Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial on August 21, 2021, 06:55:23 PM
No scheduling has happened yet. The relevant parties are seemingly refusing to get back to me.

This is very strange, because I've just had Cabinet Minister T. Roibeardescù tell me: "who are we waiting for? I thought we where waiting for the túischac'h?...At least I am as I offered to help set up the twitch live link... But haven't had a whiff of contact since he suggested it"

This is turning into a clusterfudge because the law does not actually say who should be organising the State Opening of the Cosa. I call upon the King, the Seneschál and the chairs of the Houses of the Ziu (or however many of them can be contacted) to get together right now and make a plan for moving forward

EDIT: I am an idiot, the Law says clearly: "The event shall be organized and conducted by the Speakers of both Houses of the Ziu"

... and the NPW delegation to the Cosă just abstained on this bill that the Party promised to vote for.

I just give up on Talossan politics, as long as there's no way for a party to be put out of the Cosă in an election. There is just nothing to stop people making agreements and then just tearing them up without reason, logic, or explanation. You can't make multi-party deals in such circumstances and therefore doing anything "important" is impossible.

Hello, yes.

Talossan criminal law has been "outsourced" since January 2003, which was in many ways a high point of foolishness in Talossan history. If we are to believe the acts of the 31st Cosa, King Robert woke up one morning and suddenly realised that things like "murder, rape and robbery" were not actually crimes at Talossan law. His solution there to was to adopt "the Civil and Criminal Codes of the State of Wisconsin as national law".

It was not until after the King's abdication-in-a-huff that people who knew anything about law found out that there actually was no such thing as the Civil Code of the State of Wisconsin. The 35th Cosa thereupon actually specified which sections of Wisconsin law would apply to Talossa.

While an improvement on KR1's brainstorm, the "outsourcing" of Talossan criminal and contract law to Wisconsin has had the very negative effect that it has made Talossan law inaccessible. By which I mean:

• You would have to know how and where to look up Wisconsin statutes to be able to know what the law of Talossa is.
• Wisconsin law is far more complex than is necessary for Talossa.
• Because Talossa is a common law system, where judicial precedent is binding in many cases and very important in others, importing Wisconsin statute law meant importing Wisconsin judicial precedent.

For judges, lawyers and ordinary Talossans, for the last 15 years a proper knowledge of Talossan law has meant studying a far more complex set of laws, written by professionals, and looking up judicial precedents. A certain Baron is fond of saying that Talossan legal advocacy, like Talossan legislation, should be open to amateurs. I concur.

The bill before you here takes all the really important bits of Wisconsin criminal law as it applies to Talossa - as identified by legal practitioners - and simplifies it as much as possible, combining it with some other basic principles familiar from Anglo-American common law. I believe that nothing from Wisconsin law that is useful to Talossa has been omitted - and if it has, by accident, it can be replaced later.

It is not only contrary to Talossan dignity to have our law made by a Cestour jurisdiction, it flies in the face of the principle that you shouldn't have to be a "real lawyer" to be a Talossan lawyer. Please vote PER.

I can confirm that the Seneschál is putting the finishing touches on the Speech with His Maj's input.

Oh, never mind. How's about this, which covers Glüc's objection and the question of "urgency" with one fell swoop?

Quote6.2. After a legislative proposal has spent at least 10 days in the Hopper, its proposer may request that it "move to committee". A bill shall be considered to have "moved to committee" after at least half of the Senators and half of the Cosă seats express their support in the Hopper for it doing so. A bill may be Clarked without being "moved to committee" if at least half of the Senators and 2/3 of Cosă seats express their support in the Hopper for it doing so.

Bump. Waiting on those amendments.

And there's this one, which has been requested as a quid-pro-quo for legislative reforms: repeal of OrgLaw VII.6

QuoteThe Seneschál shall have the right at his discretion to withdraw any legislative proposal from the Hopper and instruct the Secretary of State to treat it as a properly submitted bill.

Try accusing His Majesty of letting AD have the keys to the Monarchy, he'll turn up here in 10 seconds :D

All right, I can't see any reason why we can't just combine the two.

Amend El Lex G.6 to read:

Quote6. Criminal Law: In the interest of providing the accused with the rights granted to them by the Ninth Covenant of Rights and Freedoms, the following rights shall be considered to be inalienable and shall be afforded to all citizens in civilian trials:

    6.1. The Ministry of Justice, on behalf of the Crown, shall submit a charging instrument to the Clerk of the Cort identifying, in plain language, the charge to be brought against the accuse, and the factual allegations to be proven to support said charges. Nothing in this section shall limit the Ministry of Justice from relying on unpleaded allegations provided such does not prejudice the accused.

    6.2. Upon receipt of the charging instrument, the Clerk of the Cort shall refer the matter to the appropriate tribunal of the Crown as defined by law.

    6.3. The tribunal of the Crown shall test the sufficiency by making a prima facie determination that if the factual allegations contained therein were proven true beyond a reasonable doubt, then the accused would be guilty of the crime as alleged. Jeopardy shall only attach if the tribunal of the Crown accepts the charging instrument as sufficient. If the tribunal is not satisfied of such, then it shall reject the charging instrument as insufficient on its face and jeopardy shall not have attached.

    6.4. The accused must be informed of the charges against him by the Crown within seven days of said charges being accepted by the Tribunal of the Crown.

    6.5. Such notification must be submitted to the accused in writing, by either an electronic medium such as email, a typed letter, or by a handwritten letter. A copy of every such notice shall be archived in the Royal Archives by the Royal Archivist immediately after he receives a copy of said notice. If the notice is given in the form of a hand-written letter, the Royal Archivist shall make a copy of the letter in an electronic format, such that it may be added to the Royal Archives.

    6.6. Preliminary Hearings

              6.6.1. A preliminary examination is a hearing before a court for the purpose of determining if there is probable cause to believe a felony or a serious misdemeanour has been committed by the defendant.

              6.6.2. The preliminary examination shall be commenced within 20 days after the receipt by a Cort of a charging instrument alleging a felony or serious misdemeanour, as described in El Lexhatx G.6.2.

              6.6.3. A plea shall not be accepted in any case in which a preliminary examination is required until the defendant has been bound over following preliminary examination or waiver thereof.

              6.6.4. The defendant, or their Public Defender, may cross-examine witnesses against the defendant, and may call witnesses on the defendant's own behalf who then are subject to cross-examination.

              6.6.5. If the court finds probable cause to believe that a felony or serious misdemeanour has been committed by the defendant, it shall bind the defendant over for trial.

              6.6.6. If the court finds that it is probable that only a misdemeanour has been committed by the defendant, it shall amend the complaint to conform to the evidence. The action shall then proceed as though it had originated as a misdemeanour action.

              6.6.7. If the court does not find probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed by the defendant, it shall order the defendant discharged forthwith.

    6.7. The Prosecution shall have up to 90 days from the time of notification of the accused in which to prepare its case. If a case is not prepared by the Prosecution within the allotted time, then the matter shall be dismissed, unless the Prosecution can show that such delay is through the fault of the accused.

    6.8. If a case is not prepared within the 90-day limit, then the Prosecution may request up to an additional 30 days to prepare its case, which shall be granted or denied by the tribunal assigned to the case. This section takes precedence over G.1.6.

    6.9. The decision shall be based on the legitimacy of reasons given by the Prosecution in the interests of justice, equity, and efficiency.

    6.10. If a matter is dismissed for failure to prosecute, then final jeopardy shall attach unless the Prosecution is able to provide new evidence against the accused with which to build a case. A new case must meet the same statute of limitations for any offence.

    6.11. The Prosecution may withdraw a charging instrument upon good cause shown to which jeopardy shall not attach.

Here's a formal proposal. Amend OrgLaw IV.1 with the following text in bold:

QuoteThe Cosa is the national legislative assembly, and is composed of 200 seats apportioned among political parties based on their performance in the General Election. It may administer itself as it sees fit. The number of seats in the Cosa may be changed by law, with the provisos that any such change will not take effect until the next general election of the Cosa; and that the number of seats in the Cosa may never be less than twice the number of Senators minus one.

Especially incomprehensible as the Senator for Florencia quit the League of Centre Conservatives precisely because they wouldn't wholeheartedly support 55RZ21.

The only way I can parse this is: former Atatürk Senator "Guy Incognito", after his acquittal on charges of using a false name, voted against every Government bill thereafter out of sheer spite. Although I have no idea what Brenéir is spiteful towards us for.

The proposal is that the existing Standing Orders of the General Assembly be amended to read as follows, to bring them into line with the 2021 Constitution:

Quote1. Any citizen may propose a draft of a bill or of a resolution to the General Assembly, and leave it for discussion for as long as they want, revising it as often as they want. A Bill is a proposal for a new law, or for an amendment to an existing law; a Resolution is a simple statement of the views of the General Assembly with no legal effect, a ratification of an election or the confirmation of a nomination.

2. Once they like it, they submit the draft for official publication. An officially published draft of a bill or of a resolution shall be denoted by the word PROPOSAL: at the beginning of the subject line.
       
3.1 Once officially published, citizens have 7 days to officially publish an amendment to the bill. The Bill may go directly to a FINAL VOTE if all citizens indicate that they have no amendments for the bill in question. Any amendment shall be published in the same thread as the original bill, and be denoted by the word AMENDMENT: at the beginning of the subject line.
3.2  Seven days after publication of the draft, the Túischac'h calls for a vote on the amendments in a new thread denoted by the words AMENDMENTS VOTE: at the beginning of the subject line, and last for seven days. At the end of the seven days, if for each amendment more për than contrâ votes have been recorded, it shall be passed. Otherwise, the amendment shall not be passed.

4. Once all of the amendments have been settled and applied, the Túischac'h calls for a vote on the final version of the bill, which lasts for 7 days. A final call for a vote shall be published in a new thread denoted by the words FINAL VOTE:. at the beginning of the subject line. At the end of the seven days, if more për than contrâ votes have been recorded in the case of a regular Bill or Resolution, or at least twice as many per as contra votes in the case of an amendment to this Constitution, the bill or resolution shall be passed. Otherwise, the bill or resolution shall not be passed.

5.  In any voting phase, all the votes of the citizens shall be open and public. A citizen may change his or her vote at any time up until the final voting deadline.

6. Votes of Confidence, as provided in Fiôvâ Const. § 10.2 or Fiôvâ Const. § 10.3, shall proceed in the same way as resolutions, except that there shall be no amendment phase, and shall proceed directly to a final vote (as in section 4 above) as soon as a citizen officially submits a request, in a thread denoted by the word VOC: at the beginning of the subject line, to the General Assembly. Votes of confidence shall end as soon as all citizens have cast their vote or seven days have passed, whichever comes first. Votes of confidence may contain no provisions not directly related to confidence in the official in question.

7. Elections of the Túischac'h and Secretary of State, as provided in Fiôvâ Const. § 3.1 or Fiôvâ Const. § 9.1, shall proceed in the same way as ordinary resolutions, except that there shall be no amendment phase, and proceed directly to a final vote (as in section 4 above) as soon as a citizen officially submit a candidature, in a thread denoted by the word CANDIDATURE: at the beginning of the subject line, to the General Assembly.

8. Confirmations of judicial nominations, as provided in Fiôvâ Const. § 8.1, shall proceed in the same way as ordinary resolutions, except that there shall be no amendment phase, and proceed directly to a final vote (as in section 4 above) as soon as the Cunstavál's decree of nomination, in a thread denoted by the word NOMINATION: at the beginning of the subject line, it is published. Voting on Confirmations shall end as soon as all citizens have cast their vote or seven days have passed, whichever comes first.

9. Once a bill has been passed, the Túischac'h shall submit it to the Cunstavál for promulgation as law, in accordance with Fiôvâ Const. § 7.2. A resolution does not need to be presented to the Cunstavál.

10. Any citizen may propose a question for formal answer to the Praisidïeu or to any other Minister. Such a question shall be denoted by the word QUESTION: at the beginning of the subject line. If the member of the Government so addressed is a citizen, they shall reply personally within seven days; if not, then the Praisidïeu shall transmit a reply on their behalf.

11. The Túischac'h, or one of his deputies, is responsible for enforcing these Standing Orders, and for keeping a civil and appropriate tone of debate in the General Assembly.

12. All citizens shall address their statements in the General Assembly to the Túischac'h.

Here was my suggestion, based on Wisconsin law:

Quote1. A preliminary examination is a hearing before a court for the purpose of determining if there is probable cause to believe a felony or a serious misdemeanour has been committed by the defendant.

2. The preliminary examination shall be commenced within 20 days after the receipt by a Cort of a charging instrument alleging a felony or serious misdemeanour, as described in El Lexhatx G.6.2.

3. A plea shall not be accepted in any case in which a preliminary examination is required until the defendant has been bound over following preliminary examination or waiver thereof.

4. The defendant, or their Public Defender, may cross-examine witnesses against the defendant, and may call witnesses on the defendant's own behalf who then are subject to cross-examination.

5.. If the court finds probable cause to believe that a felony or serious misdemeanour has been committed by the defendant, it shall bind the defendant over for trial.

6. If the court finds that it is probable that only a misdemeanour has been committed by the defendant, it shall amend the complaint to conform to the evidence. The action shall then proceed as though it had originated as a misdemeanour action.

7. If the court does not find probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed by the defendant, it shall order the defendant discharged forthwith.

So where we were?

We were deliberating the following, to make it possible for Talossa to sanction citizens who commit infamous crimes outside the nation:

Quote7.2.10.  Bringing Talossa into disrepute. Any Talossan citizen who has been convicted by a credible foreign court, which has been deemed to abide by Talossan values, of a crime established at trial to have involved fraud, harassment, bribery, physical or sexual violence or threats thereof, has committed the crime of bringing Talossa into disrepute to the following degrees:
7.2.10.1.        A felony if sentenced to penal servitude of more than 2 years.
7.2.10.2.        A serious misdemeanour otherwise.

And we were also deliberating improving El Lex G.6 to establish a higher hurdle before criminal cases (just felonies? felonies and serious misdemeanours) can come to trial:

Quote6. Criminal Law: In the interest of providing the accused with the rights granted to them by the Ninth Covenant of Rights and Freedoms, the following rights shall be considered to be inalienable and shall be afforded to all citizens in civilian trials:

    6.1. The Ministry of Justice, on behalf of the Crown, shall submit a charging instrument to the Clerk of the Cort identifying, in plain language, the charge to be brought against the accuse, and the factual allegations to be proven to support said charges. Nothing in this section shall limit the Ministry of Justice from relying on unpleaded allegations provided such does not prejudice the accused.

    6.2. Upon receipt of the charging instrument, the Clerk of the Cort shall refer the matter to the appropriate tribunal of the Crown as defined by law.

    6.3. The tribunal of the Crown shall test the sufficiency by making a prima facie determination that if the factual allegations contained therein were proven true beyond a reasonable doubt, then the accused would be guilty of the crime as alleged. Jeopardy shall only attach if the tribunal of the Crown accepts the charging instrument as sufficient. If the tribunal is not satisfied of such, then it shall reject the charging instrument as insufficient on its face and jeopardy shall not have attached.

    6.4. The accused must be informed of the charges against him by the Crown within seven days of said charges being accepted by the Tribunal of the Crown.

    6.5. Such notification must be submitted to the accused in writing, by either an electronic medium such as email, a typed letter, or by a handwritten letter. A copy of every such notice shall be archived in the Royal Archives by the Royal Archivist immediately after he receives a copy of said notice. If the notice is given in the form of a hand-written letter, the Royal Archivist shall make a copy of the letter in an electronic format, such that it may be added to the Royal Archives.

    6.6. The Prosecution shall have up to 90 days from the time of notification of the accused in which to prepare its case. If a case is not prepared by the Prosecution within the allotted time, then the matter shall be dismissed, unless the Prosecution can show that such delay is through the fault of the accused.

    6.7. If a case is not prepared within the 90-day limit, then the Prosecution may request up to an additional 30 days to prepare its case, which shall be granted or denied by the tribunal assigned to the case. This section takes precedence over G.1.6.

    6.8. The decision shall be based on the legitimacy of reasons given by the Prosecution in the interests of justice, equity, and efficiency.

    6.9. If a matter is dismissed for failure to prosecute, then final jeopardy shall attach unless the Prosecution is able to provide new evidence against the accused with which to build a case. A new case must meet the same statute of limitations for any offence.

    6.7. The Prosecution may withdraw a charging instrument upon good cause shown to which jeopardy shall not attach.

Last I heard, AD suggested beefing up sections 6.3 and 6.4 above. Our aim: a means to punish Talossans for infamous crimes committed outside Talossa, with sufficient safeguards to prevent malicious prosecution (for this or other criminal offences).

Please proceed.

That's certainly a more courteous answer than I expected. Thank you.

But I have to reiterate that your course of action at the beginning of the 55th Cosa fatally damaged the trust that had been built between the Monarchy and the political majority during my first two terms as Seneschál. We are now living with the consequences of those actions. You must know that many times throughout history, monarchies have fallen because the monarch has taken on board a close advisor who stinks in the nostrils of their subjects.

I strongly advise you that the ball is in your court to rebuild some level of trust with the new Seneschál and his Government, and that won't (I believe) happen while "the Baron" has a senior role in Royal business.