It is my pleasure to open call for bills of the May 2023 Clark.
Eventually, the clark can be viewed in real time here:
www.talossa.ca/files/cosa_vote_result.php?cosa=58&clark=3 (for the votes)
and here:
www.talossa.ca/files/clark.php?cosa=58&clark=3 (for the bills )
It is NOT too late to submit bills, of course, as you have OFFICIALLY until the morning of the 30th of this month, provided your bills have been in the Hopper before end of business day the 15th, of course. I will make the Clark on May 1st's morning and bills submitted up to a few hours before that will probably also be taken.
PLEASE note that in order to support a bill, you need to:
1 ) Be a Senator, the Secretary of State or the King
or
2 ) Have been nominated as a Cosa Member for the upcoming Clark BEFORE the 15th,
To vote on the Clark, you will once again have 2 options:
1 ) You will be able to vote in the Clark thread (which will be created later on the 1st of May), as usual. I will enter your votes in the DB.
2 ) You will be able to vote directly in the database, using your usernumber and DB password (which you can retrieve at: www.talossa.ca/files/login.php using the PSC of the election) or by login via Facebook (which retrieve manual activation on my part).
(https://i.ibb.co/qMJG5xZ/66-FF1-A4-D-E740-424-D-9-DDF-306-A963-FD97-B.gif)
Sir Txec dal Nordselvă,
Secretár d'Estat
Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on April 23, 2023, 11:56:21 AMThe Appeals Act
WHEREAS there's no limit on appeals, so no case is ever really closed unless every appeal is exhausted, and
WHEREAS it's wildly unjust for a resolved case to hang over someone's head indefinitely, and
WHEREAS the corts have not established a rule about this
THEREFORE a new provision shall be inserted as the fifth subsubsection to the first subsection of the third section of Title G of el Lexhatx, reading
QuoteThere is a 90-day statute of limitations on all appeals.
Uréu q'estadra så:
Baron Alexandreu Davinescu (MC-TNC)
Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on May 31, 2022, 01:28:04 PMThe Legal Repair Amendment
WHEREAS currently the entire status of much of our legal system is possibly itself illegal, since the Ziu's ennumerated powers do not include any power to write criminal laws at all, nor to regulate any aspect of the legal system, meaning that most of Titles A & J are very much in doubt if challenged in cort, and
WHEREAS this means that basically none of our criminal laws or rules about the cort system actually work,
THEREFORE the third section of Article VII of the 1997 Organic Law shall be amended to include these additional provisions:
Quote20. Criminal justice designed to protect the personal and property rights of citizens.
21. Administrative matters incidental to the functioning of the justice system.
Uréu q'estadra så:
Baron Alexandreu Davinescu (MC-TNC)
Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on March 15, 2023, 08:24:36 PMWHEREAS there is a large legal loophole that would permit virtually any crime, including very serious crimes such as threats of sexual assault, theft, bribery, or anything else, and
WHEREAS the problem lies with the fact that we're offering unlimited and unqualified sanctuary under terms which clearly reference the medieval Christian practice of offering church protection from secular law, thereby allowing anyone to claim the right of sanctuary if accused of crimes, and
WHEREAS it's hard to find any other way to interpret this bit of the law so that it makes sense, and so therefore this reading probably is going to be a valid one, or at the very least would be an incredible complication that might make it impossible to prosecute someone, and
WHEREAS no one has yet taken advantage of it, but there's no reason to think that will last forever,
THEREFORE the tenth section of Title A of el Lexhatx, which currently reads
Quote10. The Ziu hereby recognizes the historic right of churches and other religious organizations to offer sanctuary to individuals in dire need.
is hereby stricken in its entirety.
Uréu q'estadra så:
Baron Alexandreu Davinescu (MC-TNC)
Please Clark the preceding three bills.
Hello, I submit the following bills for clarking:
The Second Catchment Area Reform Act (https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=2276.0)
The Cjovani Ziua Auservada Bill (https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=2233.0)
The SOS Succession Reform Act (https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=1806.0)
Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on April 24, 2023, 06:37:14 PMQuote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on April 23, 2023, 11:56:21 AMThe Appeals Act
WHEREAS there's no limit on appeals, so no case is ever really closed unless every appeal is exhausted, and
WHEREAS it's wildly unjust for a resolved case to hang over someone's head indefinitely, and
WHEREAS the corts have not established a rule about this
THEREFORE a new provision shall be inserted as the fifth subsubsection to the first subsection of the third section of Title G of el Lexhatx, reading
QuoteThere is a 90-day statute of limitations on all appeals.
Uréu q'estadra så:
Baron Alexandreu Davinescu (MC-TNC)
Has this bill passsed the required time in the hopper? I see it was proposed to both the Hopper and the CRL on the same day.
Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on April 24, 2023, 06:37:45 PMQuote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on May 31, 2022, 01:28:04 PMThe Legal Repair Amendment
WHEREAS currently the entire status of much of our legal system is possibly itself illegal, since the Ziu's ennumerated powers do not include any power to write criminal laws at all, nor to regulate any aspect of the legal system, meaning that most of Titles A & J are very much in doubt if challenged in cort, and
WHEREAS this means that basically none of our criminal laws or rules about the cort system actually work,
THEREFORE the third section of Article VII of the 1997 Organic Law shall be amended to include these additional provisions:
Quote20. Criminal justice designed to protect the personal and property rights of citizens.
21. Administrative matters incidental to the functioning of the justice system.
Uréu q'estadra så:
Baron Alexandreu Davinescu (MC-TNC)
This bill was substantially altered from its original form only two days ago in the Hopper and placed before the CRL on the same day. Again, I'm not sure I can Clark this bill either.
Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on April 24, 2023, 06:38:26 PMQuote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on March 15, 2023, 08:24:36 PMWHEREAS there is a large legal loophole that would permit virtually any crime, including very serious crimes such as threats of sexual assault, theft, bribery, or anything else, and
WHEREAS the problem lies with the fact that we're offering unlimited and unqualified sanctuary under terms which clearly reference the medieval Christian practice of offering church protection from secular law, thereby allowing anyone to claim the right of sanctuary if accused of crimes, and
WHEREAS it's hard to find any other way to interpret this bit of the law so that it makes sense, and so therefore this reading probably is going to be a valid one, or at the very least would be an incredible complication that might make it impossible to prosecute someone, and
WHEREAS no one has yet taken advantage of it, but there's no reason to think that will last forever,
THEREFORE the tenth section of Title A of el Lexhatx, which currently reads
Quote10. The Ziu hereby recognizes the historic right of churches and other religious organizations to offer sanctuary to individuals in dire need.
is hereby stricken in its entirety.
Uréu q'estadra så:
Baron Alexandreu Davinescu (MC-TNC)
This bill is substantially altered from its Hopper form. I'm not sure it can be Clarked either.
Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on April 24, 2023, 08:26:28 PMHello, I submit the following bills for clarking:
The Second Catchment Area Reform Act (https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=2276.0)
The Cjovani Ziua Auservada Bill (https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=2233.0)
The SOS Succession Reform Act (https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=1806.0)
The Second Catchment Area Reform Act does not appear to have any approvals in the CRL.
The Cjovani Ziua Auservada Bill was changed AFTER approval by the CRL.
The SOS Succession Reform Act was approved by the CRL in the 57th Cosa and has not been approved by the current CRL for the 58th Cosa.
As such, until these bills are approved by the existing CRL, I cannot Clark any of them.
All three of my bills are separated parts of a single larger bill. I believe they each received full consideration, since the text is not different. I would ask you to reconsider, although this is completely your prerogative.
Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on April 25, 2023, 10:06:57 AMAll three of my bills are separated parts of a single larger bill. I believe they each received full consideration, since the text is not different. I would ask you to reconsider, although this is completely your prerogative.
I'm more than happy to reconsider. Can you show me which bill these three new bills all stem from? Thanks.
Quote from: Ian Plätschisch on May 25, 2022, 12:11:28 PMQuote from: Dr. Txec Róibeard dal Nordselvă, Esq., O.SPM, SMM on May 25, 2022, 10:34:15 AMQuote from: Ian Plätschisch on May 23, 2022, 05:46:38 PMI would like to re-Clark the Compromise on the Compromise Amendment
I have two questions: 1) Has the bill passed the muster of the CRL? and, 2) What is the link to the bill so I can Clark the correct version.
Thanks.
1) Yes, it passed the CRL last term
2) https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=848.0
Mr. Secretary I would cite this as precedent where you allowed the bill in question above to be clarked without another approval of the CRL. Am I mistaken?
The Cjovani Ziua Auservada Bill was changed to reflect comments BY the CRL. Why would this prevent it from being clarked?
The Second Catchment Area Reform Act was explicitly approved by ESB on March 29th and by Baron Davinescu also on March 29th.
@Baron Alexandreu Davinescu would you be able to confirm your approval?
Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on April 25, 2023, 10:33:31 AMThe Second Catchment Area Reform Act was explicitly approved by ESB on March 29th and by Baron Davinescu also on March 29th. @Baron Alexandreu Davinescu would you be able to confirm your approval?
The approval was kinda buried so I missed it. I will Clark this bill.
Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on April 25, 2023, 10:30:23 AMThe Cjovani Ziua Auservada Bill was changed to reflect comments BY the CRL. Why would this prevent it from being clarked?
The bill was changed after approval. The remedy is of course to get approval once more and I will Clark it.
Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on April 25, 2023, 10:24:15 AMQuote from: Ian Plätschisch on May 25, 2022, 12:11:28 PMQuote from: Dr. Txec Róibeard dal Nordselvă, Esq., O.SPM, SMM on May 25, 2022, 10:34:15 AMQuote from: Ian Plätschisch on May 23, 2022, 05:46:38 PMI would like to re-Clark the Compromise on the Compromise Amendment
I have two questions: 1) Has the bill passed the muster of the CRL? and, 2) What is the link to the bill so I can Clark the correct version.
Thanks.
1) Yes, it passed the CRL last term
2) https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=848.0
Mr. Secretary I would cite this as precedent where you allowed the bill in question above to be clarked without another approval of the CRL. Am I mistaken?
Please point me to the exact thread so I can review it. Thanks.
Quote from: Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB on April 25, 2023, 11:15:52 AMQuote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on April 25, 2023, 10:24:15 AMQuote from: Ian Plätschisch on May 25, 2022, 12:11:28 PMQuote from: Dr. Txec Róibeard dal Nordselvă, Esq., O.SPM, SMM on May 25, 2022, 10:34:15 AMQuote from: Ian Plätschisch on May 23, 2022, 05:46:38 PMI would like to re-Clark the Compromise on the Compromise Amendment
I have two questions: 1) Has the bill passed the muster of the CRL? and, 2) What is the link to the bill so I can Clark the correct version.
Thanks.
1) Yes, it passed the CRL last term
2) https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=848.0
Mr. Secretary I would cite this as precedent where you allowed the bill in question above to be clarked without another approval of the CRL. Am I mistaken?
Please point me to the exact thread so I can review it. Thanks.
Here you go. https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=1458.msg12319#msg12319
Quote from: Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB on April 25, 2023, 10:12:51 AMQuote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on April 25, 2023, 10:06:57 AMAll three of my bills are separated parts of a single larger bill. I believe they each received full consideration, since the text is not different. I would ask you to reconsider, although this is completely your prerogative.
I'm more than happy to reconsider. Can you show me which bill these three new bills all stem from? Thanks.
The Legal Repair Amendment's language and the Appeals Act's language have been in the Hopper and received commentary and feedback for many months.
As you can see from this post, it was being discussed in its current form a year ago, and reintroduced for this Cosa in February (with the same language as here) at this point: https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=1469.msg17327#msg17327
The Unsanctified Act was split off and considered separately as its own bill, but reintroduced unchanged in this Cosa: https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=1468.msg17328#msg17328
Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on April 25, 2023, 11:23:40 AMQuote from: Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB on April 25, 2023, 11:15:52 AMQuote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on April 25, 2023, 10:24:15 AMQuote from: Ian Plätschisch on May 25, 2022, 12:11:28 PMQuote from: Dr. Txec Róibeard dal Nordselvă, Esq., O.SPM, SMM on May 25, 2022, 10:34:15 AMQuote from: Ian Plätschisch on May 23, 2022, 05:46:38 PMI would like to re-Clark the Compromise on the Compromise Amendment
I have two questions: 1) Has the bill passed the muster of the CRL? and, 2) What is the link to the bill so I can Clark the correct version.
Thanks.
1) Yes, it passed the CRL last term
2) https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=848.0
Mr. Secretary I would cite this as precedent where you allowed the bill in question above to be clarked without another approval of the CRL. Am I mistaken?
Please point me to the exact thread so I can review it. Thanks.
Here you go. https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=1458.msg12319#msg12319
The difference was that the Compromise on the Compromise was re-Clarked after failing in a previous Cosa. Was this bill Clarked last term?
Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on April 25, 2023, 11:40:44 AMQuote from: Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB on April 25, 2023, 10:12:51 AMQuote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on April 25, 2023, 10:06:57 AMAll three of my bills are separated parts of a single larger bill. I believe they each received full consideration, since the text is not different. I would ask you to reconsider, although this is completely your prerogative.
I'm more than happy to reconsider. Can you show me which bill these three new bills all stem from? Thanks.
The Legal Repair Amendment's language and the Appeals Act's language have been in the Hopper and received commentary and feedback for many months.
As you can see from this post, it was being discussed in its current form a year ago, and reintroduced for this Cosa in February (with the same language as here) at this point: https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=1469.msg17327#msg17327
The Unsanctified Act was split off and considered separately as its own bill, but reintroduced unchanged in this Cosa: https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=1468.msg17328#msg17328
Thanks for the quick response. I'll Clark the three bills later today or tomorrow.
Quote from: Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB on April 25, 2023, 11:58:39 AMQuote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on April 25, 2023, 11:23:40 AMQuote from: Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB on April 25, 2023, 11:15:52 AMQuote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on April 25, 2023, 10:24:15 AMQuote from: Ian Plätschisch on May 25, 2022, 12:11:28 PMQuote from: Dr. Txec Róibeard dal Nordselvă, Esq., O.SPM, SMM on May 25, 2022, 10:34:15 AMQuote from: Ian Plätschisch on May 23, 2022, 05:46:38 PMI would like to re-Clark the Compromise on the Compromise Amendment
I have two questions: 1) Has the bill passed the muster of the CRL? and, 2) What is the link to the bill so I can Clark the correct version.
Thanks.
1) Yes, it passed the CRL last term
2) https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=848.0
Mr. Secretary I would cite this as precedent where you allowed the bill in question above to be clarked without another approval of the CRL. Am I mistaken?
Please point me to the exact thread so I can review it. Thanks.
Here you go. https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=1458.msg12319#msg12319
The difference was that the Compromise on the Compromise was re-Clarked after failing in a previous Cosa. Was this bill Clarked last term?
This bill also was clarked and failed last term. There is no difference.
Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on April 25, 2023, 12:15:40 PMQuote from: Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB on April 25, 2023, 11:58:39 AMQuote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on April 25, 2023, 11:23:40 AMQuote from: Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB on April 25, 2023, 11:15:52 AMQuote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on April 25, 2023, 10:24:15 AMQuote from: Ian Plätschisch on May 25, 2022, 12:11:28 PMQuote from: Dr. Txec Róibeard dal Nordselvă, Esq., O.SPM, SMM on May 25, 2022, 10:34:15 AMQuote from: Ian Plätschisch on May 23, 2022, 05:46:38 PMI would like to re-Clark the Compromise on the Compromise Amendment
I have two questions: 1) Has the bill passed the muster of the CRL? and, 2) What is the link to the bill so I can Clark the correct version.
Thanks.
1) Yes, it passed the CRL last term
2) https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=848.0
Mr. Secretary I would cite this as precedent where you allowed the bill in question above to be clarked without another approval of the CRL. Am I mistaken?
Please point me to the exact thread so I can review it. Thanks.
Here you go. https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=1458.msg12319#msg12319
The difference was that the Compromise on the Compromise was re-Clarked after failing in a previous Cosa. Was this bill Clarked last term?
This bill also was clarked and failed last term. There is no difference.
Gotcha. I completely lost the thread and was talking about a different bill entirely. I do see it was Clarked last term and failed. I will get it Clarked as soon as I can.
Quote from: Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB on April 25, 2023, 12:27:51 PMQuote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on April 25, 2023, 12:15:40 PMQuote from: Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB on April 25, 2023, 11:58:39 AMQuote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on April 25, 2023, 11:23:40 AMQuote from: Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB on April 25, 2023, 11:15:52 AMQuote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on April 25, 2023, 10:24:15 AMQuote from: Ian Plätschisch on May 25, 2022, 12:11:28 PMQuote from: Dr. Txec Róibeard dal Nordselvă, Esq., O.SPM, SMM on May 25, 2022, 10:34:15 AMQuote from: Ian Plätschisch on May 23, 2022, 05:46:38 PMI would like to re-Clark the Compromise on the Compromise Amendment
I have two questions: 1) Has the bill passed the muster of the CRL? and, 2) What is the link to the bill so I can Clark the correct version.
Thanks.
1) Yes, it passed the CRL last term
2) https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=848.0
Mr. Secretary I would cite this as precedent where you allowed the bill in question above to be clarked without another approval of the CRL. Am I mistaken?
Please point me to the exact thread so I can review it. Thanks.
Here you go. https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=1458.msg12319#msg12319
The difference was that the Compromise on the Compromise was re-Clarked after failing in a previous Cosa. Was this bill Clarked last term?
This bill also was clarked and failed last term. There is no difference.
Gotcha. I completely lost the thread and was talking about a different bill entirely. I do see it was Clarked last term and failed. I will get it Clarked as soon as I can.
Thank you Mr. Secretary!
Quote from: Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB on April 25, 2023, 12:02:48 PMQuote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on April 25, 2023, 11:40:44 AMQuote from: Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB on April 25, 2023, 10:12:51 AMQuote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on April 25, 2023, 10:06:57 AMAll three of my bills are separated parts of a single larger bill. I believe they each received full consideration, since the text is not different. I would ask you to reconsider, although this is completely your prerogative.
I'm more than happy to reconsider. Can you show me which bill these three new bills all stem from? Thanks.
The Legal Repair Amendment's language and the Appeals Act's language have been in the Hopper and received commentary and feedback for many months.
As you can see from this post, it was being discussed in its current form a year ago, and reintroduced for this Cosa in February (with the same language as here) at this point: https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=1469.msg17327#msg17327
The Unsanctified Act was split off and considered separately as its own bill, but reintroduced unchanged in this Cosa: https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=1468.msg17328#msg17328
Thanks for the quick response. I'll Clark the three bills later today or tomorrow.
Thank you for your diligence.
RZ11 - The Cjovani Ziua Auservada Bill
RZ12 - The Appeals Act
RZ13 - The Legal Repair Amendment
RZ14 - The Unsanctified Act
RZ15 - The Second Catchment Area Reform Act
RZ16 - SoS Succession Reform Act
All of the above have been Clarked.
I apologize for the trouble, but would you remove the Appeals Act from the Clark? Luc believes it didn't go through regular order, entertaining many of your same doubts, and I want everything to be on the up-and-up.
I've never actually removed a bill so I will have to get the help of MPF as I don't have that ability myself.
Quote from: Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB on April 26, 2023, 08:27:25 AMI've never actually removed a bill so I will have to get the help of MPF as I don't have that ability myself.
I apologize for the hassle. Can we officially consider it withdrawn, even if it technically runs on the Clark, either way?
Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on April 26, 2023, 10:38:44 AMQuote from: Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB on April 26, 2023, 08:27:25 AMI've never actually removed a bill so I will have to get the help of MPF as I don't have that ability myself.
I apologize for the hassle. Can we officially consider it withdrawn, even if it technically runs on the Clark, either way?
That was my thinking if I'm unable to actually remove it in time.
Piedéu qe acestilor proxhets estadra insertats in el próxim Clark: / I ask for the followings to be clarked:
- Ün proxhet per regular els Prüms Diktats (https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=2366.0)
- Ün proxhet per inovar el CRL (https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=2367.0)
Hello Mr. Secretary, now that the CRL has approved I am submitting the National Skills and Social Connections Survey Act: https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=2370.0
Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on April 26, 2023, 10:38:44 AMQuote from: Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB on April 26, 2023, 08:27:25 AMI've never actually removed a bill so I will have to get the help of MPF as I don't have that ability myself.
I apologize for the hassle. Can we officially consider it withdrawn, even if it technically runs on the Clark, either way?
The Appeals Act has been removed from the Clark.
Quote from: Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB on April 28, 2023, 10:58:15 AMQuote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on April 26, 2023, 10:38:44 AMQuote from: Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB on April 26, 2023, 08:27:25 AMI've never actually removed a bill so I will have to get the help of MPF as I don't have that ability myself.
I apologize for the hassle. Can we officially consider it withdrawn, even if it technically runs on the Clark, either way?
The Appeals Act has been removed from the Clark.
Thank you! I apologize for the hassle.
Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on April 28, 2023, 11:24:58 AMQuote from: Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB on April 28, 2023, 10:58:15 AMQuote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on April 26, 2023, 10:38:44 AMQuote from: Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB on April 26, 2023, 08:27:25 AMI've never actually removed a bill so I will have to get the help of MPF as I don't have that ability myself.
I apologize for the hassle. Can we officially consider it withdrawn, even if it technically runs on the Clark, either way?
The Appeals Act has been removed from the Clark.
Thank you! I apologize for the hassle.
Not so much a problem as another shortfall of the current database.