Still thinking about this. Feel free to talk amongst yourselves.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on June 15, 2021, 07:26:43 AM
As I see it, you're suggesting two things need to be resolved to meet this standard:

1. Was someone convicted of a crime that matches the definition of stuff we really don't like?
2. Was this conviction fair (ie, was it in a place like Auckland or a place more like Tehran)?

I think that in the vast majority of cases, the second question will be one of just checking the box.  It's not often going to be in dispute about whether or not a conviction was actually fair, especially if we are clear that the specifics of the trial really aren't the question.  We don't want people trying to argue that they had ineffective counsel, for example.  So we can probably handle these questions in that order, and the central part of the process will just be the very simple question of whether a conviction qualifies as "bribery" or whatnot.  I don't really worry about anyone getting persecuted or railroaded with such a process.

Before continuing, does all of that seem correct to you?

I believe that all this is correct, but I also like Ián T.'s approach. I think we have to keep in mind that we don't want a process which is so strict or so complicated that it just won't be used.

We should keep in mind the only precedent for this situation - the I. Canún situation - and whatever standard we raise, we should think: how would the I. Canún case have played out under this standard? I mean, I would like to believe that whether a foreign court ruling is credible would be a box-ticking exercise: but unless I'm very mistaken, at the time of the Canún case, certain prominent Talossans were saying that the US court ruling was not credible, based on their conservative political beliefs about how it's "too easy" to be convicted of  sexual violence these days.

I wouldn't be averse to excising 7.2.10 and debating it separately, if the rest of the bill is uncontroversial and won't attract a Royal veto.

Quote from: xpb on June 15, 2021, 10:26:51 AM
some kind of lottery or drawing

Lotteries are currently illegal under El Lexhatx A.1 which incorporates Wisconsin statute 945. Hopefully we'll have that repealed soon though.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on June 13, 2021, 12:27:25 PM
adding in some basic provisions about this would probably be a good idea, ie: "A single action of a defendant may be considered to break more than one law and may be charged accordingly."

Sure, why not. (now section 1.3)

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on June 13, 2021, 12:35:00 PM

Quote5.4.

This should be deleted, or we should be honest and just state that revocation is a possible punishment for all crimes.  Putting it this way is just misleading, I think, since it basically says, "Only serious and terrible crimes that we call felonies may lead to losing your citizenship but not really, actually anything can."

Sure, why not - it was only there because it's in the existing law (as A.5.2.2). Should we think about something else to deal with the "habitual criminal", though?

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on June 13, 2021, 12:37:06 PM
Two years is not a long time for probation, especially for serious crimes.  I'd suggest five years.

Sure, why not.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on June 13, 2021, 12:40:18 PM
Are you open to some more work on the crimes definitions? ... Some are great, but I'm looking in particular at things like fraud and harassment.

Sure, why not; but I don't want them to become too complicated. The definition of harassment comes from Wisconsin law, whereas the definition of fraud comes from the dictionary.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on June 13, 2021, 12:45:05 PM

Quick rewrite {of 7.2.10} for readability:

Thanks!

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on June 13, 2021, 12:45:05 PM
we are asking that part of the trial judgment include judging whether or not a foreign court is both credible and abides by Talossan values, but we're not defining either of those very squidgy ideas.  Definitions of these terms should be added to the definitions section.

Hmmm. You know, I forgot that I put the term "Talossan values" in there, and I'm not sure I still like it, so happy to hear alternatives. I think honestly we have to go at this through a negative definition - i.e. it's far easier to declare that a Court is not "credible" or doesn't abide by our values than the other way around (i.e. it doesn't provide a fair trial in the way we would recognize it in Talossa, because of lack of judicial independence or serious bias against certain kinds of people.)

But honestly, very glad to hear you seem to like the direction I've gone in with this. Thanks again to Marcel for the idea. Speaking of which...

QuoteMy idea for maximum punishments would be something like this:
Felony -- 5 years of civil disability and/or ℓ500 ($750)
Severe misdemeanour -- 1 year of civil disability and/or ℓ100 ($150)
Misdemeanour -- 6 months of civil disability and/or ℓ50 ($75)

An ordinary misdemeanour doesn't carry civil disability, by definition - but apart from that, sure, why not.

Check out the updated version: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OfQlUZrowS4frssyea6-SLxz8Pcss5WNNxyKud82lQw/edit?usp=sharing

I've noted all the above and will hopefully reply when other events are less pressing. In the meantime it would be good to hear other voices.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on June 09, 2021, 10:05:27 PM
5 years maximum civil disability? 500 louis maximum fine (which would be half our total treasury)?

BUMP. Any other suggestions on maximum civil disabilities and fines?

Best to contribute any suggestions for amendments in this thread, for transparency's sake.

Okay guys, we were all getting worked up for nothing.

By the time of Reunision, MPF wasn't administering Republic Wittenberg at all, that was @Dieter Vercária. (I should have remembered that MPF set up a rather complex CMS for talossa.com that we simply ceased to use in favour of a simpler Wordpress setup.) Dieter says:

"I still have a final copy of the Witt XII b database somewhere on my computers, as well as rough web crawler copies of Witt XII b and the last Witt that was hosted by MPF (the infamous "stolen" Witt, so to speak). By the time of the reunion the web crawler copies of Wittenberg were published on a host of a Mexican guy (@Danihel Txechescu ???), but I don't know what became of this."

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on June 10, 2021, 05:10:57 PM
I have not looked at how you address the tangential issue of criminalizing convictions in other courts,

That's section 7.2.10, which I've highlighted in the document; I'm taking Marcel's tack of explicitly stating what kind of crimes "bring Talossa into disrepute". Thanks for your attention.

Sorry, please use this link for the formatted version: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OfQlUZrowS4frssyea6-SLxz8Pcss5WNNxyKud82lQw/edit?usp=sharing

So now I've got a full-fledged Criminal Code Replacement proposal, superseding what those other people were doing offline. I think it deals with all the objections made by King, Baron and Cresti re: 55RZ24.

The last thing I want is for the same thing to happen as did for 55RZ24, that this will be ignored until it gets Clarked, and then suddenly all kinds of problems with it will be discovered.

Exactly, which is why I hadn't made a nomination yet. People are getting a "mite too previous".

Also:

QuoteEl Lexhatx H.7. A Legislative Advisory Committee of Talossa (in Talossan, el Comità da Redacziun Legislatïu; and hereinafter, "the CRL") shall review or revise all legislative items from the Hopper as described in H.6 above; and may recommend acceptance or rejection, or suggest amendments in their best judgement. (55RZ9)

    7.1 The CRL shall conduct all its deliberations openly in the Hopper. (55RZ9)

    7.2 The CRL shall consist of the incumbent Mençéi, Túischac'h, and Avocat-Xheneral. (55RZ9)

The idea is legislative proofreading. The sticky thread is right up top there.

Quote from: Glüc da Dhi S.H. on June 10, 2021, 04:48:31 AM
I would strongly urge the coalition parties NOT to make any internal agreements on who should become Túischac'h,

Well, that's a pity, because we already decided behind closed doors that it's you. Congratulations.

... only messing with you, but I wonder what the 2-days-old coalition has done to provoke this kind of suspiciousness. On a personal level, my own concern for Túischac'h is that they be a productive and active member of the CRL. If Marcel wants it, he can have it imho.

Quote from: GV on June 10, 2021, 12:38:44 AM

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on June 09, 2021, 11:27:19 PM
Should we add this to the New Talossan History Project?

Do so.

No, you do so, you have equal rights as I do :D

I've dropped a line to MPF asking him whether a Culture Ministry grant might help him in making RepublicWitts available for researchers again. However, I must say as a Republic veteran I would want them available in exactly the same format as the Kingdom ProBoards Witt is available - free for all researchers, rather than handed over as a private data dump to one particular writer (who might be rightly or wrongly suspected of having a negative agenda). Imagine if such a shady character were to find, for example, intemperate or embarassing things I said in 2005, but have forgotten, and was to trot them out as part of a contemporary political hackjob on me. No, I want all that stuff in the public domain so I can find it myself if necessary and either apologise or explain the context.

Here's an easier to read formatted version: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OfQlUZrowS4frssyea6-SLxz8Pcss5WNNxyKud82lQw/edit?usp=sharing, I'll make any further modifications to this version