58th Cosă 3rd Clark (May 2023/XLIV) has been inserted in l'Anuntziă dels Legeux.
According with Org.VII.11 the Crown is deemed to have signed 58RZ11, 58RZ15, 58RZ16, 58RZ17: they have been scribed in and the Lexhatx is up to date with all changes known to be in force on or before 1 June 2023/XLIV.
58RZ13 is pending ratification in referendum.

Maitzi, li 6. Gün dallas 2023/XLIV.



Üc R. Tärfă
Grefieir d'Abbavilla

I don't believe that the 3 non consecutive clarks for MCs to be a useful addition. It will only kicks in 2 situations:

V-N-V-N-V-N beeing the 6th Clark, so it's useless becasue the Cosa will be dissolved.

N-V-N-V-N beeing the 5th Clark.

What is the assumption? The MC could vote in the 6th, so they would have voted for half of its tenure.

The same reasoning for Senators (in a three-cosa term):

1-2-3-4-5-6
1-2-3-4-5-6
1-2-3-4-5-6

There could be only 3 failings in each cosa term that do not count for the 2-consecutive clarks rule: this means that the new rule could only kick in the 6th (last) or 5th Clark of the last cosa-term.

N-V-N-V-N-V
N-V-N-V-N-V
N-V-N-V-N

I accept the appointment and I vow to fulfil the tasks of the assignment to the best of my ability.

I also apologise for the last few days, real life was very stressfull.

😃

I'm sure none is pleased when someone renounces his citizenship.

Quote from: Viteu on May 15, 2023, 07:13:26 PMI'm waiting @Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB.

You're a bully.

Hello, I just had my morning coffee.
This is getting ridiculous.

I just read that in the last hour a sitting Judge of the CpI stormed a courthouse, bullied and threatened a sitting Judge of the Tribunal on the verge of sentencing, threatened a Public Defender, founded a Political Party to "defend" the OrgLaw (the same OrgLaw he's ditching), posted private conversations with a citizen without permission, threatened more and more, de facto, the Ziu, and now announced to the world that our own constitution that came into force 3 years ago is a joke.

For what is worth, all I can see in that private conversation improperly shared now as a sort of trophy is a sitting Judge of the CpI believing - and who still believes now by its own admission - that the Organic Law he should judge upon is a joke, and that for three years this Country allegedly run on a piece of paper without any legal value. I'd like at this point to read what he testified in the Senäts Committee on this matter.

I dearly miss the time when our Judiciary was not bullying, storming, possibly breaking the laws and threatening the citizens and the institutions he might be asked to judge upon sometimes.

The public defender has managed to reduce the counts for the defendant from 3 to 2. What else she can do apart from contesting that the defendant has been convicted by the Swansea Crown Court of the crimes he plead guilty to?

Because that is the charge: having been convicted by the Swansea Crown Court of the crimes the defendant plead guilty to. Can the defender contest of behalf of her client that the Swansea Crown Court hasn't convicted him of the crime he himself plead guilty to in the Swansea Crown Court?

Considering that the defendant plead guilty in the Swansea Crown Court, I'd say that it is a fair and reasonable assumption that the defendant would amdit to the Talossan crime of having been convicted by the Swansea Crown Court and that the sentence involved the crime he plead guilty to.

As I said before, the defender really needs to argue that the Swansea Crown Court is not credible, doesn't abide by Talossan value, that the sentence doesn't involve one of those crimes, or that the defendant wasn't sentenced at all by such Court? What sensible defense can be offered to the overwhelming evidences provided by the prosecution that the court was credible? The Crown and the Defender reached an agreement that modified the indictment instrument from 3 to 2 counts: I'd say the defendant has been defended to that extent. The defensor made sure the Crown has incontrovertible evidence on the record and not non existing count like in the first instrument. That is also the role of a defender for this particular crime, isn't it?

What other defense can be offered to that peculiar crime, apart from contesting the credibility of the Swansea Crown Court? It seems to me that, if the Defender can't take that route, all other possible actions are exhausted.

The "not guilty" is "not guilty of having been convicted by a credible foreign court". So the Defence should have to prove that either the defendant wasn't convicted at all, or that the Court wasn't credible, of that the conviction wasn't for one of those crimes. The last part was partly already achieved in the cut from 3 to 2 counts.

(By the way: Our statues doesn't say anything at all about pleas, so as far as I understand the Courts are able to fill the gaps or not? If the answer is not, why do we have a common law system at all?)

Quote from: Viteu on May 15, 2023, 05:40:23 PMDon't be daft.

I am not. The crime on which our legal system is called upon is:

7.2.10 Bringing Talossa into disrepute. Any Talossan citizen who has been convicted by a credible foreign court, which has been deemed to abide by Talossan values, of a crime established at trial to have involved fraud, harassment, bribery, physical or sexual violence or threats thereof, has committed the crime of bringing Talossa into disrepute to the following degrees:
7.2.10.1 A felony if sentenced to penal servitude of more than 2 years.
7.2.10.2 A serious misdemeanour otherwise.

Which crime we don't like?

Quote from: Viteu on May 15, 2023, 05:11:26 PMThe reality is that you're suggesting it's okay to plead guilty on behalf of a defendant who did not consent to that plea, and impose criminal liability on that defendant, simply because you do not like the nature of the crime?
Seriously?!? Are these your values? Are these to be Talossa's values? Because this should disturb you more than merely looking at history, and it shocks me to my core that I'm the only one bothered by this.

The reality is that this would not have gotten up to the CpI had I not raised concerns, and it still might not if the GC accepts the guilty plea, denies my motion, and there is no party in the case to appeal.  It might not set binding precedent without an appeal, but it sets persuasive authority that this is an appropriate way to handle future criminal matters. 

What I am suggesting is that the public defender represent her client and not work as an organ of the state to provide no actual defense. I'm saying that CCX is NOT GETTING A FAIR TRIAL. The fact that you and others are ostensibly okay with is just... wow.

I find this all morally reprehensible and disgusting.

I'm just saying that this crime uniquely Talossan is peculiar, because the question is not if the defendant did or didn't do something, did or didn't act, did or didn't not commit it. I'm just saying that maybe given this particular nature it shouldn't be treated exactly like any other criminal trial and that maybe we should consider it. The defendant has been convicted. Was the conviction given by a credible court? Does the Court consider equitable a nolo contendere for this peculiar crime?

I'd like to point out the specific nature of the crime in question: «been convicted by a credible foreign court, which has been deemed to abide by Talossan values, of a crime established at trial to have involved fraud, harassment, bribery, physical or sexual violence or threats thereof,».

It's clearly evident that the defendant has been convicted by a foreign court. That is not debatable. The question is if the the foreign court is credible, abide by Talossan value, and if the sentence involved one of those crimes listed. (Moreover, as far as we know, the defendant plead guilty in the foreign court).

The nolo contendere was, I believe, in the spirit of not contending the fact that the Swansea Crown Court is a credible foreign court, abides by Talossan value, and the sentence involved one of those crime. (I don't want to engage ont he existence of that or not because, as I already said, I'm not familiar with common law and this necessity to discover how common law works or worked in the US in the last 300 years disturbs me.) Are you suggesting that the defensor really needs to argue that the Swansea Crown Court is not credible, doesn't abide by Talossan value, that the sentence doesn't involve one of those crimes, or that the defendant wasn't sentenced at all by such Court? Why the Court can't accept the specific nature of this crime and accept a nolo contendere for this specific case? Thais won't be a stare decisis, and if the CpI will be asked by a part in this trial to review the sentence, it will be able - without you - to determine it.

The Hearing rules and procedures are not statutory law, but is a rule enacted by the CpI in 2006, and I must add that Judge Lorentz clearly said at that time that "these are the rule adopted for this specific case". Moreover according to the current wording of the OrgLaw, we can't know for sure if that rule was enacted by a full panel of 3 judges.

I was under the impression that lacking a specific statutory law the Court was able to determine if something is available/acceptable or not...