Welcome to Wittenberg!

Recent Posts

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]
91
The Lobby / Re: Committee of Legal Reforms
« Last post by Miestră Schivă, UrN on January 12, 2021, 02:12:46 PM »
Let's focus on the point here. What shall we replace El Lex A:1-4 with?

- a full replacement Talossan legal code? Far too much work.
- would the Regent's special prosecutor system work fully to replace these sections? And how? Can we have a hypothetical example, eg: what would a "special prosecutor" have done in the I. Canún case?
- do we need extra "principles" to guide the Courts in these "special prosecutor" cases outwith those currently in the Covenants?

There is a much broader question I've raised of whether our current "quasi common law system" is adequate for our purposes - and indeed what is the statutory basis for it since the reference to Anglo-American principles was taken out of the OrgLaw. (Are we to assume that Talossa inherited the common law on 26/12/79?) The alternative would be to resort to Civil Law, i.e. precedent no longer has value and where there's no statute the Court can't rule.
92
The Lobby / Re: Committee of Legal Reforms
« Last post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on January 12, 2021, 01:48:24 PM »
All right, time for some archeology. Wisconsin law was written into our law (at the proposal of KR1) by 31RZ14, which reads in part:

Quote
WHEREAS under Talossan law, there are no actual, legal prohibitions against murder, rape, robbery, or any other crimes...

So clearly KR1 was thinking of the kind of crimes of gross moral turpitude that I. Canún is currently doing time for. This was further amended (at Sir Cresti's proposal) by 35RZ21. The list of those sections of the Wisconsin Code "dynamically included" in our law are:

Quote
    Chapters 240-243 Fraudulent Conveyances and Contracts
    Chapters 401-411 Uniform Commercial Code
    Chapters 421-429 Wisconsin Consumer Act
    Chapters 700-710 Property
    Chapters 938-951 Criminal Code
    Chapter 961 Controlled Substances

I suppose we could go through Old Witt's debates to find out exactly why Sir Cresti thought these sections should apply to Talossa. But I maintain the following:

  • putting Wisconsin law into Talossan law means that Talossan judges and lawyers have to be familiar with Wisconsin case and statute law to really know our law, which is ridiculous and puts the Talossan law out of reach for any but US-trained lawyers (like Cresti, lol)
  • no case of "murder, rape or robbery" has ever been tried under these law in Talossan court
  • I believe that the only time these sections were invoked was when Cresti relied on Wisconsin court decisions as precedent in Talossan court - see above

These sections need to be repealed. Talossan law should be indigenous. But what will they be replaced with? That's what we're discussing.

A point I've made which seems to have been ignored is that Talossa's current common law system already allows courts a lot of discretion to hear cases on matters not referred to by statute. So if we adopted a set of "Principles of the Common Law of Talossa", Courts could base their decisions on those rather than on the "Anglo-American" precedent enshrined by the previous OrgLaw. But if the idea of judges ruling on matters not specifically referred to by statute is a problem, then we should switch to a Civil Law code post haste, which removes judicial discretion over matters not in statute. The Regent seems upset by something which is the status quo.
I'm not upset, but I also would note that you are mistaken about a few things. Multiple times, people have been charged or nearly charged with crimes under those legal codes. It hasn't happened a lot, but it has happened. It just isn't very equitable.

Yes, the modern court system has been bent inexorably towards the court system with which most of the judges in office have been familiar. It's not quite as open-season as you think, though!
93
The Lobby / Re: Committee of Legal Reforms
« Last post by Miestră Schivă, UrN on January 12, 2021, 01:43:01 PM »
All right, time for some archeology. Wisconsin law was written into our law (at the proposal of KR1) by 31RZ14, which reads in part:

Quote
WHEREAS under Talossan law, there are no actual, legal prohibitions against murder, rape, robbery, or any other crimes...

So clearly KR1 was thinking of the kind of crimes of gross moral turpitude that I. Canún is currently doing time for. This was further amended (at Sir Cresti's proposal) by 35RZ21. The list of those sections of the Wisconsin Code "dynamically included" in our law are:

Quote
    Chapters 240-243 Fraudulent Conveyances and Contracts
    Chapters 401-411 Uniform Commercial Code
    Chapters 421-429 Wisconsin Consumer Act
    Chapters 700-710 Property
    Chapters 938-951 Criminal Code
    Chapter 961 Controlled Substances

I suppose we could go through Old Witt's debates to find out exactly why Sir Cresti thought these sections should apply to Talossa. But I maintain the following:

  • putting Wisconsin law into Talossan law means that Talossan judges and lawyers have to be familiar with Wisconsin case and statute law to really know our law, which is ridiculous and puts the Talossan law out of reach for any but US-trained lawyers (like Cresti, lol)
  • no case of "murder, rape or robbery" has ever been tried under these law in Talossan court
  • I believe that the only time these sections were invoked was when Cresti relied on Wisconsin court decisions as precedent in Talossan court - see above

These sections need to be repealed. Talossan law should be indigenous. But what will they be replaced with? That's what we're discussing.

A point I've made which seems to have been ignored is that Talossa's current common law system already allows courts a lot of discretion to hear cases on matters not referred to by statute. So if we adopted a set of "Principles of the Common Law of Talossa", Courts could base their decisions on those rather than on the "Anglo-American" precedent enshrined by the previous OrgLaw. But if the idea of judges ruling on matters not specifically referred to by statute is a problem, then we should switch to a Civil Law code post haste, which removes judicial discretion over matters not in statute. The Regent seems upset by something which is the status quo.

94
The Lobby / Re: Committee of Legal Reforms
« Last post by Miestră Schivă, UrN on January 12, 2021, 01:27:27 PM »
I want to be clear that we should be unbelievably careful about this, and we should make sure we set up such a system to strictly limit judicial power.

If your priority is to "strictly limit judicial power", then certainly we should cease to operate our judiciary on a "quasi common law approach", with principles of stare decisis etc., which gives the judiciary massive power compared to a Civil Law system like France, where judges simply cannot rule unless a statute explicitly references the matter. In contrast, even disregarding the Wisconsin statutes, the Court currently has wide powers to rule based on judicial precedent, even where there is no statute.

I repeat that, with the deletion of the term "Anglo-American judicial principles" (or whatever it was), this "quasi common law approach" no longer has any backing in the Organic or Statute law - it's sheerly kept in place by inertia/the desires of the CpI justices at the moment. Choose between "limiting judicial power" and "allowing judges to rule on something which isn't specifically mentioned in Talossan law", because you can't have both. "
95
Wittenberg / Re: [Public] Committee of Legal Reforms
« Last post by Viteu on January 12, 2021, 01:02:27 PM »
Per the SOS, the Lobby is open once something is being discussed.  I'm unsure about the rules of which forum is restricted to the Ziu, but given the clarification, no need for this thread.
96
The Lobby / Re: Committee of Legal Reforms
« Last post by Viteu on January 12, 2021, 12:59:06 PM »
Are the citizenry in general really not allowed to reply to discussions here?  For goodness sake, change that so people like the justices can participate!

I'm not the author of this thread, but since it is in the lobby of the Ziu, anyone can come and go in the lobby...

If that's the case. My apologies for the confusion. I'm actually unsure exactly which legislative forums are restricted to the Ziu.
97
The Lobby / Re: Committee of Legal Reforms
« Last post by Dr. Txec Róibeard dal Nordselvă, Esq., O.SPM, SMM on January 12, 2021, 12:57:09 PM »
Are the citizenry in general really not allowed to reply to discussions here?  For goodness sake, change that so people like the justices can participate!

I'm not the author of this thread, but since it is in the lobby of the Ziu, anyone can come and go in the lobby...
98
Wittenberg / Re: [Public] Committee of Legal Reforms
« Last post by Viteu on January 12, 2021, 12:57:04 PM »
Tenant/tenet... Tomato/typo.
99
Florencia / Re: Nimlet Session (Sep 2020-Ongoing)
« Last post by Breneir Itravilatx on January 12, 2021, 11:57:23 AM »
Seeing that 24 hours has passed without an objection, voting is terminated early for second consideration of Resolution 2020-10.
Resolution 2020-10 is approved by a vote of 8 votes in favor, 2 votes in opposition.

Article IV, Section 6 of the Florencian Constitution reads as follows concerning the approval of resolutions vetoed by the Constable:
Quote
If the Constable disapprove a resolution presented by the Governor, then the former shall return it to the consideration of the Shepherds with his objections in writing: and if the same resolution should earn again at least twice as many affirmative votes as negative, not later than the seventeenth day following its return, the Governor shall close the question and promulgate the resolution forthwith, and it shall take effect then; or else he shall close the question and declare it failed, albeit not rejected.

I, Breneir Itravilatx, Governor of Florencia, do hereby note that Resolution 2020-10 has indeed been approved by more than twice as many affirmative votes as negative votes before the seventeenth day of being returned to the House of Shepherds.
Therefore, the veto is overturned. Resolution 2020-10 is promulgated with immediate effect.
100
The Lobby / Re: Committee of Legal Reforms
« Last post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on January 12, 2021, 09:57:14 AM »
Are the citizenry in general really not allowed to reply to discussions here?  For goodness sake, change that so people like the justices can participate!

V says:

My apologies to the Ziu, I realized after the fact that the Committee of Legal Reforms thread is in the Lobby and not in Wittenberg.   I posted based on the "new posts" feed.  Having realized my mistake, the post has been removed.  But I do think there is a conversation that should be open to Talossa-at-large.  So I'm reproducing my commentary here.  The original thread can be found here
______


I want to chime in regarding the alcohol analogy.  Although there is a shared minimum alcohol consumption/purchasing age of 21 among the States, it is not the same law across the Country.  In Wisconsin, someone under the age of 21 can certainly be served an alcoholic beverage in a public establishment by their parent or guardian, while in North Carolina they cannot.  Even assuming Wisconsin did have an outright ban on underage alcohol consumption, it only applies to committing the offense if present in Wisconsin, an 18-year-old who consumes alcohol in Cezembre would not have broken a Wisconsin law because they did not consume alcohol in Wisconsin.  By way of example, my first trip to Europe at age 20, I purchased and consumed a beer in Schwedenplatz (public place) in Vienna.  Did I break New York law? No. New York has a similar law to Wisconsin, but even so, I purchased and consumed alcohol publicly in another country where the conduct was permissible. So I did not have to worry about facing criminal charges when I returned home.

The US, federal and State, rarely imposes criminal liability for conduct that occurs outside of a jurisdiction.  Where it does, it's very limited circumstance--think sex tourism.  So this is not the best analogy.

Regarding the merit of the Regent's thoughts, I generally find them agreeable.  I see the value is removing Wisconsin law from our criminal law, but we cannot possibly address every instance of criminal conduct that may present itself given our resources and needs.  I like the idea of a carefully regulated special counsel, but I would add that a tenant of criminal law is that a person must be able to know what they're doing is illegal.  There must be a benchmark.  Also, Talossa is unique in that we're seeking to hold someone criminally liable for conduct outside of Talossa for general crime.  I'd say further narrowing--only those crimes of such magnitude as to impact the wellness and health of Talossa, should be permissible for consideration of judicial incorporation (I'm thinking of murder or statutory rape as opposed to a speeding ticket).
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]