This version of Wittenberg is now the legal national forum for Talossa! Feel free to explore it, and to check out the threads for feedback, requests and criticisms to make sure Wittenberg is tailored to you.

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Eiric S. Bornatfiglheu

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 16
1
The Hopper / Re: CRL Committee for the 57th Cosa
« on: Yesterday at 04:06:38 PM »
The Let’s Make This Official Compromise Bill

WHEREAS the Kingdom recognizes the importance of celebrating important dates and events in Talossan history, and

WHEREAS the Republican schism of June 1 2004, as the act of defiance that sparked the movement leading to the abdication of a tyrannical King and the restoration of democracy in the Kingdom, was an incredibly important moment in the history of Talossa; and

WHEREAS Reunision as the re-uniting of our nation's monarchist and republican traditions also marks an incredibly important moment in the history of Talossa;


Therefore be it resolved that two new subsections are placed at El Lexhatx F 2.4, with any necessary renumbering of following subsections, to read:

Quote
20 April. Reunision Day. Commemorating the royal proclamation of Reunision and the end of the National Schism.

1 June. Democracy Day. Commemorating the foundation of the Talossan Republic as a day to honour democracy and the popular will, for both Republican and Monarchist traditions.

On the face of it, I see nothing wrong.  But I do want to get a touch of clarity.

There are, essentially, two bills doing very similar things, yes?  There is the "Let's Make This Official Act" by Tzaracomprada/Davinescu and the "Let's Make This Official Compromise Bill" as proposed by Schivă.  Both enshrine Reunison Day, while the latter also enshrines Democracy Day. 

2
The Hopper / Re: CRL Committee for the 57th Cosa
« on: June 26, 2022, 05:08:08 PM »
Also this:

WHEREAS there is a large legal loophole that would permit virtually any crime, including very serious crimes such as threats of sexual assault, theft, bribery, or anything else, and

WHEREAS the problem lies with the fact that we're offering unlimited and unqualified sanctuary under terms which clearly reference the medieval Christian practice of offering church protection from secular law, thereby allowing anyone to claim the right of sanctuary if accused of crimes, and

WHEREAS it's hard to find any other way to interpret this bit of the law so that it makes sense, and so therefore this reading probably is going to be a valid one, or at the very least would be an incredible complication that might make it impossible to prosecute someone, and

WHEREAS no one has yet taken advantage of it, but there's no reason to think that will last forever,


THEREFORE the tenth section of Title A of el Lexhatx, which currently reads

Quote
10. The Ziu hereby recognizes the historic right of churches and other religious organizations to offer sanctuary to individuals in dire need.

is hereby stricken in its entirety.

FURTHERMORE, the words "Except as provided in A.17," shall be struck from section 16.

FURTHERMORE, the Scribe is directed to renumber Title A in a sensible fashion.

Uréu q'estadra så:
Baron Alexandreu Davinescu

In looking through, I'm pretty sure that this dots its "i's" and crosses its "t's."  Should work

3
The Hopper / Re: CRL Committee for the 57th Cosa
« on: June 26, 2022, 05:07:16 PM »
Submitting this to the committee:

WHEREAS currently the entire status of much of our legal system is possibly itself illegal, since the Ziu's ennumerated powers do not include any power to write criminal laws at all, nor to regulate any aspect of the legal system, meaning that most of Titles A & J are very much in doubt if challenged in cort, and

WHEREAS this means that anyone in cort can very reasonably ask under what authority the Ziu purports to organically restrict their behavior, when all such power seems reserved to the provinces under the letter of the law, and can also ask how the Ziu gets to set any standards for the bar or other things,

THEREFORE the third section of Article VII of the 1997 Organic Law shall be amended to include these additional provisions:

Quote
20. Criminal justice designed to protect the personal and property rights of citizens.
21. Administrative matters incidental to the functioning of the justice system.

Uréu q'estadra så:
Baron Alexandreu Davinescu

So far as I can tell, this work appears sound.

4
The Hopper / Re: CRL Committee for the 57th Cosa
« on: June 17, 2022, 05:31:35 PM »
Submitting for review

The Let’s Make This Official Act

Whereas, the Kingdom recognizes the importance of celebrating important dates and events in Talossan history, and

Whereas, Reunision as the re-uniting of kingdom and republican Talossans marks an incredibly important moment in the history of Talossa, and

Whereas, the day in which King John issued the Proclamation of Reunision, April 20, certainly qualifies for elevation from a day of observance to an official national holiday.

Therefore be it resolved that a new subsection is placed at El Lexhatx F 2.4, with any necessary renumbering of following subsections, to read:

Quote
20 April. Reunision Day. Commemorating the royal proclamation of Reunision and the end of the Third Schism.

Uréu q'estadra så
Breneir Tzaracomprada (Sen-FL, TNC)
Baron Alexandreu Davinescu (MC-TNC)

The bill appears sound to me.

5
Benito / Re: Assembly of Benito Seats Distribution, 57th Cosa
« on: June 12, 2022, 08:34:39 PM »
As I'm serving as a sort-of holdover Maestro for the time being, I want to page @Istefan Perþonest, one of our seniormost citixzens and the Arvitieir Prima,on this.  What do we think is the best way to proceed?  With a partial provincial legislature?  Or shall the TNC be forced to name holders for their 7 seats?

6
Yikes!  11 June, and there is no debate thread up, already.  ESB, I hope you're all-right.

Anyway, I vote thusly:

57RZ1 Për
57RZ2 Contra
57RZ3 Për

GV, Fiova

I'm alright.  Just lost track of what was supposed to be posted when.


57RZ1 Contra
57RZ2 Contra
57RZ3 Contra

7
Benito / Re: Assembly of Benito Seats Distribution, 57th Cosa
« on: June 11, 2022, 11:48:31 AM »
Any takers on the TNC seats?

8
The Hopper / Re: CRL Committee for the 57th Cosa
« on: June 10, 2022, 02:37:53 PM »
I already picked over it in the Hopper; it's fine.

I, also, dont see problems here.

9
The Hopper / Re: CRL Committee for the 57th Cosa
« on: June 06, 2022, 07:16:47 PM »
I'd like to submit the Seneschal Selection and Reselection Amendment

For clarification, is it the Amendment as contained in this linked post?  https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=1441.msg12111#msg12111

Apologies, @Ian Plätschisch , Just want to make sure.

10
The Hopper / Re: CRL Committee for the 57th Cosa
« on: June 06, 2022, 07:05:33 PM »
It means that the Finance Minister is not required to create this Bureau; it is optional and within their discretion.

Then honestly we don't need this law at all, we just need a policy paper. MinFin could create this Bureau tomorrow, should he have the time and energy to do so, with no law required. And if he doesn't want to, this law won't make him.

Correct.  Even though I think this is a very good idea, there are also times when this might not make sense to do, so it is a discretionary scheme that may be enacted at the will of the MinFin.

Quote
The law is full of such suggestions.  I think like the first few provisions in the title covering the Government have like three suggestions alone!

Does it? Well, thank you for giving me a place to start the Justice Ministry's project of removing kipple from El Lexhatx.

These sorts of things are relatively common in legal systems everywhere, since allowing no discretion to executive officers can hamper them from actually achieving desired goals.

In looking at this, there doesn't strike me as anything wrong, inherently speaking, with the material as presented.  I think that the question of "advisory" law (shoulds and coulds, etc) might be best decided by the legislature.  IE, in debate on the bill, they can discuss whether or not this is the kind of law worth enacting.  For my own part, the "shoulds" and "cans" absolutely scream for a "if its not explicitly allowed, it is forbidden" type of legalism.  In essence, at least in my reason, "shoulds" and "cans" in law may very well quash the executive discretion you're pointing to, AD.

11
Benito / Re: Assembly of Benito Seats Distribution, 57th Cosa
« on: May 24, 2022, 04:21:48 PM »
Would @Breneir Tzaracomprada and @Dr. Txec Róibeard dal Nordselvă, Esq., O.SPM, SMM care to make their seat assignments for the Benito Assembly, please?


12
The Hopper / Re: CRL Committee for the 57th Cosa
« on: May 24, 2022, 04:00:35 PM »
For future reference, I'd like a consensus from the other members on the broader question that arose:

Quote
We should lay some ground rules as to what "the CRL giving its recommendation" under El Lex H.6.6. Does this mean we have to have a 2/3 majority on an official report back? Or something looser, i.e. all 3 of us or maybe even just 2 of us having our say?

Honestly, I'd say if 2 members weigh in with either a "yup, all good" or "fix XYZ" (and then fixes are made), that should be sufficient.  After all, we're not after substantive stuff (insofar as semantics in law & legislation can not be substantive) here, that's for the Ziu itself to decide.

13
The Hopper / Re: CRL Committee for the 57th Cosa
« on: April 26, 2022, 04:45:06 PM »
None from me

14
The Hopper / Re: CRL Committee for the 57th Cosa
« on: April 26, 2022, 03:42:47 PM »
With the fix, I see nothing inherently wrong with "The Fixing Citizenship Act."


15
The Senate / Re: Mencei?
« on: April 25, 2022, 04:18:17 PM »
Apologies for the delay.  With 5 nominations submitted before the 4/24 deadline, and according to the standing rules of the Senate, I will continue another term as Lord President.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 16