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 - Viteu

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5
1
Wittenberg / Re: Weak
« on: September 23, 2020, 02:20:09 PM »
Yeah, AD can be annoying, and an obvious troll sometimes. I wish he said what he meant more often.

You all knew that when you asked him to be a CpI judge.

More recently I've mostly seen government members explode when he voiced concerns about the government or the state of Talossa. Sometimes valid, sometimes less so, but either gets the same reaction.

The wiki edit was somewhat petty, but also rather benign. It's a very weak excuse.

What worries me most is how groupthink in Talossa has become almost as bad, if not worse, than in the pre-reunision RUMP days. Apparently only those who don't criticise the government are allowed to be judges.

What I find particularly weak is the different standards to which you hold people.  I was put through the ringer, and likely still have some watching, to ensure that I behaved when I was only nominated.  I can only imagine the outrage you and others would have put forth if I even remotely suggested doing something like the so-called benign wiki changes.

AD was not put through an extensive vetting process.  His was, much like your post, weak sauce compared to what I went through. 
I’ve kept my promise to stay out of politics, but I made no promise to stay out of Wittenberg. I would like to see Talossa, and people like you, Glüc, apply the same standard across the board. AD has not changed an iota of behavior knowing that he may sit on the CpI.

In fact, he has doubled down his efforts to annoy and harass. His antics with the Wiki imply heavily that he would use his position on the Cort to embarrass the FreeDems or any party sitting opposite his political allies given the opportunity. The fact that you blithely ignore this speaks to your own weakness. You think you're being clever by using words like groupthink, but I outwardly question if you know what that is, or something you just learned last week in your sociology 101 course.
I dont remember ever raising any objection to you becoming CpI justice.

You have contributed a lot less and done a lot worse than AD. This was true both when you were both in the RUMP and when you were on opposing sides. The constant abuse of Epic combined with your inability to take any criticism are the main reason being in the coalition during the 51st Cosa term was hell for me and one of the reasons I left politics.

Yeah, your behaviour change was impressive and so was your vetting. No doubt about that, but dont talk to me about applying double standards. I don't object to you being in the CpI, but I wouldnt need any double standards to do so.

Your revisionism is astonishing. You still apply double standards and now you're just projecting. It's weak. 

2
The Lobby / Re: Withdrawal of Support for Nomination of AD to UC
« on: September 23, 2020, 02:08:20 PM »
Another opportunity for humility has been wasted. Where an olive branch or some constructive sentences would have sufficed, you chose antagonistic and agitative rhetoric.

That rhetoric has no place in a court of law.
What did you expect? That he would grovel before you to win back your favor, which would clearly be futile anyway?

If the coalition no longer finds the nominee to be suitable, then there is not much I can do. All I have to say is that you cannot throw out barbs and then be shocked and appalled when you get stung back.

But it's okay for a CpI nominee to act the way AD has and get a free pass? If I even blinked the wrong way during my process I would have been disqualified. Let alone actually vandalizing the Wiki.

It was painfully drilled into my head that a nominee must conduct themselves with the decorum and reverence for the Cort for the duration of the process.  AD has failed miserably at that. And now you're acting like it's anyone's fault but AD's that he is losing support.

3
Wittenberg / Re: Weak
« on: September 23, 2020, 02:01:19 PM »
Yeah, AD can be annoying, and an obvious troll sometimes. I wish he said what he meant more often.

You all knew that when you asked him to be a CpI judge.

More recently I've mostly seen government members explode when he voiced concerns about the government or the state of Talossa. Sometimes valid, sometimes less so, but either gets the same reaction.

The wiki edit was somewhat petty, but also rather benign. It's a very weak excuse.

What worries me most is how groupthink in Talossa has become almost as bad, if not worse, than in the pre-reunision RUMP days. Apparently only those who don't criticise the government are allowed to be judges.

What I find particularly weak is the different standards to which you hold people.  I was put through the ringer, and likely still have some watching, to ensure that I behaved when I was only nominated.  I can only imagine the outrage you and others would have put forth if I even remotely suggested doing something like the so-called benign wiki changes.

AD was not put through an extensive vetting process.  His was, much like your post, weak sauce compared to what I went through. 
I’ve kept my promise to stay out of politics, but I made no promise to stay out of Wittenberg. I would like to see Talossa, and people like you, Glüc, apply the same standard across the board. AD has not changed an iota of behavior knowing that he may sit on the CpI.

In fact, he has doubled down his efforts to annoy and harass. His antics with the Wiki imply heavily that he would use his position on the Cort to embarrass the FreeDems or any party sitting opposite his political allies given the opportunity. The fact that you blithely ignore this speaks to your own weakness. You think you're being clever by using words like groupthink, but I outwardly question if you know what that is, or something you just learned last week in your sociology 101 course.


4
Wittenberg / Re: RIP Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
« on: September 22, 2020, 04:12:14 PM »
It wouldn't nullify the Electoral College if states still gave all their electoral votes to whoever wins the state by 1 vote.

I'll modify, it would partially in effect nullify the EC because the number of electors, equalling the number of representatives plus two senators, would increase proportionally with the state population. 

5
Wittenberg / Re: RIP Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
« on: September 22, 2020, 01:09:33 PM »
And a Congress that has at least 650 Representatives in the House.
If the House of Representatives had maintained the original ratio of population to representatives, there would currently be about 11,000 representatives.

I say, let’s do it.

It would certainly nullify the electorial college and gerrymandering.

6
Wittenberg / Re: On Anarchism
« on: September 22, 2020, 12:59:25 PM »
There's a ton of precedent for anarchists and far left citizens in our country. I am one of them.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/y8M3aI6pwuA

7
Wittenberg / RIP Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
« on: September 18, 2020, 07:22:06 PM »
Ruth Bader Ginburg, an Associate Justice on the United States Supreme Court, passed away today of cancer. She was 87 and a fierce advocate for women, minorities, queer people, and marginalized groups. She will be missed.

This loss also petrifies many Americans, and we fear that the eventually slip into authoritarian is almost complete. I ask all Talossans to take a moment to consider the amazing accomplishments of one of the world's best jurist, take a moment of respect, and maybe pause the current flamewars waging through Witt for 24 hours as our small but Talossan way of paying respect.

8
I vote Per on the motions.


9
The problem that arose from the statutory component was my fault--I cannot remember if I wrote the GC language at, before, during, or after the JP act.
Writing things like this is really complicated, especially without sharp scrutiny from others, and it isn't very productive to try to decide whose fault it is.  Don't worry about it.

I think, personally, we should go back to the original system: three justices, one of whom would serve as an initial trial justice.  And that's it.  It's simple and serves all of our needs.  The only change the original system needed was a mechanism to eliminate inactive justices automatically, since that was socially uncomfortable -- that's why the original magistracy was created, if we're real about it.

That's absolutely possible with the amendment without changing the org law again under section 6. My primary concern with that remains the inherent unfairness to an appellant arguing before either same judge and convincing that judge and two colleagues why they are entitled to relief. Of course, a four judge UC would help that. All of this now falls to the Ziu. And once the amendment is in effect, any statute related to it requires 2/3 Cosa support with simple Senate majority, across two Cosas, to change.  The idea being that trying to change the Cort to something political would be subject to scrutiny in an election. But a change that truly addresses Talossa's needs will be obvious and shouldn't be a partisan issue.
Yeah, I think you could also have four justices or five and the simple system would work great.

As far as I recall, by the way, the soonest a change to the statute could happen would be in more than two months, by the way.  I mean, if I remember correctly, the new system that was just ratified requires that the first Clark have no bills in it, and that second Clark is supposedly supposed to come after a month of recess.  So I don't think any quick fix by the Ziu is possible, thanks to the recent changes.

Gah. Okay, so assuming that's the case, for possibly one month, UC judges can sit on the GC if a case commenced then, based on 13.2.1 as adopted.

"13.2.1. In accord with Section 6 of Article VIII of the Organic Law, any action commenced in the General Cort of Talossa shall be heard by a single Judge of the Cort pü Inalt."

The only issue with the proposed statutory amendment is the ostensible change in UC seats. So if that part is removed, the bill creating CJs could be voted on in the Second Clark, and a change in seats for UC moved to separate legislation.*

Or, there's no real requirement that the seats be filled. So the Government could leave that provision as is to see how things work out.

10
Quick reply-the 2/3 requirement across two Cosas *only* applies to the number of judges on the UC and not any inferior Cort, etc.

11
The problem that arose from the statutory component was my fault--I cannot remember if I wrote the GC language at, before, during, or after the JP act.
Writing things like this is really complicated, especially without sharp scrutiny from others, and it isn't very productive to try to decide whose fault it is.  Don't worry about it.

I think, personally, we should go back to the original system: three justices, one of whom would serve as an initial trial justice.  And that's it.  It's simple and serves all of our needs.  The only change the original system needed was a mechanism to eliminate inactive justices automatically, since that was socially uncomfortable -- that's why the original magistracy was created, if we're real about it.

That's absolutely possible with the amendment without changing the org law again under section 6. My primary concern with that remains the inherent unfairness to an appellant arguing before either same judge and convincing that judge and two colleagues why they are entitled to relief. Of course, a four judge UC would help that. All of this now falls to the Ziu. And once the amendment is in effect, any statute related to it requires 2/3 Cosa support with simple Senate majority, across two Cosas, to change.  The idea being that trying to change the Cort to something political would be subject to scrutiny in an election. But a change that truly addresses Talossa's needs will be obvious and shouldn't be a partisan issue.

12
I didn't think the previous new system was very good, either. We are agreed on that. I certainly said as much before now, and that opinion isn't changed.

It also sounds like we are agreed that the current system is currently not going to work well unless the law is changed or more justices are appointed. I hope one of these two things will occur soon.

The problem that arose from the statutory component was my fault--I cannot remember if I wrote the GC language at, before, during, or after the JP act. I have this vague memory that it was around the same time. Ultimately, one thing I had in mind in drafting the amendment and statute was King John's concern for continuity. Hence the two-month window and the instant statutory raising to a total of five judges. I was actually trying to maintain, for now, the old system so we could adjust without running to another constitutional amendment. Overall, I was motivated by a versatililty and an efficient organic law section with the rest to be filled in by statutory law. Section 6 was meant as a safeguard if the Ziu did not act,  or somehow just decided no inferior Cort.

So the issue you raise falls to me in my attempt to create something robust, independent, not subject to partisanship, but not requiring tinkering with the fundamental document of State every time we needed an update.

But there is now a bill that would fix this before implementation, and provided we get some CJs, we'd have four UC judges, a trial Cort, and, in theory, a fully functional judiciary.

13
TL;DR: the Amendment and Statute, with the exception of the JP (explained), actually keep things as they are yesterday. THe criticism that we have no working trial cort actually is a roll over because the King never did his job. Discharging the JP Cort was two-fold: I don't like the use of "justice" because apparently that confuses people, and I don't like lay judges. But I am not particularly against either of those two in a "hill to die on" kinda way. But by the time this got raised, the veto had happened and it was getting voted on. I pointed out that only a few lines in teh GC cort statute can be changed so theyw ill be appointed a la justices of the peace. That's literally all that needs to happen. But this remains an absolutely true statement: King John never appointed JPs, as he was required to do, so the JP Cort never actually formed, and Talossa did not have a trial cort or any lower cort to hear a new case.

I do not know if I’m allowed to comment here, but I think it necessary to clarify some things.

There is no need to set up a third cort

The Judiciary Amendment of 2020 has a *single* part—the amendment.  When I first introduced it as a Senator, a criticism was that it needed certain legislation to work. So I drafted legislation that was tacked to the bottom. So the act itself has two components—the Amendment and the Statute. I did raise the fact that the Statute should be separated out to avoid confusion, but that was not heeded. Whatever.

Now, the Amendment itself sets the baseline for how many judges must be on the UC. There is the Senior Judge and two permanent Pusine Judges. So the Cort must always have three seats to be filled. The Ziu can increase that number to nine judges maximum. Why this mechanism? Simple. Under the old system, the number of justices was organically set to five.  The Ziu could not, without a constitutional amendment, adjust that number based on the needs of Talossa at that moment. It seemed to me that the number should really be statutory.  However, I was also concerned with cort stacking. So I figured allowing the Ziu to adjust the number of judges as needed, but also put a ceiling on it, with requiring that these changes be passed in consecutive Cosas, would shield the Cort from becoming to partisan. The statutory part of what I proposed set the Cort to five judges because, as it was raised by the King, who would be kicked off of the current Cort?

Next, under section 6, if there is no inferior cort established, a UC Judge can sit as a lower cort.  Lower corts do not issue binding decisions ON CORTS OF COORDINATE JURISDICTION. In other words, if the Ziu creates a lower cort, a UC judge cannot sit a as a nisi prius cort unless permitted by statute. That simple. Further, no corts of coordinate jurisdiction can bind the other. For example, say we grew to over 1000 citizens, and it was determined that we needed an interim appellate cort, say two of them. The appellate cort, sitting above the inferior cort (i.e. not a cort of coordinate jurisdiction) can set binding precedent. But it cannot set precedent on the other appellate cort. One lower cort cannot set binding precedent on the other. This is actually pretty standard in US Federal Courts, which is actually not the case in some state courts (e.g. California and New York’s intermediate appellate courts will bind all lower courts, even those outside of their immediate appellate jurisdiction, until a split).   None of this means that a decision is not persuasive authority. Again, similar to US federal system.

Let’s stay with precedent. Under the old system, prior to the new Organic Law, but the system established in (2014?), a UC justice could sit as a trial court judge, and an appeal could go to a single UC justice, but the result of that appellate decision WAS NOT BINDING. The Organic Law prohibited it. Under the current framework, a decision must go before a three-judge panel for it to be binding, but if only two judges or one are available, then it is not binding. That is not to say that it is not persuasive authority.


Okay, let’s talk about the statute. Yes, this abolished the Justice of the Peace Cort.  I stated I was not a fan of it. By virtue of this statute existing, a UC Judge cannot sit as a nisi prius judge. WOW BUT THE SYSTEM IS BROKEN AT THE OUTSET. Well, okay, this is a valid point, but let us consider that the new Organic Law actually eliminated the ability of a UC justice to hear a case, and we had the JP Cort, but the King never actually appointed any JPs, so Talossa actually has not had a trial cort for months now. I’ve brought his up to people before.

In any event, I do not like the idea of lay persons acting as judges, and that is why that concept was not carried over. But the lower cort, in the from of the General Cort, would continue with appointed judges.  Miestra disagreed with me on this.  However, by the time this issue arose, I was already on the Cort and changes to the legislation would mean another veto.  My suggestion was to go forward, and merely amend the statutory component to remove appointment and replace it with what were then known as PJs. That simple. Like a statute with a few lines.

In any event, the fact that Talossa has no trial cort at the moment was not changed by this amendment because there were no actual appointed PJs because the King never got around to appointing the nominees.  But this is where we are at. A simple statute will remedy this problem.

Or, you can simply abolish the GC, not set any lower Cort, and keep the judges at five so one can sit as a nisi prius cort. The possibilities and versatility of the amendment to address Talossa’s judiciary needs without running to change the Organic Law while preserving judicial independence is evident in the language itself. Like, you can literally eliminate, altogether, el lex G.13.1 and, boom, we have a lower cort. You can create a lower cort and decide how judges get picked. You can lower the number of UC judges to three so we don’t tie so many people to one Cort and prevent them from serving on a lower cort or being in the cabinet. We can grow to 500 people and decide it’s better to have a nine judge cort, so they can sit in panels of three and decide cases. Like, these critiques are a bit disingenuous given that all of the above was available for over a year, and seek to paint the new system as broken at the outset to praise the old system while ignoring that the old system was actually broken.





14
Wittenberg / Re: Legal Questions
« on: August 02, 2020, 07:46:01 PM »
However, I'm a human and it's hard to get myself to read through long and very dry legislation (going through many, many drafts of V's proposed new Organic Law during the 52nd Cosa was a real slog, trust me), especially when there are other members of the Government who purport to be much more experienced than myself at writing legalese well. I'll have to do a better job going forward.


Relevance?

Quote

Finally, I am sick and tired of hearing that any criticisms of a bill that are raised too late are inherently disingenuous. A good point is a good point regardless of when it is raised, and furthermore, it is not the responsibility of someone who is not even an MC to proofread every bill at exactly the moment the Government desires. [/u][/b].

Get over it.  There is an expectation that people read something before voting for it.  I'm sick and tired of people attacking something after it is passed, when it was publicly available for them to read and publicly comment on before then.  In fact, the very point of the Hopper is for the quotidian review. Also, it baffles me how my proposed Organic Law is, in any way, relevant to this conversation outside of some conspicuous and cheap political attack.   

15
Wittenberg / Re: Resignation as Secretary of State
« on: August 01, 2020, 10:17:10 PM »
You are/were an excellent SOS, and I am sad to see you go. But I'm thrilled that you have chosen to remain Talossan.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5