Hello, yes. Please to be reclarking The Talossa Shall Choose Its King Amendment (passed as 55RZ21 by the previous Cosa).

Also, please to be clarking The Talossan Criminal Law Reform Bill #1.

It is proper to let the people of Talossa know what will be happening with 55RZ21, the Talossa Shall Choose Its King Act (aka the Historic Compromise), adopted by the requisite margin in the last Cosa but vetoed, ¡qët 'n supriça!, by the King who doesn't want to get unchosen.

The recent election of the Cosa gave 120 seats to parties committed to supporting the bill - not the 2/3 majority required. Therefore, for the bill to have any chance in the new Cosa, some kind of "Compromise on the Compromise" was necessary.

First of all, the Free Democrats exercised their mandate to form a Government. This was a different task than pushing forward the Constitutional issue (for example, MC M. Tresplet pledged his support and help with a FreeDems government while being 100% opposed to changes to the monarchy). Our first choice of partners was the League of Centre Conservatives (LCC), who - while having differences with us on precisely what kind of monarchy reform is necessary - were clearly the most enthusiastic of the other parties for the hard work of government, and with whom we had a pretty good relationship on a personal level.

We were also approached, without solicitation, by the leader of the Talossan National Congress (TNC), volunteering his services as part of a new Government. We accepted this happily, although it was not necessary for a Cosa majority, because a broader-based government would be more stable and have more resources.

The new three-party Government then discussed where to move on monarchy reform (for which we would still require at least the other two pro-55RZ21 parties to consent, i.e. the Peculiarists and the Tafialistàes).  The preferred option was to find some kind of fresh bill which could get the necessary 3/4 margin to start from scratch but still override the royal veto.

To this end, the LCC (chief proponents of the Compromise on the Compromise) engaged in talks with the "King Lüc Party". Certainly, the pro-compromise parties could have totally gotten behind King Lüc I. But the course of these discussions revealed that - a) the KLüP was not prepared to actually put their flagship policy into action at this time; (b) after a week or two of delays, we found out that no-one had actually asked Lüc da Schir, who actually does not want to be King of Talossa. So that went nowhere, and the KLüP's voters might wonder what they actually voted for.

The next step would have been to create some kind of sequencing. The plan was that the LCC would support 55RZ21 now, long enough to elect a new King, and then the Ziu would enact the LCC's preferred compromise - of a mechanism of triggering Votes of Confidence in the monarch, rather than regular 7-year renewals of the mandate. In theory, this got support from the other pro-Compromise parties. But the TNC leader insisted in Cabinet that he couldn't agree to this without seeing details of the "revised compromise" bill in advance. The LCC pointed to their current proposal in the Hopper (which the FreeDems don't support in its current form, but is at least a basis for beginning discussions). The TNC did not reply to this.

The next thing we learned was that the holder of the TNC's Cosa seats had broken Point 1 of the coalition agreement by not voting for Txoteu Davinescù to become Seneschál. Our Seneschál-candidate sent a message to the TNC leader about this, saying in part: "I need to hear from you directly by noon TST tomorrow or I will be forced to remove your party from the coalition". The TNC leader's response to this was to... quit the coalition, on the justification that the Seneschál-candidate had "threatened" him - and to not respond to any further communications from either FreeDems or LCC leaders after that.

While cxhn. Davinescu could certainly have phrased his please-explain letter in a less confrontational way, bear in mind that he is brand new to the highest echelons of Talossan politics and is still learning the proper modes of communication. Senator Itravilatx could be certainly excused for taking offence, but cxhn. Davinescù has subsequently apologised, both privately and publicly, for his hard tone - to no avail. You could see this as a huge overreaction from the TNC leader; or, alternatively, as an escape hatch from a situation of government which was harder than he had anticipated.

Senator Itravilatx's  withdrawal has not only required a last-minute Cabinet reshuffle, but ended the negotiations that were underway to get 55RZ21 through (and the King replaced) in return for a "reform of the reform" later. As to the first, the Government, now comprised of two parties, welcomes Francal I. Lux MC on board to take up the Cabinet posts abandoned by the TNC.

Meanwhile, if the TNC no longer wnt to talk, there is no point in further negotiations on "cunning plans" to get monarchy reform through. Our last, best hope is now that the LCC will at least abstain on this bill, if they cannot in good conscience support it - and that the TNC will stick to their pre-election pledge to support it.

The Free Democrats will thus go straight to reintroducing 55RZ21 on the First Clark. In the event that it fails to get the 2/3 of the Cosa necessary, we will revert to our manifesto position - "to enact the result of the Ranked Choice referendum, i.e. an elected Head of State", through some yet-to-be determined means, at a time when the electoral calculus is better.

Just checking if my incoming colleagues on this committee, @the Mençéi and @the Túischac'h, are ready to start work for the First clark?

WHEREAS Talossan criminal law, as contained in Title A of El Lexhatx, has been "imported" from the law of the State of Wisconsin since the 31st Clark;

AND WHEREAS this has never been a satisfactory state of affairs, except for those familiar with Wisconsin law and how to look things up in it;

AND WHEREAS this provision takes part of its wording from Wisconsin statute, wherever necessary, to make sure that the transition to indigenous law will be as smooth as possible;

AND WHEREAS another bill is foreseen for this Cosa, which will relate to outstanding issues of:
a) the crime of bringing Talossa into disrepute by conviction of an infamous crime in an extra-Talossan jurisdiction;
b) questions of the procedure of criminal trials, including the possibility of preliminary hearings;


BE IT ENACTED by the King, Cosa and Senäts in Ziu assembled as follows:

PART ONE. The substantive reform.

That Title A Sections 1-8 of El Lexhatx are hereby replaced in their entirety by the below text:

Quote

1.      General provisions of Talossan jurisprudence:

1.1.   Talossan courts shall interpret Organic and Statute Law through the lens of the Covenants of Rights and Freedoms, and otherwise in accordance with Talossan juridical precedent. Judges may also use precedent from other legal systems with which they are familiar to guide their decisions, though such precedent shall not be binding.
1.2.   Only crimes described in Talossan Organic and Statute Law may be prosecuted in Talossan courts.
1.3.  A single action of a defendant may be considered to break more than one law and may be charged accordingly.

2.      Felonies and misdemeanours. All crimes against Talossan law shall be classed as misdemeanours unless stated otherwise.

3.      Authorized punishments for all crimes classed as felonies shall be as follows:

3.1.    Banishment. Banishment may be ordered in conjunction with revocation of citizenship in any felony case. Banishment prohibits the former citizen from entering the territory of the Kingdom of Talossa. A former Talossan who has been banished may not be reinstated as a citizen.
3.2.    Revocation of citizenship. A sentence of revocation of citizenship directs the Chancery to remove the offender from the list of Talossan citizens. Simple revocation is without prejudice to a future reapplication for citizenship.

4.      Authorized punishments for all crimes classed as either felonies or serious misdemeanours shall be as follows:

4.1.   Civil disability. Civil disabilities may include any or all of the following, for a maximum term of 5 calendar years for a felony or 1 calendar year for a serious misdemeanour:
4.1.1.      Bar from holding national executive office
4.1.2.      Bar from holding national judicial office
4.1.3.      Bar from holding national legislative office
4.1.4.      Bar from holding provincial office
4.1.5.      Bar from performing military service
4.1.6.      Bar from service in the Royal Civil Service
4.1.7.      Bar from posting on Wittenberg

5.      Authorized punishments for all crimes shall be as follows:

5.1.   Fines. When a fine is imposed as a component of any sentence, the court shall specify the period within which the sum must be paid, which period shall not be less than thirty days. The court may, in the interests of justice, allow the offender to pay the sum in more than one installment, according to a schedule prescribed by the court. Willful failure to pay a fine within the time provided is punishable as criminal contempt of court. The maximum fine that may be levied is ℓ500 for a felony, ℓ100 for a serious misdemeanour or ℓ50 for a misdemeanour.
5.2.   Restitution. When imposing sentence for any crime, a court, in addition to any other penalty authorized by law, shall order the offender to make full or partial restitution to any victim of a crime considered at sentencing or, if the victim is deceased, to his or her estate, unless the court finds substantial reason not to do so and states the reason on the record. The court must specify a reasonable period of time, not less than thirty days, within which the offender must make restitution. Willful failure to make restitution within the time provided is punishable as criminal contempt of court. Court-ordered restitution shall not bar any victim from pursuing any civil remedies available at law to recover any amount or type of damages not covered by the order of restitution.
5.3.   Reprimand. In all criminal cases, a court may reprimand the offender in addition to (or in lieu of, where no minimum punishment applies) any other authorized punishment.

6.      Suspended sentences:

6.1.   A court may order the suspension of all or part of any sentence, for a period of time not to exceed five calendar years. At the end of the period of suspension ordered by the court, the suspended punishment is rescinded if the offender has not violated any condition of the suspension.
6.2.    If a court determines, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the offender violated any condition of his suspension during the period of the suspension, the suspension shall be revoked and the original punishment imposed. Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to prohibit prosecuting an act violating a condition of suspension as a criminal offense in its own right, either in the same or a separate action as the revocation of suspension.
6.3.    Refraining from committing any further crimes is an implicit condition of every suspended sentence. Other conditions which may be imposed by the court include, but are not limited to:
6.3.1.      Injunction from requesting or accepting royal honours
6.3.2.      Injunction from violating Wittiquette
6.3.3.      The performance of a fixed amount of community service under the supervision of a public body or not-for-profit organization, as directed or approved by the court.
6.4.   Civil disabilities may be imposed in conjunction with a suspended sentence upon conviction of a felony, but where a sentence of revocation of citizenship has been suspended.

7.      Talossan Criminal Code

7.1.   Definitions.
7.1.1.      "Fraud" shall mean any act of deception carried out for the purpose of unfair, undeserved and/or unlawful gain, or the assumption of a false identity to such deceptive end.
7.1.2.      "Harassment" shall mean engaging in a course of conduct or repeatedly committing acts which harass, intimidate or distress a person and which serve no legitimate purpose.
7.2.   Crimes against the Kingdom.
7.2.1.      Treason. Whoever knowingly endangers the existence of the Kingdom of Talossa, its laws, institutions and state property, by enlisting or attempting to enlist the aid of non-Talossans, commits the felony of treason.
7.2.2.      Perverting the course of justice. Whoever uses fraud, harassment, physical or sexual violence or threats thereof to attempt to influence an active case in any Cort under the Organic Law is guilty of the felony of perverting the course of justice.
7.2.2.1.            Perverting the course of justice shall also include fabricating or disposing of evidence, as well as suborning perjury.
7.2.3.      Sedition. Whoever uses fraud, harassment, physical or sexual violence or threats thereof to attempt to influence any election or any other decision made under the Organic Law of Talossa (outside of an active case in any Cort), or to remove or replace officials duly empowered by that Organic Law, is guilty of the felony of sedition.
7.2.4.      Contempt of court. Contempt of court is a serious misdemeanour consisting of intentional:
7.2.4.1.            Misconduct in the presence of the court which interferes with a court proceeding or with the administration of justice, or which impairs the respect due the court;
7.2.4.2.            Disobedience, resistance or obstruction of the authority, process or order of a court;
7.2.4.3.            Refusal as a witness to appear, be sworn or answer a question; or
7.2.4.4.            Refusal to produce a record, document or other object.
7.2.5.      Perjury. Whoever under oath or affirmation orally makes a false material statement which the person does not believe to be true, in any matter, cause, action or proceeding, before the Ziu, any committee of the Ziu, or court of law, is guilty of the serious misdemeanour of perjury.
7.2.6.      Crimes against state property.
7.2.6.1.             Whoever steals or diverts to their own use without authorization the monetary or physical property of the Kingdom of Talossa is guilty of a felony if the monetary value of such theft is 100 louis or above, and a serious misdemeanour otherwise.
7.2.6.2.            Whoever improperly uses the intellectual property of the Kingdom of Talossa is guilty of a serious misdemeanour if with the intention of misrepresenting the Kingdom or improperly claiming the authority of the Kingdom, and a misdemeanour otherwise.
7.2.6.3.            Whoever improperly accesses any computer or information system belonging to the Kingdom of Talossa is guilty of a serious misdemeanour if with the intention of committing any other crime, and of a misdemeanour otherwise.
7.2.6.4.            Whoever makes a counterfeit of any official document or item pertaining to the Kingdom of Talossa and uses it to gain a benefit to which they were not otherwise entitled is guilty of a serious misdemeanour.
7.2.7.      Solicitation. Whoever induces or attempts to induce any other Talossan to break the Law of Talossa is guilty of the same class of offence as that which they sought to induce.
7.2.8.      Conspiracy. Whoever agrees with any other Talossan to break the Law of Talossa is guilty of the same class of offence as that which they agreed to commit.
7.2.9.      Bribery. The felony of bribery is committed by:
7.2.9.1.            Anyone who offers any officer of the Kingdom or witness in a Court case anything of value in return for the performance of their official duties or to influence their testimony.
7.2.9.2.            Any officer of the Kingdom or witness in a Court case who accepts a bribe (as above) without revealing it as soon as may be practical to the proper authorities.
7.3.   Crimes against the person
7.3.1.      Whoever commits physical or sexual violence or threats thereof against any citizen or "judicial person" under Talossan law is guilty of a felony.
7.3.2.      Whoever commits fraud or harassment against any citizen or "judicial person" under Talossan law is guilty of a serious misdemeanour. Whoever commits threats of the above is guilty of a misdemeanour.
7.3.3.      Theft and invasion of privacy.
7.3.3.1.            Whoever commits theft or misappropriation of physical or monetary property valued at 100 louis or more, or improperly publishes a Talossan citizen's private information, is guilty of a felony.
7.3.3.2.            Whoever commits theft or misappropriation of physical or monetary property valued at less than 100 louis, or of any intellectual property, or improperly accesses a Talossan citizen's private information without publication, is guilty of a serious misdemeanour.
7.3.4.      Defamation. Whoever publicly defames the reputation of a Talossan individual without justification in such a way as to bring them into hatred, ridicule and contempt is guilty of a serious misdemeanour.
7.3.4.1.            No statement shall be considered to be defamation if it is justified by being true, or by being fair comment in the absence of malicious intent.
7.3.5.      Whoever deprives an individual of the free exercise of their rights under the Organic Law in a way not otherwise mentioned in law commits a serious misdemeanour.

8.      Public Defender: No Talossan shall be convicted of any crime under this Lexhatx unless they have had the opportunity of defending themselves in Court. The Ministry of Justice shall appoint a Public Defender who is a member of the Talossan Bar at the request of any defendant, or if the defendant is for any other reason unable to defend themselves in Court.

PART TWO: Revisions of references to classes of misdemeanour and felony

1. El Lexhatx A.9.10. is amended to read:

Quote9.10. Commission of any of the criminal acts defined in A.9. constitutes a serious misdemeanour for a first offence, and a felony for a subsequent offence.

2. El Lexhatx A.22 is amended to read in its entirety

Quote22. The unauthorised usage of any official seal of the Crown, of the Government, or of any other official body, shall constitute a serious misdemeanour. Authorisation may be given by the Seneschal or the respective Minister, or by the head of the body concerned, or any of their duly designated proxies. (46RZ23)

    22.1. The unauthorised bearing, signing or displaying of any official seal of the Crown, of the Government, or of any other official body, shall constitute a serious misdemeanour. Authorisation to bear any seal may be granted by the Seneschal, or the respective Minister, or by the head of the body concerned.

    22.2. The use of any seal, that is attached unto a document, or a notification, or a declaration, or similar, that bears sufficient resemblance to any official seal, which is used by the creator in a document, or notification, or declaration, or similar, so as to create the impression of officiality, in order to:

        (a) obtain any personal advantages or benefits; or,
        (b) put a person or a body in disadvantage, or discredit a person or a body; or,
        (c) obtain any benefits and advantages for another person,

    shall constitute a serious misdemeanour.

        22.2.1. Whether any seal, that is used in such a manner, bears "sufficient resemblance", must, in cases of doubt, be decided by the Courts on an individual basis.

        22.2.2. The use of the Kingdom's colours ("El Bicoloreu") on any seal does not satisfy the requirements of "sufficient resemblance".

    22.3. Any subsequent unauthorised use of any seal, committed by a formerly punished convict of this act, shall constitute a felony.

3. El Lexhatx C.1.4.4. shall be amended to read as follows:

QuoteAny person who damages or causes to be damaged any Public Archive or Record in the control of a Governmental or Royal Civil Service body; or damages or causes to be damaged any Public Archive in the control of a Private body, Community and/or Individual; or removes, destroys or erases such Public record or archive otherwise than in accordance with this provision or any other law, shall be guilty of a serious misdemeanour if such damage, removal, destruction, or erasure was wilful, or guilty of a misdemeanour if such damage, removal, destruction, or erasure was reckless.

If we don't get agreement on the "preliminary hearing" thing or other matters related to 7.2.10 by end of month, I will simply Clark a version of this with 7.2.10 omitted. Replacing Wisconsin law is a much higher priority than sorting out exactly how to punish Talossans for infamous extra-Talossan crimes, though debate on that has to go on.

As far as I can tell, what happened was that the TNC MC forgot, or wasn't told, that his party had agreed to vote for T. Davinescu for Seneschál. Txoteu's expression of exasperation to TNC leader Senator Itravilatx concerning this was construed as a threat, leading the TNC to announce they were pulling out of the coalition.

I certainly hope this can be sorted out before the Seneschál election ends. We certainly want Brenéir's undoubted talents in the Government - but a coalition agreement is supposed to bind ALL Senators and MCs. There are problems with overreactions and ramping up the stakes in a disagreement here, on both sides.

1. Txoteu Davinescù
2. Iac Marscheir

I endorse the nomination of s:reu Tafial as Túischac'h, and I call upon my Free Democrat colleagues to do likewise

Sorry, missed that. Fine, make a draft.

Quote"The courts shall consent to hear no case until presented with written evidence by the Prosecution proving to a majority of court members that a reasonable chance of obtaining a conviction actually exists."

Right, but you want something stronger than that, you want a preliminary hearing where it's not just the Prosecution presenting the evidence, but the accused/Public Defender can challenge it. Have I got that right?

So how's about this cut-and-paste job from Wisconsin Statutes 970:

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.

If this isn't good enough, can you write something that is? I'm helping birth a baby in the next few days.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on June 19, 2021, 10:25:34 PM
1.  He'd be charged and a public defender would be appointed for him.
2.  The Government would ask for leave to prosecute him in absentia, which it would certainly get (since it's pretty easy to show that he can't be at the trial).
3. The initial hearing would be held, in which the Government would supply the US documentation and show how US courts are credible.  Hard to see how they would lose at this stage -- probably just checking the box.
4. The trial would occur, in which the Government would file a brief arguing that the conviction met the statutory definition.  Again, hard to see how they would lose.
5.  Sentencing would occur.

Okay. I don't have any objections in principle to this process; but explain to me how the two stages offer extra protection for the defendant. As opposed to a single trial where the prosecution would have to supply the documentation; show how the foreign court is credible; AND show how the crime meets the stat definition, and if it fails on any of those, the prosecution is lost.

Okay, different approach, for all felonies and serious misdemeanours we require a preliminary hearing of some kind?

BTW, forget about that other thing I asked for, it's not worth it.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on June 19, 2021, 09:48:38 PM
In other words, just possessing this status will be a crime.  We're saying it is a crime to be a person who has been convicted of specific things in certain courts, and that the only burden of proof is "does this conviction exist," something that is usually just a records search away.  We have to afford people some protection and avenue to protest not only that their conviction fits the specified categories (which presumably will be what the trial is about) but also a chance to show that the conviction as a whole is unjust.  Further, we're also talking about people who may be unable to come to their own defense for some time by the very nature of the accusation (since they'll be in a prison).

All right. Give me an example how your ideal system would have pursued the prosecution and trial of I. Canún  with a trial for "bringing Talossa into disrepute".

BTW, the Government in re: Hooligan was guilty of entrusting the case (after 2 resignations) to an Attorney-General who didn't know what he was doing and gave up at the least sign of a robust defence. You are still clearly quite upset about the case, but your accusations about the motives behind it are slanderous and guaranteed to start a fight that should have been over 6 years ago. I personally think Hooligan had a case to answer and I am ashamed - not that the case was brought - that it was brought so incompetently that he never actually had to answer for his deeds. I would consider it a favour, in the interests of continuing civil debate over this legislative project, if you were to delete that paragraph (and I'll delete this one).

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on June 19, 2021, 01:19:38 PM
Maybe it might make more sense to adapt it into a provision in the law which directs that BHAID issue recommendations on what part of a fine might be donated by the state and to which charities, where they deem appropriate?  Same result with more flexibility and less risk.

Or, much more simply:

QuoteA fine shall be payable to the Burgermeister of Internal Revenue, or to any appropriate charitable institution as the Cort may direct, and shall be considered paid upon receipt for that payment being received by the Cort.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on June 15, 2021, 06:14:51 PM
The person in question is going to be unlikely to defend themselves, so they need state representation -- does the public defender proposal already here cover them enough?

That was what I wrote it specifically to do, but I value any suggestions for improvement.

Quote
A charge of bringing Talossa into ill-repute may only proceed to prosecution if a judge, after a full and fair hearing conducted in the presence of counsel for the accused, determines that the foreign conviction meets the following criteria:
1. The conviction is likely to qualify as the crime of bringing Talossa into ill-repute under the terms of 7.10.1,
2. The conviction took place after a full and fair hearing in a competent court of law.

This is, like, 90% of the actual burden of proof for the crime, so I'm not sure it makes sense to put it into a preliminary hearing before a judge? Like, you'd want to have a "double trial"? If the accused has to retain and instruct counsel, exactly how are they saved any hassle by going through this process?

There is also the problem of: why is this crime so special that it needs a "double trial"? As opposed to, I dunno, treason or harassment within Talossa?

I get your point about not wanting to open the door to political prosecutions. But any crime can be open to a political prosecution. If you were to ask Lord Hooligan, I'm sure he'd say his own prosecution (out of the aftermath of the ESB Affair) was a political hit-job. If you want to avoid political prosecutions in general, then I would suggest something like a grand jury system. One which wouldn't indict a ham sandwich like its US equivalent, though.

Quote from: GV on June 17, 2021, 11:45:21 PM

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on June 17, 2021, 08:30:03 PM
Still thinking about this. Feel free to talk amongst yourselves.

We need a durable and specific definition of 'treason'.

7.2.1 Whoever knowingly endangers the existence of the Kingdom of Talossa, its laws, institutions and state property, by enlisting or attempting to enlist the aid of non-Talossans, commits the felony of treason.