any Judge that is a named party in a matter shall recuse himself or herself from hearing any and all parts of the matter.

BE IT FURTHER KNOWN that, only upon the foregoing amendment coming into effect, and if shall fail, this part shall be stricken nunc pro tunc, el Lexhatx shall be amended as follows;

BE IT FURTHER KNOWN that the Scribe is authorized to modify the following sections or subsection identifiers to cure any inconsistency upon the statute coming into effect, and may fix any accents, diaeresis, or like marks for consistency with Talossan nomenclature and the Talossan language;

BE IT FURTHER KNOWN that upon implementation of the foregoing, all Justices presently on the Cort pü Inalt shall hold their seats but restyled as Judge with the appropriate designation;

UPON THE FOREGOING CONDITIONS, BE IT ENACTED that Section 13 of Article G of el Lexhatx is stricken in its entirety.

All references to “Justice of the Peace” not specifically identified in this statute but contained elsewhere in el Lexhatx shall be stricken.

All references to "Justice" or "Justices" as it relates to a member of the Cort pü Inalt contained in el Lexhatx not specifically identified in this below shall be replaced with "Judge" or "Judges." 

The following shall be added to el Lexhatx under Article G, Section 13:

13.1. The Ziu enlarges the number of Pusine Judges by two in accord with Section 3 of Article VIII of the Organic Law.

13.2. The Ziu establishes the General Cort of Talossa, which shall be an inferior nisi prius cort, cort of first instance, and of general jurisdiction consistent with Article VIII of the Organic Law.

13.2.1. In accord with Section 6 of Article VIII of the Organic Law, any action commenced in the General Cort of Talossa shall be heard by a single Judge of the Cort pü Inalt.   

13.2.2. A Judge presiding over a matter in the General Cort of Talossa shall be styled as "Magistrate" for the purposes of that proceeding.

13.2.3. Unless an appeal lies as of right, an aggrieved party to an action may seek leave to appeal any determination of the General Cort to the Cort pü Inalt.

13.2.4. A Magistrate may not sit as a Judge on the Cort pü Inalt for any appeal related to a proceeding over which they presided as a a magistrate. 

13.2.5. A Magistrate must recuse themselves from a matter upon a real or apparent conflict of interest.

Section 14 of Article G of el Lexhatx is amended as follows:

14.1.1. The Secretary of State shall accept service of any complaints or claims to the Cort pü Înalt or General Cort of Talossa on behalf of all citizens. The Secretary of State shall email notice of said complaints or claims to the concerned citizen, and affirm to the Cort that they did so on that date (the "date of service").

14.1.2 If either party in a case before the Cort fails to respond to such a notice as specified in section 14.1.1 within 60 days of the date of service, the Cort may, upon a motion by the adverse party, enter default judgement against the nonappearing party. Default judgment can only be entered for a period of three months after default. A default order may be vacated, upon good cause shown, within three months after it was entered, by motion of the aggrieved party.

14.2. If a Judge fails to respond to the assignment of a Case by the Clerk of Corts, pursuant to section 5.7 of this article, within 14 days, then the Clerk of Corts shall assign the case to another Judge, and inform the Senechal of the Judge's failure to appear.

14.3. A Judge may request a matter be transferred to another Judge for any reason.  If that request be for any other purpose than a conflict of interest, and the Judge has not presided over any substantive part of the proceeding as a Magistrate, he or she shall be from the proscription enumerated in section 13.2.4 of this article. 

14.4. If a Magistrate fails to address a filing from either party within 14 days of receipt, then the Clerk of Corts shall inquire as to the status of the Magistrate, and may appropriately reassign the matter to another Judge if warranted.  If a Magistrate fails to respond to a Clerk’s inquiry within 14 days, the Clerk shall reassign the matter and inform the Seneschal of the Magistrate's failure to appear.

The following shall be added as Section 15 of Article G of el Lexhatx

15.1.1. All final decisions or those interlocutory orders must be codified in an official reporter.

15.1.2.  The Cort pü Inalt may request that the Government or Scribe maintain official reporters of decisions on behalf of all Talossan Corts, or it may direct the Clerk of Corts to do so on its behalf. If the Cort pü Inalt shall request the Government or Scribe to maintain official reporters, then the Cort pü Inalt must designate, in the decision, whether it shall be deemed binding, and if so, it shall be reported in an official reporter entitled "Cort pü Inalt" and abbreviated to "CPI" in citations.  All decisions of the Cort pü Inalt designated nonbinding shall be reported in an official reporter entitled "Cort pü Inalt Apeindix" and abbrivated to "CPIA" in citations. All final determinations of the General Cort shall be published in an official reporter entitled "General Cort" and abbreviated to "GC" by the Scribe or an individual designated by the Government in the same fashion as described in G.  Nonfinal or interlocutory determinations that impact the rights of a party must also be reported in the GC reporter.  All other determinations need not be reported in the GC reported unless so designated by the General Cort.  Determinations not contained in the GC reporter shall be styled as General Cort Slip Opinions and must be made publicly available on a State-run website in consecutive order by date with an affixed number with an appropriate pin cite every 200 words, for ease of reference, that shall be listed as follows: Case Name, Year GC Slip Op NUMBER, *Pin (Full Date, Magistrate's surname, M.) (e.g. Doe v Smith, 2020 GC Slip Op 001, *1 (27 February 2020, Hershewolfschechterdorfers, M.) If the Scribe or the appointed Government Ministry determines any aforementioned volume becomes lengthy, a subsequent volume shall be created with the appropriate cardinal prefixed prior to the reporter. The Cort pü Inalt may direct the Clerk of the Corts to normalize case captions according to rules it may set forth, which shall then be used in any reporter. The Cort pü Inalt may publish an official style manual enumerating proper citations for any source, which shall be followed by all parties filing documents with any national Talossan cort.

*MODIFIED 02/27/2020 at 6:10 a.m. EST – removed subsections and fixed some typos.  Added accompanying statute

(see post below for old version)

The Hopper / Re: The Fair Warning Act
« on: January 12, 2020, 11:03:08 AM »
I've expressed my feelings at this bill on the old Witt. As written, I intend to vote against it. It is wholly unnecessary and recent updates to the immigration form already accomplish its goal.

Vuode / Estats Xhenerais - States General - Grand Session X
« on: December 09, 2019, 04:45:12 PM »
As you all know, I was the only person to claim their seat in the Estats Xhenerais. 

I stated elsewhere that I will not govern alone and will submit and take any submission from a citizen of the United Provinces into debate.  New laws will only be adopted if there is a majority of an informal vote of participants.   I explained this here:

However, article III, §§ 8 and 9 of the Constitution of the United Provinces of Vuode and Dandenburg mandate that a Premier and a Presiding Office be chosen from within the Estates Xhenerais.  There is no bar against one person holding both positions unless I am missing something.  Given that no other person can hold these seats, by operation of law, I assume both. :-/

That said, what legislation do we want to see adopted?

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7