Quote from: Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on August 03, 2020, 06:22:42 PM

Quote from: Viteu on August 03, 2020, 06:19:01 PM
The problem that arose from the statutory component was my fault--I cannot remember if I wrote the GC language at, before, during, or after the JP act.

Writing things like this is really complicated, especially without sharp scrutiny from others, and it isn't very productive to try to decide whose fault it is.  Don't worry about it.

I think, personally, we should go back to the original system: three justices, one of whom would serve as an initial trial justice.  And that's it.  It's simple and serves all of our needs.  The only change the original system needed was a mechanism to eliminate inactive justices automatically, since that was socially uncomfortable -- that's why the original magistracy was created, if we're real about it.

That's absolutely possible with the amendment without changing the org law again under section 6. My primary concern with that remains the inherent unfairness to an appellant arguing before either same judge and convincing that judge and two colleagues why they are entitled to relief. Of course, a four judge UC would help that. All of this now falls to the Ziu. And once the amendment is in effect, any statute related to it requires 2/3 Cosa support with simple Senate majority, across two Cosas, to change.  The idea being that trying to change the Cort to something political would be subject to scrutiny in an election. But a change that truly addresses Talossa's needs will be obvious and shouldn't be a partisan issue.

Quote from: Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on August 03, 2020, 05:49:23 PM
I didn't think the previous new system was very good, either. We are agreed on that. I certainly said as much before now, and that opinion isn't changed.

It also sounds like we are agreed that the current system is currently not going to work well unless the law is changed or more justices are appointed. I hope one of these two things will occur soon.

The problem that arose from the statutory component was my fault--I cannot remember if I wrote the GC language at, before, during, or after the JP act. I have this vague memory that it was around the same time. Ultimately, one thing I had in mind in drafting the amendment and statute was King John's concern for continuity. Hence the two-month window and the instant statutory raising to a total of five judges. I was actually trying to maintain, for now, the old system so we could adjust without running to another constitutional amendment. Overall, I was motivated by a versatililty and an efficient organic law section with the rest to be filled in by statutory law. Section 6 was meant as a safeguard if the Ziu did not act,  or somehow just decided no inferior Cort.

So the issue you raise falls to me in my attempt to create something robust, independent, not subject to partisanship, but not requiring tinkering with the fundamental document of State every time we needed an update.

But there is now a bill that would fix this before implementation, and provided we get some CJs, we'd have four UC judges, a trial Cort, and, in theory, a fully functional judiciary.

TL;DR: the Amendment and Statute, with the exception of the JP (explained), actually keep things as they are yesterday. THe criticism that we have no working trial cort actually is a roll over because the King never did his job. Discharging the JP Cort was two-fold: I don't like the use of "justice" because apparently that confuses people, and I don't like lay judges. But I am not particularly against either of those two in a "hill to die on" kinda way. But by the time this got raised, the veto had happened and it was getting voted on. I pointed out that only a few lines in teh GC cort statute can be changed so theyw ill be appointed a la justices of the peace. That's literally all that needs to happen. But this remains an absolutely true statement: King John never appointed JPs, as he was required to do, so the JP Cort never actually formed, and Talossa did not have a trial cort or any lower cort to hear a new case.

I do not know if I'm allowed to comment here, but I think it necessary to clarify some things.

There is no need to set up a third cort

The Judiciary Amendment of 2020 has a *single* part—the amendment.  When I first introduced it as a Senator, a criticism was that it needed certain legislation to work. So I drafted legislation that was tacked to the bottom. So the act itself has two components—the Amendment and the Statute. I did raise the fact that the Statute should be separated out to avoid confusion, but that was not heeded. Whatever.

Now, the Amendment itself sets the baseline for how many judges must be on the UC. There is the Senior Judge and two permanent Pusine Judges. So the Cort must always have three seats to be filled. The Ziu can increase that number to nine judges maximum. Why this mechanism? Simple. Under the old system, the number of justices was organically set to five.  The Ziu could not, without a constitutional amendment, adjust that number based on the needs of Talossa at that moment. It seemed to me that the number should really be statutory.  However, I was also concerned with cort stacking. So I figured allowing the Ziu to adjust the number of judges as needed, but also put a ceiling on it, with requiring that these changes be passed in consecutive Cosas, would shield the Cort from becoming to partisan. The statutory part of what I proposed set the Cort to five judges because, as it was raised by the King, who would be kicked off of the current Cort?

Next, under section 6, if there is no inferior cort established, a UC Judge can sit as a lower cort.  Lower corts do not issue binding decisions ON CORTS OF COORDINATE JURISDICTION. In other words, if the Ziu creates a lower cort, a UC judge cannot sit a as a nisi prius cort unless permitted by statute. That simple. Further, no corts of coordinate jurisdiction can bind the other. For example, say we grew to over 1000 citizens, and it was determined that we needed an interim appellate cort, say two of them. The appellate cort, sitting above the inferior cort (i.e. not a cort of coordinate jurisdiction) can set binding precedent. But it cannot set precedent on the other appellate cort. One lower cort cannot set binding precedent on the other. This is actually pretty standard in US Federal Courts, which is actually not the case in some state courts (e.g. California and New York's intermediate appellate courts will bind all lower courts, even those outside of their immediate appellate jurisdiction, until a split).   None of this means that a decision is not persuasive authority. Again, similar to US federal system.

Let's stay with precedent. Under the old system, prior to the new Organic Law, but the system established in (2014?), a UC justice could sit as a trial court judge, and an appeal could go to a single UC justice, but the result of that appellate decision WAS NOT BINDING. The Organic Law prohibited it. Under the current framework, a decision must go before a three-judge panel for it to be binding, but if only two judges or one are available, then it is not binding. That is not to say that it is not persuasive authority.


Okay, let's talk about the statute. Yes, this abolished the Justice of the Peace Cort.  I stated I was not a fan of it. By virtue of this statute existing, a UC Judge cannot sit as a nisi prius judge. WOW BUT THE SYSTEM IS BROKEN AT THE OUTSET. Well, okay, this is a valid point, but let us consider that the new Organic Law actually eliminated the ability of a UC justice to hear a case, and we had the JP Cort, but the King never actually appointed any JPs, so Talossa actually has not had a trial cort for months now. I've brought his up to people before.

In any event, I do not like the idea of lay persons acting as judges, and that is why that concept was not carried over. But the lower cort, in the from of the General Cort, would continue with appointed judges.  Miestra disagreed with me on this.  However, by the time this issue arose, I was already on the Cort and changes to the legislation would mean another veto.  My suggestion was to go forward, and merely amend the statutory component to remove appointment and replace it with what were then known as PJs. That simple. Like a statute with a few lines.

In any event, the fact that Talossa has no trial cort at the moment was not changed by this amendment because there were no actual appointed PJs because the King never got around to appointing the nominees.  But this is where we are at. A simple statute will remedy this problem.

Or, you can simply abolish the GC, not set any lower Cort, and keep the judges at five so one can sit as a nisi prius cort. The possibilities and versatility of the amendment to address Talossa's judiciary needs without running to change the Organic Law while preserving judicial independence is evident in the language itself. Like, you can literally eliminate, altogether, el lex G.13.1 and, boom, we have a lower cort. You can create a lower cort and decide how judges get picked. You can lower the number of UC judges to three so we don't tie so many people to one Cort and prevent them from serving on a lower cort or being in the cabinet. We can grow to 500 people and decide it's better to have a nine judge cort, so they can sit in panels of three and decide cases. Like, these critiques are a bit disingenuous given that all of the above was available for over a year, and seek to paint the new system as broken at the outset to praise the old system while ignoring that the old system was actually broken.

Quote from: Ian Plätschisch on August 02, 2020, 07:21:44 PM
However, I'm a human and it's hard to get myself to read through long and very dry legislation (going through many, many drafts of V's proposed new Organic Law during the 52nd Cosa was a real slog, trust me), especially when there are other members of the Government who purport to be much more experienced than myself at writing legalese well. I'll have to do a better job going forward.

Relevance?

Quote

Finally, I am sick and tired of hearing that any criticisms of a bill that are raised too late are inherently disingenuous. A good point is a good point regardless of when it is raised, and furthermore, it is not the responsibility of someone who is not even an MC to proofread every bill at exactly the moment the Government desires. [/u][/b].

Get over it.  There is an expectation that people read something before voting for it.  I'm sick and tired of people attacking something after it is passed, when it was publicly available for them to read and publicly comment on before then.  In fact, the very point of the Hopper is for the quotidian review. Also, it baffles me how my proposed Organic Law is, in any way, relevant to this conversation outside of some conspicuous and cheap political attack.   

You are/were an excellent SOS, and I am sad to see you go. But I'm thrilled that you have chosen to remain Talossan.

I, Viteu Marcianüs, hereby claim my right to be seated in the next Grand Session of the Estats Xhenerais.

I, Viteu Marcianüs, a citizen of the United Provinces of Vuode and Dandenburg, am proud to cast my vote for Eðo Grischun to represent this great province in the Senāts.

Quote from: Ian Plätschisch on July 17, 2020, 07:05:14 PM
There has been a lot of criticism of the King recently for not acting more like Monarchs of other countries. Talossa is not like other countries.

If Talossa was a country in which people essentially had to live (ie, if we exerted any real control over Milwaukee), then I would of course be advocating for a figurehead Monarchy. Talossa is not like that, though; we are for all practical purposes a voluntary association. There is no possible way for the Monarchy to actually infringe on the rights of citizens, because a citizen can, with a single post, leave and no longer be the King's subject. So the question is really how we want our voluntary association to be set up, which is why it is not anti-democratic to be in favor of a Monarchy with the capability of temporarily vetoing bills (and I will take this opportunity to remind everyone that the reason the King's veto over legislation is now temporary is an amendment that I passed). The claim that a Monarch's political activity devalues the Monarchy only makes sense if you already believe the Monarch should not get involved in politics.

Can anyone provide an example of how the Talossan Monarchy has actually curtailed anyone's rights? How it converts Talossa into a plaything of the King's allies? Makes it a relic of the past? Talossa is wide open for any citizen; go out there and make it yours! The King is not standing in your way (the bureaucracy sometimes does though, which is why I am still committed to AMP as a think tank...).

Talossa, like all other vibrant societies, must continually change! On that I agree. But there are more changes available than an ever-more anti-Monarchy programme of Organic amendments. Change comes via the citizens engaging with each other. The Monarchy doesn't hinder that, and I would argue can encourage it, if operating at its best.

Accusations that Monarchists are "politically stagnant" take an extremely narrow view of what constitutes freshness, and how Talossa can be taken into the future

Finally, the King very rarely vetoes anything that is not related to reducing his own prerogatives. So, for all of the (quite understandable) bellyaching about the King's antics, what does it matter if the King protects his power if he never does anything else with it? It's a self-licking ice cream cone.

Like that time I had to get a court order to fulfill my role as a Senator because the King, in a Talossan way, essentially locked me out of the Ziu ? Seriously, he can't curtail rights because than we can just leave Talossa? For this one post I'm stepping out of my apolitical retirement to say, Ian, your post is utter nonsense and an insult to your intelligence. With that, I'm back to being apolitical.

Councilors of the Tenth Grand Session of the Estats Xhenerais of the United Provinces of Vuode and Dandenburg:
In my role as Presiding Officer of this tenth Grand Session of the Estats Xehenerias, I decree the following:

Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution of the United Provinces of Vuode and Dandenburg compels the Cunstaval to dissolve each Grand Session of the Estats Xhenerais. 

Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution of the United Provinces of Vuode and Dandenburg instructs that the Estat Xhenerais is instantly dissolved with those of the national Ziu. 

On or about June 30, 2020, His Majesty Ian Lupul issued the Writ of Dissolution for the 54th Cosa of the Kingdom of Talossa.  Having received no formal dissolution decree from the Cunstaval, it is my view that this tenth Grand Session of the Estats Xhenerais was dissolved by operation of law upon the dissolution of the 54th Cosa of the Kingdom of Talossa.

Accordingly, I issue my resignation as Presiding Officer nunc pro tunc to the dissolution of the tenth Grand Session of the Estats Xhenerais.

In my role as Premier of the United Provinces of Vuode and Dandenburg, adhering to the tradition established following the adoption of our Constitution, it falls to me to open the forum in which every citizen of the United Provinces may declare their intent to sit as a Councilor in the Eleventh Grand Session of the Estats Xhenerais.  As set forth in Article III, Section 4, every person seeking such seat must publicly declare the following:

I, [YOUR NAME], hereby claim my right to be seated in the next Grand Session of the Estats Xhenerais.

Only during that period of time in which the national election is taking place.  Hence, this declaration can only be made between July 15, 2020 and August 1, 2020.  Any declaration received before that cannot be counted, although I will reach out to any individual that makes an early declaration to reiterate such on the proper date. PLEASE MAKE ALL DECLARATIONS IN THIS THREAD.

In accord with the national Constitution and codified law, the senatorial seat for the United Provinces shall be decided in this election. Pursuant to the Claiming Our Autonomy Byelaw (see Byelaws 1.1), the United Provinces of Vuode and Dandenburg invoked its organic right to choose a Senator under its own laws and without the aid of the Chancery.  Pursuant to the section 2.1 of the National Senate Election Byelaw, a prospective candidate must openly declare their intention no later than 10 days prior to the end of the last Cosa preceding an election.  On or about June 7, 2020, the Right Honorable Senator Eðo Grischun did so timely declare such intent.  No other person publicly declared their intent.  As such, Senator Grischun shall proceed to election unchallenged. 

Pursuant to Section 2.2 of the National Senate Election Byelaw, all votes for Senator must be made publicly on a sub-forum dedicated to the United Provinces on the national forum.  Thus, PLEASE RECORD YOUR VOTE FOR SENATOR, IF YOU SO CHOOSE, IN THIS THREAD. As previously noted, the votes must be recorded during the period corresponding with the national election.

It has been an honor and privilege to serve all of you, and I look forward to working with all of you and for all of your in the next Estats Xhenerais.

Responding as Vuode's Premier--

The Chancery doesn't have authority to conduct Vuode's election. The Reclaiming Act was passed under the old Org Law, but the underlying organic clause and authority for the act remains in the new Org Law. Also, Vuode has to affirmatively ask the Chancery to conduct its election, which it has not done, nor, as Premier, will I do. The law of Vuode is clear in this regard, and I am without authority, at this time, to change it.

You timely declared your candidacy. Nobody else did. You're technically running, but it's unopposed. The election will happen on a Vuode forum by public vote in accord with  Vuodian law. There is no role for the Chancery here.

SJ Tamoran,

Thank you for your tremendous service to the Judiciary. You were a valued member of the Uppermost Cort and, notwithstanding anything else, strived to encompass civility and excellence in your role as Justice.  You will be missed, and I am saddened that I will not get to work with you on the Cort.  We contrast in our understanding of justice, but you always maintained the air of deocrum and reverence for differing opinions and arguments. Emulating your respect for all litigants is something I will strive to emulate in my role as Justice. I appreciate your contributions and time and look forward to your future endeavors in Talossa.

Stay healthy and, importantly, stay sane in these times.

Regards,

V

Either day works for me.

Apparently it's now 3-0. But Id still rather hear their concerns.

Quote from: Ian Plätschisch on March 28, 2020, 06:11:31 PM
In the absence of any more discussion, I think MM is ready to move forward

I'm so inclined to say yes. But I just voted, and it's now 2:1 for. I don't know if they will, but I'd like the person to reach out to Etho or me or publicly discuss their opposition. But, if nothing in the next few days, I'd venture to say that we're ready for formal talks.

I'm unsure if this is happening and if there is a zoom link... I don't know if this has to necessarily be recorded and posted. Perhaps an informal chat with whoever wants to participate?

Sorry I missed this. Perhaps we can do one over the weekend?