Anyway, are we all in agreement about the Cunstaváis amendment going forward?

Quote from: þerxh Sant-Enogat on January 20, 2024, 12:59:25 AMIf you confirm you do not agree I will ask the TNC to respect the agreement and withdraw the bill (and hope it will be so), but we will of course have to disclose  that the Freedem refused this bill being discussed or voted, for pure political reasons, which will not appear as a democratic decision in my opinion.

I must say, Þerxh, I am pleasantly surprised that you would actually abide by the terms of the agreement and ask your party to not Clark the bill. The second part of your sentence would be a fair enough response on your part, if it comes to that. I hope it doesn't.

I would say, though, that our objections are not "purely political" - by which I assume you mean that we're doing this as a reaction to recent developments in the TNC (though those have not gone down well on our side). Simply put, we do not agree with the basic premise of the bill, that the Secretary of State should be deprived of the rights of political association. We agree that the SoS and all Royal Civil Service appointees must *behave* in a non-partisan manner. I am very interested in replacing this bill which guarantees *that*.

There may have been an honest misconception on the part of your party that Txec, because he offered amendments to your bill, agreed with its principle. There is a big problem that Txec wants to prove that he is non-partisan as SoS; but to debate this bill publicly will make him look partisan. Real Catch-22 stuff.

Can we move forward from here?

Let me tell you why I do *not* support this bill being Clarked:

- because it was presented to this Committee as a "fait accompli"; after being moved by a TNC Senator; after the TNC internally voted to move forward with this, even though they knew it flouted the terms of the agreement, and even though it undermined the Seneschál at the time. At the behest of someone who had quit the party in protest at the agreement, and eventually succeeded in undermining his replacement.

I will tell you plainly that the internal chatter in the Free Democrats is that we have got nothing from (temporarily) giving up a seat to allow the TNC to take power. Hell, we got the Seneschal whom we supported into office undermined until he renounced. Worse, from what Brenéir has been saying in the Shoutbox, if we allow him to retrospectively condemn Txec for having temporarily taken over as FreeDems president, his next target is Lüc - apparently his theory is that all Civil Service members should be prohibited from being politically active. (And it's just a coincidence that the targets are FreeDems, I assume.)

I cannot imagine any way that I will agree to this bill being Clarked, unless my TNC comrades come up with something pretty damn solid that I can take back to my party as a win.

Thanks for your interest, I'm waiting to see whether anyone else has any suggested amendments.

I suppose we have two items to discuss, under the terms of the agreement:

1) the Brenéir/Mximo bill currently before the CRL;
2) my own OrgLaw amendment re: Cunstaváis

You will note that the current Senior Justice suggested a much longer list of ex-officio members, but considering there are only 2 merit-based members currently, I think that this suffices in the short term.

Quote from: Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB on January 09, 2024, 11:24:07 AMEnlarging the Sabor with some ex-officio offices might be a good idea also, though I do believe that permanent membership should continue to be merit based.

Right. Check this out

BE IT ENACTED that El Lexhatx L.7, which currently reads:

Quote7. Among the first acts of his reign the King shall name a Privy Council (Sabôr, in Talossan) consisting of several Privy Councillors (called Guaïrs in Talossan) with whom he shall consult whenever possible on all matters of grave importance to the Kingdom, and whose duty shall be to offer the King the benefit of their individual and collective wisdom and advice. The King shall take care to include in this council those citizens with the longest and deepest connections to the ongoing historical life of the Kingdom, in particular those who are personally familiar with the homeland itself. Should at any time they deem it wise or necessary to do so, Privy Councillors, acting alone or in concert with fellow councillors, may publicly issue a "Letter to the King" about any matter of grave importance to the Kingdom. The Privy Councillors shall serve at the pleasure of the King. Privy Councillors shall be entitled to add the honorific initials "GST" to their signatures, for "Guaïr del Sabôr Talossán."

shall be amended with the addition of the following paragraph:

QuoteThe Seneschál and the Senior Justice of the Cort pü Inalt shall be Guaïrs ex officio.

WHEREAS Cunstaváis serve for an indefinite term, which encourages a do-nothing attitude:

BE IT ENACTED that Organic Law XI.4 be amended from the current:

QuoteThe King shall appoint a Cunstavál (or Constable) for each Province. Until such time as the King or Cunstavál proclaims a provincial constitution providing otherwise, a Province's Cunstavál shall serve as Military Governor and may exercise all the powers of the provincial government. No Cunstavál shall proclaim any provincial constitution, nor shall any province pass a constitutional amendment, which conflicts with any provision of this Organic Law or with any other national law, or grants to the Cunstavál royal powers less extensive than those granted to the King on the national level (except that the provincial royal powers need not include a right of dissolution if provincial elections are held concurrently with Cosâ elections). No Cunstavál shall proclaim any provincial constitution which has not been approved by a referendum in which at least either a majority of all citizens of the province or a two-thirds majority of votes actually cast is in favor of the constitution. No person shall be at the same time Cunstavál of one province and the leader of the provincial government of another province.

to read in its entirety as follows:

Quote1. Every royal power that the King possesses as granted by this Organic Law shall also apply to the provincial governments; with the exception that the provincial royal powers need not include a right of dissolution if provincial elections are held concurrently with Cosâ elections.

2. The King may appoint a Cunstavál (or Constable) for any Province to exercise these powers on his behalf, for a term not exceeding three years. The King may reappoint a Cunstavál. The terms of existing Cunstaváis shall expire no later than three years after the adoption of this amendment.

3. Until such time as the King or Cunstavál proclaims a provincial constitution providing otherwise, the King or Cunstavál shall serve as Military Governor and may exercise all the powers of the provincial government.

4. The King or Cunstavál shall not proclaim any provincial constitution, nor shall any province pass a constitutional amendment, which conflicts with any provision of this Organic Law or with any other national law.

5. The King or Cunstavál shall not proclaim any provincial constitution which has not been approved by a referendum in which at least either a majority of all citizens of the province or a two-thirds majority of votes actually cast is in favor of the constitution.

6. No person shall be at the same time Cunstavál of one province and the leader of the provincial government of another province.

Quote from: owenedwards on January 17, 2024, 08:59:37 PMI don't know off the top of my head what the Wisconsin Criminal Code - as our great antecedent - says on this (or rather matters like this), but that may be worth a look. This does presume something as to the nature of a position of trust, rendering adults in Talossa analogous to teachers - which I assume if your intent.

Well, not all adults. I am thinking in particular about government officials (down to TalossAssistants) who might have some influence over a teenager's Talossan future and be in a position to misuse that influence.

Well, I can field this question. The Standing Committee never started work because the TNC never finished naming its two members. I'm in contact with the new Seneschal to see whether this can be progressed.

Okay, I've finally done it

Trials in Absentia
Abuse of Trust

After a lot of thought, I've decided we don't need the nolo contendere plea; the Public Defender should just suck it up and plead guilty if necessary. But the CpI itself can amend the Hearing Rules of Procedure if they see fit.

BE IT ENACTED by the King, Senäts and Cosă in Ziu assembled that the following section shall be added to El Lexhatx A.7.3.1:

Quote7.3.1.1. "Sexual violence" shall include abuse of trust, where a Talossan citizen over the age of 18 initiates sexual conduct (physically or by means of words or images) with any person under the age of 18; and the citizen over 18 is in a position of supervision, authority or tutelage over said person under 18.

WHEREAS, given Talossa's unique nature in that it is all too easy to flee justice, it seems proper that criminal trials should be able to proceed without the defendant's presence;

AND WHEREAS this presents unique problems to ensure that the defendant gets a fair trial;

BE IT ENACTED by the King, Senäts and Cosă in Ziu assembled that the following section be added to El Lexhatx G.6.

Quote6.12. Trials in absentia. If the accused or their representative, being properly informed as stipulated by law, fails to respond to or participate in criminal proceedings as set out above, then a Public Defender shall be appointed to act for them. This Public Defender shall exercise all rights granted to the accused by Organic and statute law.

6.12.1. The accused shall have the right at any time during criminal proceedings "in absentia", to dismiss the Public Defender and to take over their own defence. In such a case, the accused may request that any evidence that had been presented in their absence be presented again; where this is not possible, they will be shown records of it and may comment on it.

6.12.2.  Where the case has ended with an enforceable judgment, the convicted party may request a fresh trial within two calendar months of the delivery of the judgment to them. The fresh trial may not lead to an outcome that would be less favorable to the defendant than the outcome of the previous in absentia trial.

Okay, the big thing I'd want revising is the language in the Terps section (1.2 et seq in your numbering). It refers to "PQ" and "c (PQ)" and I don't even remember what those were supposed to be - layers of editing, I suppose.

I'm glad this idea has been rescued from the bit-bucket. Any chance we can get something together for the next Clark?