Welcome to Wittenberg!

See likes

See likes given/taken


Posts you liked

Pages: [1] 2 3 4
Post info No. of Likes
Re: The Fair Warning Act To be snarky, I wouldn't expect Senator Guy Incognito to have the same ideas as the rest of us on what "real" means  :D
January 09, 2020, 08:20:54 PM
1
Re: Comment on the Panache case
"Indeed, it can be argued that if a trial did occur, it was rather loose."

Oddly, if the Cort is of the mind that no trial occurred, then there could be no acquittal.  So I find it hard to reconcile the two.  It is implied, of course, that the lower cort erred significantly in its application of law.

That said, in my professional practice, when I have lost or won a motion, I do not really care to relitigate the matter outside of the courtroom.  So that's that. 

In any event, I thank the Cort, the Government, and the Defendant for their hard work on this case.  But I remind everyone involved that this matter is not binding, and to the extent that this provides some persuasive authority, it's that the lower cort's application of the law was erroneous and Panache got off on a technicality.

I was merely reiterating some of the arguments made in the case in summary. I believe a trial did occur so the "loosely" reference was my own thinking.

February 26, 2020, 02:11:33 PM
1
Re: Comment on the Panache case
Another comment: if we had a functioning National Bar in this country, I would wish that counsel for both the Government and the Respondent* would have been subject to discipline (eg. barred from taking the next UC case) for regular outbursts and talking-out-of-turn in the just-concluded appeal.

In other words: we need a functioning National Bar in this country, because the lawyers are unruly.

(* You can't bar me, I'm the Seneschal  8) )

If I make it on the Cort, this is on my list. The Cort is supposed to set up the bar. I'm sure I could find support.among the justices to get this going.

You have my support and I do hope the king ratifies your election onto the Cort. I and a couple others have been regularly admitted to the bar after successfully passing the old bar exam that Dame Litz once administered. I had at one point offered to take up her work on the Bar but as with many things, this never happened.

If we had a Bar, I would argue that in order to argue before the UC one would need to be admitted or recognized in some way.

February 26, 2020, 02:16:32 PM
1
Re: Judicial Reform of 2020
I would strongly caution against Clarking a bill that has been so substantively changed two days before the Clark is set to begin.

I honestly think the whole thing could stand another month of discussion and I would urge it not to be Clarked this time. If V is on the Cort he can continue to help with discussion in the Hopper.

Quote
Now, to my objections. I frankly don't see the problem with calling UC judges "Justices".

As far as I can tell, V thinks that that title gives judges "delusions of grandeur" that they are entitled to ignore the law if they personally consider it contrary to "justice" as seen in re: "Sebastian Panache".

February 28, 2020, 02:02:43 PM
1
Re: Judicial Reform of 2020 Ah, I'm stupid. I kept referencing the original VIII.1 in the 2017 OrgLaw, instead of the proposed VIII.3 in your bill, so I was convinced the math yielded 7 Justices. For the record, I agree with your rationale 100%.
February 28, 2020, 04:26:51 PM
1
With today being February 29th... ...and hence the last day of February, by (old) OrgLaw X.6 (new VII.11), the King is deemed to have signed all bills that passed both houses. Therefore:

- Welcome to Talossa, @Seiken Zeap !

- Congratulations to (edit: for) your elevation to the Uppermost Court, @Viteu !

- and last but not least, with 54RZ12's passage, 53RZ18 and 53RZ22 officially become active, so @GV should get ready for some scribin' :P

February 29, 2020, 11:50:27 AM
1
Re: With today being February 29th... Congratulations to my new colleague on Uppermost Cort!
February 29, 2020, 02:57:33 PM
1
Re: With today being February 29th... @Seiken Zeap

Seiken's Wittenberg account status has been changed from Prospective to Citizen and his Visitor Status is hereby null.  Welcome to Talossa Seiken.


Congratulations to @Viteu

February 29, 2020, 04:59:17 PM
1
Re: Provincial merger discussion Yep, that would be a redline for me too.  Both provinces would need to retire their constitutions and adopt a new third way.  Vuode won't just become a Canton of M-M and vice versa.
March 01, 2020, 11:22:41 AM
1
Re: Provincial merger discussion (Poll added) Added a poll. 
March 01, 2020, 02:03:12 PM
1