Quote from: Dr. Txec Róibeard dal Nordselvă, Esq., O.SPM, SMM on March 31, 2021, 09:11:44 AM
As I don't speak Talossan fluently, I think this is officially appointing Istefan. Can someone confirm please?

Yes, it is.  Sorry, I should have included the English.  I have been trying to include Talossan as much as possible in my official duties.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on March 28, 2021, 05:50:18 PM
I hereby recommend the Regent to appoint @Istefan Perþonest to the EC.

Com'el rexhaint per la Coronă, perventüră apüntéu @Istefan Perþonest as ün cumiziuneir dal Cumiziun Electoral, es lo comandéu à servar el Legeu Orgänic es sieu Regeu àl miglhor da sieux capacitaes.

              —  Sir Alexandreu, Rexhaint d'Ian Regeu

D:na Seneschal, a question: would this bill make euthanasia illegal for some Talossans?

Quote from: C. M. Siervicül on March 27, 2021, 06:00:08 PM

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on March 27, 2021, 03:36:03 PM
Hahahahaha, this is exactly the opposite of what your offsider Cresti said, which was that we needed something like that section, but he objected strenuously to the first two sections  ;D

Well, we are different people with independent thoughts. :)

Quote from: Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on March 27, 2021, 04:16:02 PM
Respectfully, I think you are confused, D:na Seneschal.  When I say that I object to the "third provision," I refer to the new A.3 being proposed in the second part of this law.

Actually, Dame Miestra was correct, at least with respect to the part of the Bill I was talking about. Of course, when I said "something along the lines of section 3," I didn't mean "section 3 exactly." What I see as the essential point of the proposed new A.3 is a way to address people who commit heinous crimes outside of Talossa that are not prosecutable within Talossa, an issue for which our current laws make no provision. That's an entirely different focus from the rest of the bill, which throws out our current criminal code and effectively replaces it with nothing. I do think we need a way to respond to problems like former citizen Canun.

If we have a citizen who turns out to be a child molester or human trafficker or mass shooter or something, we should have a way to keep them from dragging the whole country down if word of their association with Talossa were to get out. I do think any such provision should be more narrowly targeted and have more safeguards than the proposed A.3, and may very well require an OrgLaw amendment (and possibly even an amendment to the Covenants).

As far as I can tell, you don't like eliminating the current criminal code stuff and replacing it with vague and contradictory principles left to the whim of the legal system, and I have the same concerns.  I guess our objections are different in the sense that you focused on the elimination and I focused on the replacement, but I have to admit I don't understand this particular semantic focus.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on March 27, 2021, 03:36:03 PM
Hahahahaha, this is exactly the opposite of what your offsider Cresti said, which was that we needed something like that section, but he objected strenuously to the first two sections  ;D

Respectfully, I think you are confused, D:na Seneschal.  When I say that I object to the "third provision," I refer to the new A.3 being proposed in the second part of this law.  Maybe I should have been more clear with my phrasing, but I thought context made my meaning apparent. When Sir Cresti said that he thought "section 3 of this bill is sorely needed," I think he was referring to the fairly unobjectionable third part of the bill, which states, "3. The sections of Title A of El Lexhatx shall be subsequently renumbered consecutively."  I believe this is clear if you read past his first sentence in that post.

Sir Cresti indeed aptly raises many of my same concerns:

QuoteIf the idea is to replace the entirety of our current criminal code with prosecutions based directly on the Covenant of Rights and Freedoms, I don't see how that's a viable solution. I'm not aware of any other country that allows direct criminal prosecutions for violating similarly broad statements of constitutional principles as are contained in, say, the Sixth Covenant.  If such a broad criminal law were to be enacted in the United States, it would be struck down as a violation of due process, as the US Constitution's due process protections have been held to require that criminal offenses must be defined with sufficient definiteness that ordinary people can understand what conduct is prohibited and in a manner that does not encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.

I appreciate you taking the time to engage, but I believe you are mistaken.  Even if you were not, though, I don't think it would be a mark in the bill's favor if there were another set of serious problems.

A happy holiday to all who celebrate today!  Talossa's Cestours have a long Jewish tradition, with the Jewish Museum of Milwaukee showcasing some of that rich history to people who visit it in Maritiimi-Maxhestic.  Their YouTube channel also offers Museum Moments, a series of short videos which relay information about key moments in Jewish history, usually with a Milwaukee/Talossa theme.  If you have a chance, visit and learn.  And a happy festival to all on this Passover!

              —  Sir Alexandreu, Rexhaint d'Ian Regeu

Þonoreschti Membreux dal Cosa es Senators:

A bill has been proposed and presented for your consideration in the upcoming Clark entitled "The Talossan Law Repatriation (Crimes Repugnant to Talossanity) Bill," sponsored by our Most Honourable Seneschal, Dama Miestră Schivă.  I am here to object to this bill with my most strident opposition.  It addresses an important issue, establishing an entirely indigenous Talossan law.  But I urge you to reject the bill, and return to work on the problem with more thoughtful consideration.  This proposal is deeply flawed.

Much of the proposal is unobjectionable.  My concerns are centered on its third provision:

Quote3. A Talossan citizen who is 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, shall be guilty of the crime of "repugnant behaviour bringing Talossa into disrepute", and be liable to a punishment of severity in strict proportion to the severity of the said offence.

My objections are manifold and serious.

The proposed law is inorganic.  Talossan citizens are afforded rights of due process, but little actual process is afforded by this provision.  If charged under this provision, a citizen found guilty by a foreign court is automatically deemed guilty of a Talossan crime.  While they might contest the fact of their conviction, or might contest the "repugnancy" of the crime in question, they have no opportunity to challenge the actual conviction itself.  That's a serious problem for those Talossans who live in places with judicial systems that are questionable or flawed.  Further, the law as written could possibly make things such as euthanasia illegal, in direct contravention of the Covenants.

The proposed law is unethical.  It would leave it entirely unclear what would sort of behavior would be illegal under Talossan law.  Any conviction for any crime could hypothetically be subject to prosecution under Talossan law.  The Government is unlikely to seize upon flimsy crimes such as jaywalking, but what about more serious crimes such as tax evasion?  Is that illegal under Talossan law?  No one could say for sure if this bill were to pass, since it would depend on the whims of the Government and judge to decide what they thought was particularly "repugnant."   The Covenant's theoretical prohibition of "activities which injure, endanger, risk or compromise the physical health, privacy, or tranquility of other persons" is very broad if considered as a crime.

The proposed law is impractical.  Is abortion a crime under this law?  Unclear!  The Eighth Covenant guarantees it, but the Sixth Covenant overrides the Eighth!  We've never considered the Covenant of Rights and Freedoms to be a list of crimes, and it doesn't make sense when you read it that way.  In some places, for example, affirmative action is illegal.  Is that a Talossan crime?  Maybe!  Is it illegal to have a scholarship fund for LGBT youth?  It sure is in Iran, and maybe in Talossa!  If you're a politician, is it a crime not to announce a dirty secret from your past "which reasonable voters might find helpful, profitable, or informative?"  Maybe!

I will be grateful for any questions that this body might have, or for the assistance of those who can find ways in which my reasoning is in error.  I repeat that I favor the overall goal being sought; my concerns are only with this particular approach, which is fatally flawed.  I urge you to reject it.  Discussion of the bill as it has evolved can be seen in this initial thread here and then in the Hopper here.

              —  Sir Alexandreu, Rexhaint d'Ian Regeu

I see that the Seneschal has Clarked this without change, which is unfortunate.  I believe that section three remains irredeemably flawed.

Quote3. A Talossan citizen who is 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, shall be guilty of the crime of "repugnant behaviour bringing Talossa into disrepute", and be liable to a punishment of severity in strict proportion to the severity of the said offence.

The proposed law is inorganic.  Talossan citizens are afforded rights of due process, but little actual process is afforded by this provision.  If charged under this provision, a citizen found guilty by a foreign court is automatically deemed guilty of a Talossan crime.  While they might contest the fact of their conviction, or might contest the "repugnancy" of the crime in question, they have no opportunity to challenge the actual conviction itself.  That's a serious problem for those Talossans who live in places with judicial systems that are questionable or flawed.  Further, the law as written could possibly make things such as euthanasia illegal, in direct contravention of the Covenants.

The proposed law is unethical.  It would leave it entirely unclear what would sort of behavior would be illegal under Talossan law.  Any conviction for any crime could hypothetically be subject to prosecution under Talossan law.  The Government is unlikely to seize upon flimsy crimes such as jaywalking, but what about more serious crimes such as tax evasion?  Is that illegal under Talossan law?  No one could say for sure if this bill were to pass, since it would depend on the whims of the Government and judge to decide what they thought was particularly "repugnant."   The Covenant's theoretical prohibition of "activities which injure, endanger, risk or compromise the physical health, privacy, or tranquility of other persons" is very broad if considered as a crime.

The proposed law is impractical.  Is abortion a crime under this law?  Unclear!  The Eighth Covenant guarantees it, but the Sixth Covenant overrides the Eighth!  We've never considered the Covenant of Rights and Freedoms to be a list of crimes, and it doesn't make sense when you read it that way.  In some places, for example, affirmative action is illegal.  Is that a Talossan crime?  Maybe!  Is it illegal to have a scholarship fund for LGBT youth?  It sure is in Iran, and maybe in Talossa!  If you're a politician, is it a crime not to announce a dirty secret from your past "which reasonable voters might find helpful, profitable, or informative?"  Maybe!

I will address the Ziu to this effect very soon, in much the same words, and will refer further comment there.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on March 24, 2021, 06:01:59 PM
Certainly, hitherto, Talossan jurisprudence has copied United States judicial practice. As you previously and correctly stated:

Quote from: Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on January 12, 2021, 01:48:24 PM
Yes, the modern court system has been bent inexorably towards the court system with which most of the judges in office have been familiar.

And it is precisely this that I seek to replace with either a fully indigenous Talossan common law; or an indigenous Civil Law system. I see this as patriotism. What is the point of being Talossa if we are going to act like the Big Neighbour, or to assume that the way the Big Neighbour does things should be our way. It also removes the unfair advantage that trained US legal professionals have in a system which operates as a "toy version" of the system they spend their livelihoods in.

Once again I reiterate: I am taking option A only because option B would be far more work.

Yes, I believe I already said that we share the common goal of a fully indigenous Talossan law?  But that goal is only a mooncast shadow when compared to the roaring sun of "people shouldn't have to guess at what might be a crime."

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on March 24, 2021, 05:15:01 PM

Quote from: Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on March 24, 2021, 04:46:34 PM
I think that one of the two of us is confused about stare decisis. My understanding is that this is a principle which establishes that precedent should largely govern the decisions of a court. If courts have followed and established principal or rule for deciding a particular set of matters, a judge should continue to do so absent compelling reason. I have never understood it to mean that a judge could, for example, declare new crimes on the basis of existing principles.

Quote from: Wikipedia on "Common Law"The first definition of "common law" given in Black's Law Dictionary, 10th edition, 2014, is "The body of law derived from judicial decisions, rather than from statutes or constitutions... arising from the traditional and inherent authority of courts to define what the law is, even in the absence of an underlying statute or regulation."

I think that some of what you clipped out when quoting is actually helpful :)

QuoteThis first connotation can be further differentiated into:

(a) general common law
arising from the traditional and inherent authority of courts to define what the law is, even in the absence of an underlying statute or regulation. Examples include most criminal law and procedural law before the 20th century, and even today, most contract law and the law of torts.
(b) interstitial common law
court decisions that analyze, interpret and determine the fine boundaries and distinctions in law promulgated by other bodies. This body of common law, sometimes called "interstitial common law", includes judicial interpretation of the Constitution, of legislative statutes, and of agency regulations, and the application of law to specific facts.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on March 24, 2021, 05:15:01 PM
Stare decisis literally historically has meant that judges make law, including new crimes, until overruled by statute.

Would you please provide an example of a Talossa judge inventing a new crime and punishing someone for it?  I am always eager to learn.

Beyond that, to be clear, I think you are wrong.  As far as I understand it, stare decisis is a legal principle which states only that it should generally be the policy of a judge to abide by precedent in interpreting the law.  Believing in the principle of stare decisis does not mean that I think it is a good idea for a judge to be able to invent new laws from whole cloth, and the specific language and extremely long-lasting policy of the Talossan judiciary has never interpreted it that way.  There's some wiggle room here, since even the idea of what is "law" is kind of fuzzy.  I mean, the courts have traditionally given enormous deference to participants in any proceeding in terms of scheduling, and an expectation of long deadlines and great leniency has become so enshrined that it could be argued that it represents a kind of law which supplements the written law, eg that interstitial common law which makes it possible for statutes to be open to some flexible interpretation.  What is a "reasonable chance of obtaining a conviction?"  Well, the corts fill in the details there, and other corts are generally expected to abide by previous decisions (eg stare decesis).  Common law!

But barring one exception that you personally found outrageous, judges have not invented new laws in Talossa, but rather interpreted them.  This is because the Talossan legal tradition is overwhelmingly influenced by the American tradition.  If you glance over the rulings handed down, you will find that almost every decision is guided by an attempt to interpret the existing statutory or Organic law whenever possible, making rules and sorting through ambiguities with the goal of getting it exactly clear what the law might be.

It is the duty of every component of a good legal system, whenever possible, to make the law clear to citizens.  Whenever the legality of an action is unclear, that's a failing of the system.  Often it's unavoidable, since no legislator or judge can anticipate every permutation of every situation.  But the goal should always be clarity.  No citizen should wonder whether or not something is a crime.

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on March 24, 2021, 04:36:40 PM
And Cresti wrote 35RZ21, which actually effectively did the job of incorporating Wisconsin law into our law, because 31RZ14 was ineffective due to KR1's legal ignorance (there is no "civil code" of Wisconsin).

Speaking of legal ignorance, the cry of "we must know exactly what our laws are" is incompatible with the principles of the Common Law, of which I know that the Regent is a supporter because he insists on stare decisis. Stare decisis is the principle of "judge-made law", that the law is as much in old Cort decisions as it is in statute.

The alternative is a Civil Code, whereby only what is written in positive statute is a crime, and if it's not in positive statute law no Court can rule on it. That is also a good option, and I encourage someone to write up a bill enshrining it; but if Talossans prefer to stick to Common Law principle, my bill does fine.

Yes, I think that Sir Cresti helped clean up the language and fix about a thousand statutes in his time. It's pretty amazing.

I think that one of the two of us is confused about stare decisis. My understanding is that this is a principle which establishes that precedent should largely govern the decisions of a court. If courts have followed and established principal or rule for deciding a particular set of matters, a judge should continue to do so absent compelling reason. I have never understood it to mean that a judge could, for example, declare new crimes on the basis of existing principles.

But this is a semantic argument. Accordingly, it's pointless. Can we just establish as a principal of this discussion that we would all like to have a system of government and set of laws which allows every citizen to know what is a crime or not? That specific guarantee is in the Covenants, so I didn't think this was controversial!

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on March 24, 2021, 03:07:38 PM
Am I right or wrong in my recollection that it was your idea to write the Wisconsin Code into our own laws in the first place?

Well, according to you...

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on January 12, 2021, 01:43:01 PM
All right, time for some archeology. Wisconsin law was written into our law (at the proposal of KR1) by 31RZ14, which reads in part:

QuoteWHEREAS under Talossan law, there are no actual, legal prohibitions against murder, rape, robbery, or any other crimes...

Also, I honestly think this process would be improved if we stopped trying to skip steps and first agreed on the principles involved, which I think is possible! I think we all agree that we would prefer that our laws be indigenous. Surely we can all also agree that they must be specific, so citizens know exactly what is against the law and what isn't?

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on March 24, 2021, 03:07:38 PM
Am I right or wrong in my recollection that it was your idea to write the Wisconsin Code into our own laws in the first place? And am I right or wrong that the Wisconsin Code has never been used to punish a crime in Talossa, but on the other hand that you personally have relied on Wisconsin legal briefs in your representations before the Corts?

You're mistaken.  Off the top of my head, I know that a citizen was convicted and punished for a violation of §947.0125, and I found in a few minutes where your Government brought charges under §939.10, §939.30, §939.31, §946.10, §946.61, and §943.70, as well as relying on Wisconsin judicial precedent in the same and other cases.  Other convictions on other provisions in Wisconsin law have been prosecuted and convicted in the past by prosecutors, as well.

Acting as appointed Regent to His Majesty King John, I am honoured to receive these presentations.  I will consult with His Majesty directly about whether he intends to revive the junior order of knighthood, l'Urderi del Bicoloreu, which is currently dormant.

A date for the ceremony will be set by the end of this month.

Quote from: Béneditsch Ardpresteir on February 10, 2021, 08:53:17 PM
Wow!

One used to get ID Cards earlier?

I used to send them to any citizen who requested one.