Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on June 07, 2021, 08:32:12 PM
I dread dead law, which is why I built el Lexhatx in the first place

... you built El Lex because it was a demand of my political tendency over several elections, which if I remember right the then-RUMP government opposed, and if you didn't do it we would have done it ourselves! :D

QuoteIf someone wanted to sit down and make a list of crimes, it would be tedious, but perfectly easy.

If it's a mystery except to those who want to sit down and do tedious searching, it's a mystery for the purposes of the nation as a whole. One approach to a true consensus solution would be for those who think WI law is "good enough" to make such a list, and then we can "pick and choose" which ones we want to keep in Talossan law. (Marcel finding the definition of perjury, which seems a perfectly good one for our purposes, is a good start.) But an alternative is to write an indigenous replacement from first principles, which I've asked people not involved in this debate so far to think about, and which is being discussed off-Witt for now.

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial on June 07, 2021, 08:27:32 PM

QuoteIt's not.  The Eighth Covenant provides that "consensual sexual activity" cannot be taxed or burdened or outlawed.

this confusion could be easily avoided if we just had a list of acts that should be deemed illegal, bypassing the need to go through the Wisconsin criminal code and also the Organic Law and the Lexhatx to make sure nothing contradicts each other.

Indeed. The current system is a system of "mystery crimes" until someone can make a list of every single thing that is criminalised by the sections of the WI Code currently in force in Talossa. We, collectively, have a lot of work to do either way - all I want to make clear is that the status quo is not an option.

The very best thing about this renewed debate is that we have up until the end of July (at the earliest) to come up with something better than 55RZ24, but that we can be sure that at least Wisconsin law will be gone as the default position. I have faith in all of us :D

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on June 07, 2021, 07:45:56 PM
We shouldn't build a legal system where potential crimes are a mystery

"Repugnant behaviour bringing Talossa into disrepute" isn't a mystery. It's within the discretion of judges and open to interpretation, sure. But I think it's sufficiently flexible that it can cover any kind of horrible crime that we might not think to make illegal in Talossa. Importantly it covers also crimes that we can't make illegal in Talossa because there is no way that, for example, we could ensure basic human rights for both plaintiff and defendant in a murder or rape case. Talossan statute law should only cover things we could safely try in Talossan courts and get a trustworthy verdict. And the only way we can determine that such a crime has been committed outside Talossa is to "trust" a macronational court or system, which IMHO has to be done on a case-by-base basis, not saying, for example, "we can trust French courts but not Singaporean courts" etc.

Conversely, we have to get rid of Wisconsin law precisely because "potential crimes are a mystery". If you knew that sex work was illegal in Talossa before now, then... wow, congratulations, because no-one else even thought of it.

QuoteOur judges aren't infallible.  After all, weren't you outraged over the outcome of the Pinatsch case?

"Guy Incognito" was found not guilty in what I felt was a truly bizarre decision. But if all bad judicial decisions are biased to letting the guilty go free, rather than the reverse, I'll live with it.

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial on June 07, 2021, 07:24:38 PM
prostitution is criminalised by Wis. Stat. § 944.30, which means it's currently illegal in Talossa as well if it occurs between two citizenstc etc, which would only make matters more complicated. So my idea sucks, but its the best one I have currently.

There you go - another argument for repealing Wisconsin law! Thanks.

My point about the Covenants is that you couldn't bring a case against a Talossan for sex work under my bill, but now that I know you can bring one under Wisconsin law, that just makes the reform more important. Did you see AD's mournful little fable about the Talossan who got a night in jail for protest and could theoretically be legally harassed by other Talossans, assuming a prosecutor and a judge who wanted to be real pieces of miéida? Well, ha ha, because that might happen right now if anyone of us is doing sex work.

(BTW, yeah, "prostitution" is considered pejorative in contemporary English, but no offence taken.)

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on June 07, 2021, 07:12:04 PM
pretty much every imaginable crime could violate the Sixth Covenant.

OrgLaw VIII.6 declares that "The Cort pü Inalt, and any other cort existing under this article, shall interpret all matters through the lens of the Covenants of Rights and Freedoms". If "every imaginable crime violates the Sixth Covenant", then think a minute about what you've just argued about the very basis of Talossan law. A possible reading of the 6C would be "if you annoy someone, you have no rights under Talossan law". And the OrgLaw requires that our Corts interpret all matters through this lens.

Admittedly, my bill presumes that the Uppermost Cort is comprised of justices who will apply common sense, natural justice and community mores in making their decisions. But if you're right and we can't expect the Cort to do that, then we have a much bigger problem.

Quote
Do you agree to these goals as things that you would like to accomplish with the bill?  If you think one of them is bad, would you please say so now?

* We want to criminalize some stuff that matters mostly to us and that we can actually address.
* We want to be able to kick out people that do other stuff that's so bad we don't want them around.
* We want due process to protect everyone accused of both of those sets of things.
* We want to have only law we write and control.
* We want citizens to be able to know what's a crime in Talossa and what is not.

No, all those are good. I think my bill covers some of them, not all; but because we can't trust the King not to veto, I won't shift from my bill until I'm sure the alternative will get through.

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial on June 07, 2021, 07:14:31 PM
prostitution is illegal in Wisconsin punishable by a fine of up to 6666¤40 and/or 9 months in prison, but perfectly legal in Germany. What would we do about things like this?

Tell me which part of the Covenant of Rights and Freedoms "prostitution" (i.e. sex work) is repugnant to, first.

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial on June 07, 2021, 05:38:39 PM
Different countries' legal systems are pretty diverse, so wouldn't relying on credible outside verdicts require at least some kind of conversion key or something?

Now you're getting into the weeds of "how can we really know anything, ever". If you're saying that there is no way that Talossa can determine that the court which convicted I. Canún of raping children was credible, then I give up, there is no point to any of this.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on June 07, 2021, 06:37:17 PM
I know you're trying to make light of the possibility of abuse here

I certainly am! I'll quote from Senator Plätschisch in the last debate over this: "I think the Regent's concerns would be quite valid if Talossa were a country with a multitude of citizens that actually threw people in prison. Given we are really just a few dozen citizens who all pretty much know each other, with no enforcement capability, the possibility of a serious abuse of this law seems too remote for me to spend too long caring about."

QuoteIf someone's ever spent a night in jail for disorderly conduct because they went to a protest, then got time served in the morning

... then that doesn't matter, because none of that fits the definition of "convicted in another jurisdiction, by a credible judicial authority, of an offence incurring penal servitude which is repugnant to the values expressed in the Covenant of Rights and Freedoms".

But no matter - write your alternative bill, and if it's good enough I'll vote for it and withdraw my own.  The whole point is that this "kludgy, janky" fix which only US-qualified lawyers could properly operate would be there foreever if I hadn't forced the issue. You're welcome.

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial on June 07, 2021, 05:02:30 PM
About that. I'm not sure if I read this right, but it seems to me like Talossan courts cannot prosecute or punish a citizen who commits a crime against a non-citizen (Lexh A.3), which seems like an extreme oversight, because otherwise that crime would be covered by Wis. Stat. § 948.02, punishable by banishment, revocation of citizenship and civil disability for up to 180 years.

That's right. Others have pointed out that Talossa simply doesn't have the resources to properly try serious crimes in such a way that both justice could be done and the defendant's rights could be respected. Which is why it is ridiculous to have things like "murder, rape and robbery" (as KR1 put it) in Talossa's laws altogether. Which is why our only choice when deciding Talossan sanctions is to rely on the verdicts of credible (I put that word in the law advisedly, i.e. not the kangaroo courts of authoritarian regimes) outside courts.

... aw man, the more I look through El Lexhatx Section A the more I find out that it's based on the very very American distinction of "felony" and "misdemeanour" for grading various crimes. So the companion statute to indigenously define various crimes will have to either take that on board, or replace it, whichever is less annoying.

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial on June 07, 2021, 05:06:43 PM
The statute in question begins with the words "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 any of the following, whether legally constituted or exercising powers as if legally constitutedis guilty of a Class H felony", which sound like what youre asking for.

Thanks for that - that's the basis for a Talossan Perjury Bill right there, lol.

QuoteI'm afraid I'd have to sift through 173 years worth of court cases to find everything that might be relevant (a problem with Common Law in general) so probably not.

That's precisely right. My opponents want a Common Law system based on stare decisis. Incorporating Wisconsin law into Talossan law means that Wisconsin precedent becomes relevant. Only actual trained lawyers in the Wisconsin jurisdiction are capable of doing that. Cresti himself commonly brought up Wisconsin precedents in Talossan court cases; and yet some people who defend this transclusion of Wisconsin law also say that "Talossan law must be open to amateurs".

I've suggested a Civil Law system where only the text of statute matters, but that wasn't popular.

An additional problem here is because of how the royal veto works, I have to reintroduce this bill exactly the same as passed by the last Ziu. I mean, I could "tweak" the exact provisions of what kind of extra-Talossan crimes might be prosecutable in Talossa; another good amendment might be to bring in a Public Defender system for people who can't represent themselves in Talossan court (because they're in jail or whatever). But because the (current) King's vetoes are so capricious - he almost always waits until the Ziu debate is over, then pulls out a veto if he feels like it - then there's no point trying an amended bill which will probably just be vetoed itself on relatively spurious grounds.

Furthermore, I have reached out to certain heavyweight Talossan legal beagles to write statute law on "perjury, harassment, counterfeiting and bribery", so hopefully that project will be coming soon. As Marcel says you can Google it, but only if you know what you're looking for. Before I started this process I had no idea that such things were even covered by the sections of Wisconsin law written into Talossan law - El Lex does not list "perjury. harrassment, counterfieting and bribery" among the issues covered by Wisconsin law in Talossa. I have to also add that Marcel could find out what the penalties for perjury are in Wisconsin. Since I'm too busy right now, could Marcel also Google what the legal definition of perjury is under Wisconsin law? And all the legal issues (including judicial precedent) involved in finding someone guilty of perjury, that Talossan courts would currently have to know?

Further, these issues were only raised after the original version of this bill was Clarked - by the very same trained lawyer who included these sections into Talossan law in the first place, a fellow who is relatively inactive these days. I feel like I'm going mad sometimes trying to explain why it was not right that there were whole sections of Talossan law that only Cresti knew existed. And anyway - as Marcel points out - the penalties are inappropriate for Talossa, which is a good enough reason in itself for removing these sections.

We also have to remember that under Talossan law, the Courts can't do a single thing until someone brings a case. There's a lot of effort going into thinking up "edge cases" whereby some Talossan lawyer hates someone so much that, when he finds out they got 10 days in jail for making an audio porn tape*, he gets together a case to get them the Talossan death penalty; and then the UC, who hates this person just as much, ignores the bit of the new bill which says "strict proportion" and banishes them or declares it legal to hunt them for sport or something. As opposed to the current system, where we can't do jack about it as a Kingdom when we find out a prominent citizen raped little children.

* actually happened to the late Frank Zappa, he was entrapped

Very excited to hear of any specific amendments people want to suggest.

Quick quiz, Glüc: do you know what Talossa's current laws against harassment, perjury, etc. are? No you don't, because they're not in El Lexhatx, they're (apparently) in Wisconsin law somewhere, and AD actively mocked me because I didn't already know that.

It's the incredible hypocrisy and dishonesty that gets me. "With judicial discretion, people won't know what the law is". And we don't know what the law is now, unless we know exactly what sections to look up in Wisconsin law. Or even how to look things up in Wisconsin law in the first place. AD will come back and say that that's not a burden on average Talossans, and if you agree with that... well.

As we found out with the question of the monarchy, if people like the status quo, they will not engage in good faith to change things unless you give them a worse alternative. So: have at it.

It is my intention to resubmit this bill to the First (real) Clark of the 56th Cosa. Note that under Organic Law VII.11, it will not be subject to royal veto.

However, I will happily withdraw it before then in favour of any other bill which accomplishes both of the below:

(a) removes Wisconsin law from El Lexhatx;
(b) takes into account the objections made by the King in his veto decision, and Sir Cresti and everyone's favourite Baron in the thread above;

and is able to get a majority and avoid another Royal veto. Removing Wisconsin law is that much of a priority for me. I will also note that I will totally support any bill which makes "harassment, perjury, bribery or counterfeiting" crimes under indigenous Talossan law as a companion to this.