Quote from: Txosuè Éiric Rôibeardescù on April 08, 2021, 03:26:18 PM
I would hearby wish to submit my candidature for the position of party leader.

Dark have been my dreams of late, the outside world seems grimmer than before. I used to think of talossa as a safe harbor of fun an whimsy. With a King that was a kind, interesting and benevolent.

Now we have a government that claims to be acting in our interests, yet is tearing apart our nation, both emotionally and practically. If elected I will be engaging in discussion with the free democrats, I will call them out where I see it. However I am very much done with the protracted arguments driving this nation aprt, I am very much done. I fear that down we will reach a untenable situation that will drive us apart for good.

The talossan equivalent of those who stormed the Capitol on January 6th right here on display. We have our own tea party!

+1 derivativist
0 Peculiarist

Quote from: Txosuè Éiric Rôibeardescù on April 08, 2021, 04:42:28 PM
Long term citizens have felt so ostracised, belittled, silenced and canceled for their veiws and have since disengaged because they don't want to argue with people any more.

And now you claim that the majority now agree with you. Could it not be you have driven people away to a point the no longer wish to get involved with our policies because they are so disenfranchised with the entire process?

They may no longer be heard from but I will be their voice. I see them. If they wish to reach out to me my door as party leader will always be open.

No, people think being challenged means they're being silenced, or the new four-letter word to describe it, "cancelled." This is nonsense. People are choosing to leave because they lost their power on Talossa, and now you're just gaslighting.

Also, you're not their hero; you're not their advocate; and you're not going to gaslight your way to being the victim.

Quote from: C. M. Siervicül on March 23, 2021, 10:38:34 PM
I like this, but are there typos in the first ("deprived of life, liberty, or property") and next to last ("subjected to cruel and unusual punishment") sentences of the proposed language?

My lifelong battle with prepositions rages another day.  I do not have time to check, but I think fixing those typos in the readopted amendment is fine. The proposed text has been updated accordingly.

So overdue, but this is the act I propose to fix the issue identified here.

WHEREAS, the Fifth Covenant to the Covenants of Rights and Freedoms once read as follows:

Any person charged with an offence shall be presumed innocent until proven guilty, and has the right to request information on his legal rights. No accused person shall be twice put in jeopardy of life, liberty, or property for the same offence, or without due process of law; nor shall any citizen be compelled in any criminal case to bear witness against himself. Excessive fines, and cruel and bizarre punishments, shall not be inflicted.


WHEREAS, the Due Process Amendment, 50RZ26, received sufficient support in the Ziu and the requisite majority during referendum to modify that language;

WHEREAS, the Still Into This Amendment, 53RZ18, inadvertently reverted this covenant to the foregoing language;

WHEREAS, said omission from 53RZ18 appears entirely accidental and unintentional.

WHEREAS, the Ziu desires to remedy this mistake by re-adopting, without modification, the Fifth Covenant as enumerated in 50RZ26.

THEREFORE, the Fifth Covenant to the Covenants of Rights and Freedoms, Article XI of the Organic Law, is repealed in its entirety.

FURTHERMORE, the following language is adopted as the Fifth Covenant, Organic Law, Article XI.5:

No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor denied equal protection of law. Any person charged with an offense must be informed of their legal rights upon seizure by the government, and must be presumed innocent until proven guilty by a court of law. No person shall be subject to answer to the same criminal offense after the criminal charge has been properly adjudicated in a court of law, nor shall any person be compelled in any criminal case to bear witness against himself, nor shall any person be subjected to excessive fines, nor shall any person be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment. The Ziu shall have the power to enforce this Covenant by appropriate legislation.

Noi urent q'estadra så:

Quote from: Dr. Txec Róibeard dal Nordselvă, Esq., O.SPM, SMM on February 27, 2021, 10:17:54 AM

Quote from: Viteu on February 25, 2021, 08:55:52 PM

Quote from: GV on January 13, 2021, 10:43:38 AM

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on January 12, 2021, 03:56:54 PM
Man, it's embarrassing to get a reminder of how little the Ziu (me included) actually reads this stuff.  :(

I'm as guilty as anyone, I fear.

I'd ask this also get clarked.

Is this a bill? In this threads current form I don't see anything to Clark.

This is on me. I said I'd submit a bill and never got around to it. I'll throw something together

Quote from: GV on January 13, 2021, 10:43:38 AM

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on January 12, 2021, 03:56:54 PM
Man, it's embarrassing to get a reminder of how little the Ziu (me included) actually reads this stuff.  :(

I'm as guilty as anyone, I fear.

I'd ask this also get clarked.

Please clark!

Quote from: Béneditsch Ardpresteir on February 04, 2021, 11:08:36 AM
Not at all a healthy separation of power. Normally a Judge is supposed to interpret the law and award a fair and equitable sentence. However, sometimes they are required to pass certain Direction to render complete justice in certain matters where no law exists.  Judge made laws are considered interim measures, until such time the legislature takes a conscious decision on the same. Here we have a sitting Judge framing the Constitution. Ha ha. 

To think of that these same very people had problems with others wearing many hats.

False accusations aside, what about this act is me framing the constitution?

I wanted to bring the following to the Ziu's attention.  I went to check a covenant while preparing a response to Meistra in the Legal Committee thread, and it occurred to me that we accidentally overrode a covenant when adopting the 2017 Organic Law.

The Fifth Covenant, pre-50RZ26, read as follows:

Any person charged with an offence shall be presumed innocent until proven guilty, and has the right to request information on his legal rights. No accused person shall be twice put in jeopardy of life, liberty, or property for the same offence, or without due process of law; nor shall any citizen be compelled in any criminal case to bear witness against himself. Excessive fines, and cruel and bizarre punishments, shall not be inflicted.

The Due Process Amendment, 50RZ26, modified that language to:

No person shall be deprived life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor denied equal protection of law. Any person charged with an offense must be informed of their legal rights upon seizure by the government, and must be presumed innocent until proven guilty by a court of law. No person shall be subject to answer to the same criminal offense after the criminal charge has been properly adjudicated in a court of law, nor shall any person be compelled in any criminal case to bear witness against himself, nor shall any person be subjected to excessive fines, nor shall any person be subjected cruel and unusual punishment. The Ziu shall have the power to enforce this Covenant by appropriate legislation.

The Still Into This Amendment, 53RZ18, reverted this back to the pre-Due Process Amendment language.  Hence, the old Covenant appears to have been replaced upon adoption of the 2017 Org Law, and is current recorded in same.    I'm assuming this was inadvertent because Ian P. co-sponsored 50RZ26.  Hence, it appears we overlooked this and, I'd wager, it was intended for the 2017 Org Law to not change this Covenant. 

Although I encourage another to do so, I will draft a bill to fix this, which I hope should not be controversial, in a week or so.

Per the SOS, the Lobby is open once something is being discussed.  I'm unsure about the rules of which forum is restricted to the Ziu, but given the clarification, no need for this thread.

Quote from: Dr. Txec Róibeard dal Nordselvă, Esq., O.SPM, SMM on January 12, 2021, 12:57:09 PM

Quote from: Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on January 12, 2021, 09:57:14 AM
Are the citizenry in general really not allowed to reply to discussions here?  For goodness sake, change that so people like the justices can participate!

I'm not the author of this thread, but since it is in the lobby of the Ziu, anyone can come and go in the lobby...

If that's the case. My apologies for the confusion. I'm actually unsure exactly which legislative forums are restricted to the Ziu.

Tenant/tenet... Tomato/typo.

My apologies to the Ziu, I realized after the fact that the Committee of Legal Reforms thread is in the Lobby and not in Wittenberg.   I posted based on the "new posts" feed.  Having realized my mistake, the post has been removed.  But I do think there is a conversation that should be open to Talossa-at-large.  So I'm reproducing my commentary here.  The original thread can be found here. 
______


I want to chime in regarding the alcohol analogy.  Although there is a shared minimum alcohol consumption/purchasing age of 21 among the States, it is not the same law across the Country.  In Wisconsin, someone under the age of 21 can certainly be served an alcoholic beverage in a public establishment by their parent or guardian, while in North Carolina they cannot.  Even assuming Wisconsin did have an outright ban on underage alcohol consumption, it only applies to committing the offense if present in Wisconsin, an 18-year-old who consumes alcohol in Cezembre would not have broken a Wisconsin law because they did not consume alcohol in Wisconsin.  By way of example, my first trip to Europe at age 20, I purchased and consumed a beer in Schwedenplatz (public place) in Vienna.  Did I break New York law? No. New York has a similar law to Wisconsin, but even so, I purchased and consumed alcohol publicly in another country where the conduct was permissible. So I did not have to worry about facing criminal charges when I returned home.

The US, federal and State, rarely imposes criminal liability for conduct that occurs outside of a jurisdiction.  Where it does, it's very limited circumstance--think sex tourism.  So this is not the best analogy.

Regarding the merit of the Regent's thoughts, I generally find them agreeable.  I see the value is removing Wisconsin law from our criminal law, but we cannot possibly address every instance of criminal conduct that may present itself given our resources and needs.  I like the idea of a carefully regulated special counsel, but I would add that a tenant of criminal law is that a person must be able to know what they're doing is illegal.  There must be a benchmark.  Also, Talossa is unique in that we're seeking to hold someone criminally liable for conduct outside of Talossa for general crime.  I'd say further narrowing--only those crimes of such magnitude as to impact the wellness and health of Talossa, should be permissible for consideration of judicial incorporation (I'm thinking of murder or statutory rape as opposed to a speeding ticket).

Quote from: Açafat del Val on January 02, 2021, 12:55:48 PM
A substantive summary is encouraged.

Having said that, and speaking now specifically as the A-G, I should caution us from putting this to a Clark too quickly. Between the impending referendum concerning the future of our head of state, as well as the background work on a "new" Organic Law, it may be poorly advised to adopt such a large and sweeping reform of El Lexhatx. It would be better to see what plays out elsewhere, so as to avoid changing the changes after the fact.

Unfortunately, reforms of El Lexhatx must necessarily go in tandem with reforms of the Organic Law if we wish to avoid - as the kids say - a cluster**** of law.

Respectfully, I disagree.  The referendum is happening.  Even assuming that Talossans vote for an elected Head of State, that will only require minor changes to this legislation if adopted.  Also, can we realistically say that anything would actually happen before 2022?

Similarly, while there is another new Organic Law being worked on, do any of us actually see that being finished and passed before 2022 or 2023? I am being realistic here. It took the last Organic Law about three years to come into effect.  We should not refrain from cleaning up our laws on this prospect, lest the Ziu can put its feet up for the next year!

To be sure, this is not a reform bill.  This is re-codification bill.  If I had to quantify, I'd say 97% of it is already in Law, and 3% (if not lesser) actually makes substantive changes. 

It's been a minute since I did this, and I cannot remember all of the changes. I do have red-lined (track changes) version that I will gladly share. 

To start, I was not in Talossa when El Lexhatx was first adopted.  I commend AD (and others) for their hard work in codifying the disparate Talossan acts into a single, cohesive codex.  It has been my impression that when AD did not attempt to slip anything into law or change anything without transparency—it was an honest means to streamline governance and the law.

With that said, we are all aware of the hyper-politicized nature of Talossa, and the slightest modification can sometimes be misperceived as a slight. I am also hyper-aware that AD and Miestra each have carefully guarded parts of El Lex G--ex parte communications and the GC Cort respectively.  The Judiciary Reform Amendment and accompanying enabling legislation inadvertently modified the GC Cort, which took another act to fix.  That was my fault.  But against this backdrop, I made sure not to touch either of those sections outside of renumbering to stay above reproach. 
Turning to what this bill is not:

•   It is not a reform bill.  Outside of those substantive areas identified below, it does not change much.  It merely cuts fat and reorganizes topics for easier read. 
•   It is not perfect.  There will be typos—either mine or rolled over. That is why people have proofreaders.  Please identify typos, and I will gladly fix them.  To that end, if it is desirable that I create a google doc for ease of editing, I will.
•   It is not a chance to debate substance.  Of course I cannot control the Ziu.  I hope that we can establish a precedent that a simple recodification to trim fat does not become an exhaustive exercise in substantive reform, regardless of necessity.  Naturally, this would not preclude an immediate subsequent bill to accomplish reform, nor create a "why didn't you propose this then" argument. 
•   It is not my admission that I view any part as wholly Organic, that I agree with the law as written, or that I concede authority.  I'm a sitting Judge on the Uppermost Cort, so I want to be explicitly clear that there may be parts that are outside of the Ziu's authority.  But, again, this is not the place for that debate.  If I start nitpicking, we will get buried in those arguments and no changes will be made.  So I set aside my personal opinions in the spirit of a simple recodification act under the presumption that no one understands this to mean my tacit approval of any part of the legislation, only my thought on how to clean it up.

On to the changes, it has been over a week-and a lot has happened-since my initial posting. But I will attempt to identify any substantive changes. 

•   For the most part, the act follows this outline: the Corts -> Authority -> Procedure -> Judicial Decisions/Tenure.  Certain parts fall in more than one category, and some simply seemed out of place in others.   If you think a section is better suited elsewhere, propose it! It will take some renumbering but if it works better elsewhere, let's do it!
•   I introduced individual headings for the sections, but kept the general descriptions already present. This will make more sense as we go.
•   Lex G.1. The General Corts. This remains unchanged from what is presently the Law.
•   Lex G.2. The Practice of Law.  We previously had two places regulating the practice of Law in Talossa, with one still referencing the defunct Royal Talossan Bar.  Each statute was slightly different, in that one addressed who can practice law while the other set out how to become licensed to practice law.  This is now merged with the references to the RTB removed.  Everything goes through the National Talossan Bar.  As a reminder, I did author the statute regarding the NTB.  I do clarify that while the UC can delegate proposed rules to a committee, ultimately it will admit any new lawyers.  This was my original intent, and I think the cleane dup wording better explains that.  Also, with regard to those who seek a waiver to practice law because they are already lawyers or have training elsewhere, as written, it says "home country."  I changed it to "another country" because "home country" was never my intent and is unnecessarily restricting.  Also, what is a home country?
•   Lex G.3. Appeals and Tribunals. I don't believe I made many changes, if anything beyond a typo fix, here. 
•   Lex G.4. The Clerk of the Corts.  Courts -> Corts, and I believe I made it the Clerk of THE Corts for consistency. 
•   Lex G.5. Court Officers.  Not many changes here except I did make the Uppermost Cort the final authority on the appointment of Judicial Officers.  This is because the Cort really ought to be in total control over how it functions, especially that the UC is an independent branch.  The GC does exist by statute, so there is some control the Ziu can exercise here. ((easteregg to something I referenced above if you care)) Ultimately though, this only comes into play in the event of ping-pong between the Monarchy and the UC on judicial officers.  If it came down to whether the UC really wanted to remove someone or appoint someone, and the monarch was opposed, well, it is the UC's branch, so the UC should have final decision-making authority.  I do not think this will ever come to fruition, and it would not be without controversy.
•   Lex G.6. Criminal Law.  This has more of the substantive changes but out of necessity.  The Ninth Covenant guarantees a right to a jury trial or one by tribunal.  Also, there was some confusion when it came to a recent trial with criminal procedure.  With that in mind, we do not have enough people for jury trials, but with the new fully staffed-GC, we have enough for a tribunal of the Crown, which will make a prima facie determination whether the factual allegations in a criminal complaint are sufficient that, if proven, the accused would be guilty of the crime alleged.  So this means the charging instrument must clearly lay out the elements of the crime and the facts that, if established, show guilt.  An accepted criminal complaint means jeopardy attaches, but the caveat is that if the People can show good cause, then they can withdraw the criminal complaint without risking jeopardy.  Remember, a case only has 90 days for trial, so if an informal plea is worked out, the People may want some wiggle room.  On the other hand, if the case is dismissed of failure to prosecute, the defendant should not be prejudiced for the People's malfeasance.  A lot of this is already in law; I was merely keen to clean it up. I encourage this part to be scrutinized and compared to the already-existing provision.
•   Lex G.7. Statue of Limitations – No changes I recall.
•   Lex G.8 – Wrongful Prosecution. I cleaned this up to clarify the elements and set a standard of proof.  Also, it explains that wrongful prosecution is not established merely because the People lost a case, but when they prosecute with actual malice. 
•   Lex G.9 – Ex Parte Communication. Unchanged.
•   Lex G.10. Service in General. I think this is largely unchanged. I believe I added 10.5-- if the charging instrument in a criminal trial is rejected, it is immediately appealable to the UC.  This seemed necessary in light of the above changes.
•   Lex G.11. Judicial Tenure. Unchanged.
•   Lex G.12. Judicial Decisions. Unchanged.