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] 4 5
31
I live in NYC and work in Westchester, the county just north of the Bronx. So I'm in the middle of this epicenter. There's been several attorneys and court staff at courthouses I've been in the last few weeks who have tested positive. And an employee at a shake shack I visited last week. But so far I'm fine.

Our courts are closed for non-essential appearances, which is giving me a much needed repreave to catch up on outstanding work. People are generally staying in, which is good, and I'm not too worried about getting sick.

I'm more worried about the world we will wake up in after this ends. But I'll save that for another time.

32
The Hopper / Re: Judiciary Amendment of 2020
« on: March 03, 2020, 05:45:29 AM »
This is bulky but is intended well, and ultimately it should be put to referendum before the summer. May I personally request that this not be clarked until at least April or May? I would like some time to suggest edits.

It's not bulky in and of itself. It has the Amendment and Statute portions. The Amendment, I note, has been around, in some form, since the last Government. The Statute part is newer. I have no control over when it will get clarked; I would prefer we not let it languish simply because we're only in week one of March, and then make edits at the last minute. So perhaps you can suggest your edits, as well as everyone else, sooner?

33
Citizens of the United Provinces of Vuode and Dandenburg,

On March 1, 2020, I posted a Notice of Intent to Appoint a Senator, which you can find at https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=154.msg884#msg884

As Premier of the United Provinces, and in accord with Organic Law article III § 7 (former article IV § 10), I appoint @Eðo Grischun to fill the vacant seat of Senator for the United Provinces of Vuode and Dandenburg for the remainder of its term to the fullest extent permitted under the Organic Law.

My congratulations to @Eðo Grischun

On another note, I am excited to have done this under the new Organic Law, which only came into force in the last few days.

Sincerely,

Viteu Marcianüs

34
Vuode / Notice of Intent to Appoint a Senator
« on: March 01, 2020, 10:56:16 AM »
Citizens of the United Provinces of Vuode and Dandenburg,

In accord with the proscription in the Organic Law, yesterday I resigned as your Senator on account of my elevation as a Justice to the Uppermost Cort of Talossa.  This tracks with my commitment to retire from public life on the national stage.  However, I intend to continue my services in the Estats Xhenerais and as your Premier. 

As Premier, Org.L.IV.10 requires that I appoint a Senator for the United Provinces to serve the remainder of my term, which expires at the end of the 54th Cosa, within a fortnight of the vacancy (i.e. until March 14, 2020) lest the mandate falls to King John or his appointed Custaval. 

I have informed @Eðo Grischun of my intent to appoint him Senator, which is not all that unexpected.  However, the Rt. Hon. Grischun expressed to me that he needs to wrap up some issues in his role as head of the PNP party in the Cosa.  As such, I am merely stating my intent to appoint the Rt. Hon. Grischun but am not formalizing the appointment quite yet.  I imagine that formal appointment will be made and transmitted to the national government within the next week.

In the interim, I ask all citizens of the United Provinces to come forward and help us figure out what we can do to get you active, to get you wanting and committed to helping the United Provinces, and to ensure that you remain active.  I understand extra-Talossa life happens, but Talossa and the United Provinces will be more fun with your contribution. 

Thank you.


35
Maritiimi-Maxhestic / Re: Council of Governors - Meeting Room
« on: February 29, 2020, 01:31:39 PM »
Conversations in Vuode and, from what I can see, M-M, are underway to determine possible merger. 

But I will stress that Vuode and M-M must be free to chart their own course at this time absent outside influence.  Right now, we need to figure out, individually, if there is popular support for merger.  Then we need to figure out what each province desires and discuss it among ourselves.  Once we have that, Vuode and M-M can work together to figure out what a new province will look like. We will then present that to the National Government for approval.

As Premier of Vuode, I will say that any merger with Vuode will require a new constitution.  Vuode will not be absorbed into another provinces, no matter how much larger they may be.  We will merge as equals, and a constitutional convention with equal representation is required to proceed.

36
Vuode / Re: Provincial merger discussion
« on: February 29, 2020, 01:22:04 PM »
I agree with everything Etho said in the other thread.

I would say that we invite M-M to an accord to address whether there is a desire in both provinces to proceed forward and an outline on how to proceed.  Two individuals shall represent each province, and we will issue a joint report to the Governments of each province advising of how discussions on a merger should proceed. 

Hopefully, this will set the tone for negotiations and what a new constitution will look like. That, of course, is a redline for me--a new constitution that is written by an equal number of representatives from both provinces. We are not being absorbed into another provinces, but merging as equals.

37
Senators,

A short time ago, I noticed the citizens of the United Provinces of Vuode and Dandenburg that I intended to resign my seat their Senator effective immediately due to my appointment to fill the vacant seat as a Justice to the Uppermost Cort of Talossa. I have transmitted my resignation to King John, the Prime Minister, the Lord President, the Secretary of State, and the Premier of Vuode accordingly. 

Perhaps I did that out of order because I wanted to formally address this Chamber.  I hope the Lord President will afford me some latitude in this one instance and allow me to briefly state the following.

I have enjoyed working with each and every one of you, even when we have disagreed.  I want to acknowledge the hard work of the Lord President.  It should be obvious to all that the Lord President values this Chamber, its work, and its Organic mandate. There are few, in my estimation, that strive to protect an institution in the way that he does, and that is something admirable and should be a lesson to many of us.

I depart with one final observation--we all have personal issues with others, but do not let those personal issues get in the way of your Organic mandate as Senators.  You must continue to listen to ideas, even from those you may personally dislike. You must continue to set aside your egos and vote for the best interests of your constituents and Talossa as a whole.  And you must realize that your commitment to your constituents and Talossa will, at times, be in conflict, and you must balance how you will vote but what will do the overall good. I realize that I have not always lived up to this, but I have, even if not obvious, tried to, notwithstanding my hyperbole.

With that said, thank you all for your hard work, and thank you for keeping the Senate above the partisan fray.

Sincerely,

Viteu Marcianus

38
Citizens of the United Provinces of Vuode and Dandenburg,

It has been my distinct pleasure and privilege to serve as your Senator. But, as you know, the Ziu nominated me to fill the vacant seat on the Uppermost Cort.

By operation of law, my appointment occurred when King John did not exercise his veto prior to today. This requires me to resign my seat as your Senator.

In my time as your Senator, I sought to serve everyone in Talossa, and to vote in what I viewed would be the best interests of all of you and for Talossa as a whole. I have no doubt our next Senator will do the same. Of course I will continue to serve the United Provinces on a local level.

With that said, with the posting of this notice, I shall transmit my resignation to the Lord President of the Senate, the Seneschal, the Crown, the Secretary of State, and the Premier of the United Provinces of Vuode and Dandenburg.

I have it on good authority that the Premier will appoint my replacement within a few days so that our province will continue to be fully represented in the Senate.

Thank you all for your trust in me as your Senator.

Best Regards,

Viteu Marcianüs

39
The Lobby / Re: Call for bills - 54th Cosa, 3rd Clark - March 2020
« on: February 28, 2020, 05:07:20 PM »
I do not intend to clark Judiciary Reform of 2020 for the March Clark for those reasons given above and discussed elsewhere.

40
Wittenberg / Re: Judicial Reform of 2020
« on: February 28, 2020, 04:11:47 PM »
Okay, I won't Clark it then.

I forgot to address the "increase to two" question. The amendment reduces the number of Js to one Senior and two Puisne.

For flexibility, the number can be increased to nine, but for clarity with titles, the actual wording is that there shall only be one Senior but the Ziu can increase the number of PJ to 8, only in even intervals to keep an odd number of overall J's.

So why have the statute? Well, if we're reducing to three, but we have five sitting, and for the ability for a GC to work, I figured keep all five and just increase the number now. If, say in two years, we find we have a significant number of active citizens and don't want UC Js to sit as a trial judge, we can reduce the number and update the lower cort by statute.

My overall goal here is to maximize flexibility for growth, so we don't need to reform the UC a third time in ten years.

41
Wittenberg / Re: Judicial Reform of 2020
« on: February 28, 2020, 01:34:07 PM »
I would strongly caution against Clarking a bill that has been so substantively changed two days before the Clark is set to begin. While there's a good chance you will be on the UC from tomorrow onwards,

Now, to my objections. I frankly don't see the problem with calling UC judges "Justices". It's a Talossan tradition that goes back from the creation of the UC in the late 1980s and has never caused any confusion. "Judges" were the Mags, when that still existed - it matched the US (federal) style and just made sense.

I don't really get the expansion of Puisne Justices. Aren't there already four PJs + one SJ according to the 2017 OrgLaw?

Finally, I need a clarification of the proposed GC. Is it basically the old MC, but with UC justices serving as judges of first instance? Also, maybe this can be combined with the JP idea, where we still have JPs that can serve on the GC. I guess that if we had any JPs at all, we could have seen how well the system worked.

I'll defer to the Seneschal about splitting the bill.

To the use of Justices--for the most part, I prefer to refer to them as Justices.  But there seems to be a dissonance in recognizing that Justices and Judges are, for the most part, interchangeably used, and that they are mere titles. I am, of course, responding to a certain theory advanced by a sitting Justice at the moment.

For clarification on the US system, the Supreme Court has Justices, the Circuit Courts of Appeals and District Courts have Judges. District Courts also have Magistrate Judges. The responsibilities of a Magistrate Judge varies based on district court, with some handling everything up to trial, and others handling only what the District Judge needs them to. In any event, I would be fine with using Justice for the UC, Judge when a Justice sits as a nisi prius Judge, and Magistrate in lieu of Justice of the Peace.

A compromise between my and Meistra's positions could be to retain the Justice of the Peace as a Magistrate, but allow a UC Justice to sit as  Judge if a Justice of the Peace is unavailable.

42
Wittenberg / Re: Judicial Reform of 2020
« on: February 28, 2020, 06:56:19 AM »
The statute abolishes, in its entirety, the Justice of the Peace, which is a decent idea but I think maybe some of us would prefer to avoid

Yeah, I refer my learned colleague to the dictum in Hall v. Oates (1981), viz. "I can't go for that."

I honestly don't think we need any fulltime judges on a lower court. I prefer "citizen justices", who can become qualified by sitting an exam, with appeal to the UC. As we've found, declaring someone a fulltime judge is the best way to make them inactive.

I would respectfully point the Seneschal to a recent case where a single errant judge, acting much as a Justice of the Peace would, let Guy Incognito trash our legal system in such a way an appellate UC felt he could not remedy the trash. I also think the Seneschal should start enforcing the 60 day or your out rule. Notably, the statute requires the Clerk to inform the Seneschal when a judge fails to respond so appropriate action, if warranted, can be taken.

43
Wittenberg / Re: Judicial Reform of 2020
« on: February 27, 2020, 05:45:05 AM »
I should note that I included language that the Scribe can make edits for accents and other marks, typos, and to fix subsections for consistency issues.

44
Wittenberg / Judicial Reform of 2020
« on: February 27, 2020, 05:32:18 AM »
All,

I've finished up the Judiciary Amendment of 2020.  Please see the FIRST post at https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=98.msg543#msg543.  Apparently there is 20k character limit on new Witt, so I removed the prior version with strikethrough and posted it below for posterity.

In any event, changes are as follows:
  • All subsections were removed; it still is easy to follow
  • I removed references to 1997 Organic Law because the actual UC will not change so there's continuity
  • Justices will no longer be known as Justices; they will be Judges.  On the federal side in the United States, our lower and intermediate courts use the title Judge, and only the Supreme Court has Justices.  In practice, the titles are somewhat honorific without any distinction as to function.  New York we reverse, our lower and intermediate courts have justices, and our Court of Appeals has Judges.  New York is actually closer to the older approach because Justices were elected and Judges were appointed.  But then again, our family courts, also elected, has Judge.  So my point is, there's no meaningful distinction really.  A quick review at other common-law counties suggests there's different approaches lacking consensus on distinction. In any event, some here don't seem to realize this and think the title "Justice" means something other than it does, so I thought it simpler to remove "Justice" altogether.

Next, I included an accompanying statute that would only come into effect if the amendment is implemented.
  • The statute increases the number of Pusine Judges by two, for a total of five UC Judges, and keeps all present Justices but restyles them as Judges appropriately--continuity achieved
  • The statute abolishes, in its entirety, the Justice of the Peace, which is a decent idea but I think maybe some of us would prefer to avoid
  • The General Cort of Talossa, an inferior nisi prius cort of general jurisdiction and first instance is established in its stead
  • For now, and because a UC panel only requires three judges, a case will be assigned to a UC judge, who will sit as a Magistrate (not a magistrate judge), and who cannot on a panel reviewing an appeal from one of their decisions in that case.  This is somewhat inspired by an old US approach called "riding circuit" (although not a perfect analogy).
  • I added some language to G.14 in that the Clerk is now required to inform the Seneshchal if a Judge/Magistrate fails to respond to an assignment or timely issue decisions in a matter. I think this is important so the Government can take appropriate action for missing Judges (there is a provision that the Clerk reaches out to the Magistrate and has discretion to determine if this is warranted, like if the Magistrate says, "hey sorry work was crazy this last week, will post tomorrow" then it can be overlooked, but if the Magistrate never responds and the Clerk has to reassign the matter, they must inform the Senechshal.
  • Finally, I added a new section to el Lex (Ian is going to maim me to the fullest extent permitted by the law I'm sure) under G.15, which calls for the UC to either set up its own official reporter or ask the Scribe or Government to do it. However, because the General Cort is a statutory cort created by the Ziu, it can dictate who does it. I'm leaving it up to the Scribe or Government for now.

As many of you know, it's an open question how much time I have left in the Senate (or if I'm not going anywhere at all!), so i intend to Clark this for March, even if the Fates determine that I cannot vote for it in March.  If, however, I am appointed, I will need to resign and adhere to my commitment to retire from public/political life.  I do hope, in that event, to see this adopted and ratified.

45
Wittenberg / Re: In absentia
« on: February 27, 2020, 04:05:12 AM »
I shall temporarily sign off here, with the reminder of what I have said (or hinted at) often in the past: the function of Justice is Justice, not Law. Human law is an attempt to codify Justice, but in final analysis Justice cannot fully be codified or restricted into unwavering pre-ordained channels - it is more subtle, and deeper, than that.

Respectfully, reminder disregarded as superficial and missing the forest for the trees. I wish you had taken a more subtle, nuanced, and deeper approach to the case, but you seemed to have been guided by your misconceptions of law and justice, which seriously hurts the service of Justice in Talossa.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5