News:

Welcome to Wittenberg!

Main Menu
Menu

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.

Show posts Menu

Messages - Açafat del Val

#136
I am exploring the possibility to form a collaborative committee, invite select people to participate, and produce a bona fide solution to referendum before the end of this term. If you are interested to serve on this committee, whoever you are, then send me a message privately (on Witt or elsewhere).

But know that this Government - or, more specifically, this Minister of the Government - has no interest to entertain any more compromises that lead to delays and broken products. If you care more about tradition or maintain the status quo for the very sake of tradition and maintaining the status quo, then do not bother. I am looking only for folks who have the determination and ability to start Talossa with a clean slate, and to give us the Organic Law that we deserve.

As staunchly republican and derivativist as I am, the ultimate "product" does not have to reflect those values. What I want is a clean book of laws, agnostic of the hot-button political issues of the day. No more half-measures; no more giving the King one job but taking away another; no more sinecures, like the provincial constables; no more confusion as to who, what, where, when, or how: these fusses must be put to bed.

Oh, and that's the final note for me: No more sinecures, and no more pomp and circumstance for the sake of pomp and circumstance. These sort of British traditions that we in Talossa like to emulate were not just willed into existence; they come from a long line of actual purposeful acts. But if an office or a tradition do not serve a real, common, or meaningful purpose other than but that's how it's always been done around here, then it's time for that thing to go.

That's a hardline for me and this Government. If we as Talossans cannot honestly answer the following two questions - What does [blank] actually do!? and When was the last time that this office did anything productive!? - then it will be abolished. That may encompass such things as the provinces themselves, entire arms of the Civil Service, several officers of the legislature, and more.

If you want to help with this, come aboard.
#137
Folks, facts are friendly or they're not, but at the end of the day they're still the facts.

As much as we in Talossa have every reason to take pride in the "amateurity" of our day-to-day operations and larger aspirations, the facts are that there has been a consistent and unjustifiably stubborn refusal to acknowledge that our laws in all forms need to be updated, synchronized, and edited (in the technical sense that there are wildly inconsistent styles, uses of punctuation, and more).

Both the Organic Law and El Lexhatx are a disgusting hodgepodge of half-efforts and compromises born of apathy, inability, or both.

The 2017 "Still Into This" version of the OrgLaw was the result of a thousand compromises. It comes from the right place, but its authors' desire to keep the peace (and their collective lack of time to commit a thousand professional hours into it) has produced a broken OrgLaw.

Hell, last term's "Uniform Seneschal" amendment was the result of too many conflicting desires. One person wanted one thing, another person wanted a different thing, but somewhere in the middle everyone agreed that a changed was needed. It was written in order to pass by a majority of the Ziu, far before any intention to make it a good piece of law, and that's the fact.

And El Lexhatx. I don't even want to start there. It has been amended so often by so many people in so many small pieces at a time that to call it a hodgepodge is a both an understatement and a euphemism. It's atrocious. Too much have we changed one small paragraph without confirming in any manner how that change may affect the thousands of other areas of laws, in no small part because few of us have the time or the desire to undertake such an endeavor.

What Talossa needs - if we ever at all about law, the concept of good government, and the administration of both - is a total and utter rewriting of both documents, in sync and without compromise.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. None of this has been intended or desired to admonish, disparage, or otherwise defame any current or past member of the Ziu who may have written or voted for any of the laws that I have implicated here. Rather, we must acknowledge the facts: the **** is broken.
#138
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on October 08, 2020, 05:33:12 PM
I have no principled objections to this: biggest issue is "at the request of the sponsor". I don't see that most people who introduce bills will be humble enough to submit their legislation to this committee if they don't have to. I for one personally believe that all my bills are perfect and are in no need of amendment, lol.

Then the originating idea of this advisory group may be moot ;)

For the SoS's sake, if this were clarked, here is the new bill after the sponsor above accepted the amendment...

Quote
WHEREAS the quality of legislation in Talossa is admittedly low, with many errors and infelicities of language;

AND WHEREAS there is an even worse problem, whereby provisions enter into our Organic and statute law "by accident"', in that the Cosa and Senäts majority vote for the principle of a bill, trust its author, and don't actually read it properly, or assume that someone else will read it properly and point out any problems;

AND WHEREAS every legislator simply promising to be more conscientious is not a feasible response to this;

AND WHEREAS the following provision would probably work better than the previously mooted role of "legislative janitor";

BE IT ENACTED yadda yadda yadda:


A new section shall be inserted after H.6 of El Lexhatx, as follows, and the subsequent sections renumbered accordingly:

Quote
7.1 A Legislative Advisory Committee of Talossa (in Talossan, el Comità da Redacziun Legislatïu; and hereinafter, "the CRL") shall review or revise all legislative items from the Hopper as described in H.6 above upon the request of their sponsor or sponsors; and, when so requested, they shall recommend acceptance or rejection, or shall make amendments in their best judgement.

7.2 The CRL shall conduct all its deliberations openly in the Hopper.

7.3 The CRL shall consist of the incumbent Mençéi, Túischac'h, and Avocat-Xheneral.
#139
1. Honored to serve.
2. Nothing yet. This is done at the end of the term, and you will be contacted by the SoS when the time is ready.
3. El Lexhatx allows us to skip forming a Rules Committee. I recommend that we skip.
4. I tried finding them in my email or on Witt and had no luck. We might just try the good old-fashioned way by making a thread.
#140
I would like to offer the following amendment...

Quote

1. El Lexhtax H.6 shall be amended as follows:


Quote
6. No bill may be published in a Clark unless it has spent at least ten days in the Hopper as a legislative proposal and the Legislative Standing Committee of the Ziu has considered and reported upon it, except according to H.6.1.

1. A new section shall be inserted after H.6 of El Lexhatx, as follows, and the subsequent sections renumbered accordingly:

Quote
7.1 The Legislative Advisory Committee of Talossa A Legislative Advisory Committee of Talossa (in Talossan, el Comità da Redacziun Legislatïu; and hereinafter, "the CRL") shall accept review or revise all bills all legislative items from the Hopper as described in H.6 above upon the request of their sponsor or sponsors; and, when so requested, they shall recommend acceptance or rejection, or shall make amendments in their best judgement examine them clause-by-clause, then adopt by majority vote a report which may include a recommendation to accept/reject, and/or suggested amendments.

7.2 The CRL shall conduct all its deliberations openly in the Hopper.

7.3 The CRL shall consist of the incumbent Mençéi, Túischac'h, and Avocat-Xheneral.

7.3 A bill upon which the CRL has not given a report within 30 calendar days shall be considered to have been approved for the purposes of H.6.

7.4 Unless the Mençéi and Túischac'h agree otherwise, the Mençéi shall chair the CRL and the CRL shall consist of all MCs and Senators.
#141
Wittenberg / Re: Can an Absent Ruler Still Be a Ruler?
October 08, 2020, 05:04:40 PM
... 68 days ...
#142
Florencia / Re: Nimlet Session (Sep 2020-Ongoing)
October 08, 2020, 05:04:18 PM
I abstain on Resolution 2020-04. I support the idea but find the wording a little bloated and do not have the intention to offer an amendment.
#143
Wittenberg / Re: King John, the world is waiting!
September 29, 2020, 11:15:07 AM
The gears of government should not come to a halt because a lifetime-appointed official has resorted to nonfeasance. At a certain point, this level of negligence by John starts to drift into malfeasance territory; we're not there yet, but we are headed there.

It's almost like our head of state should face an annual or biannual election in order to keep him/her accountable. What is that called? ... Oh, a republic!
#144
Quote from: Breneir Itravilatx on September 28, 2020, 10:29:51 AM
Quote from: Dr. Txec Róibeard dal Nordselvă, Esq., O.SPM, SMM on September 28, 2020, 09:43:20 AM
Congrats to the new Túischach'h. It's not my specific role to declare a winner but he has my congratulations. I will update moderator rights for the Cosa.

Mr. Secretary, the statutes on Talossa Wiki may be out of date so please correct me if I am mistaken but according to El Lexhátx H.20.4:

QuoteFollowing any number of petitions, presented as above and supporting the same candidate, being signed or counter-signed by members currently representing an absolute majority of seats in the Cosa, the candidate named in the petition(s) shall be declared by the Secretary of State to be the Túischac'h. (54RZ21) repealing both (50PD01) (52RZ3)

Is this outdated?

Unfortunately I do not the opportunity to look up and confirm this answer yet (I encourage anyone to beat me to it), but I do want to say:

This issue is exactly why the Government intends to rewrite the entire Lexhatx from scratch during the term. These questions should not have to be asked.
#145
I would like to invite the leaders of the Senate and Cosa (@GV and @TER, respectively) to weigh in on this bill.

Would you both be willing to constitute a sort of advisory committee to help members of your respective chambers write bills? "Legislative janitor", "law editor", whatever you want to call the task.
#146
Wittenberg / Re: Weak
September 23, 2020, 09:39:55 PM
Nope, no walking back here, friend.

Is this when I say something snide about the LCC's affinity for strawman or red herring fallacies? Or do you get a copout by saying that you don't represent Talossa's only opposition party?

AD is not a victim. He's acted unbecomingly, continues to act unbecomingly, and admitted anyways that he's satisfied to not have the job.

If he can't handle an apt comparison to his own childishness, then he shouldn't play ball. Something about don't cook in the kitchen if you can't handle the heat.
#147
Wittenberg / Re: Weak
September 23, 2020, 07:47:02 PM
I am just going to leave this here...

Quote from: Açafat del Val on September 23, 2020, 07:46:26 PM
Respectfully, there is a lot of assumption going on there.

Speaking formally in my capacity as the Attorney-General: I did not make this decision alone, nor singlehandedly. I made the announcement on behalf of the entire Government, who decidedly collectively to withdraw our support. It is plainly incorrect to say that I had or ever had a goal of "keeping AD off the bench"; indeed, I voted for him during the committee process.

Now, speaking for myself only: I understand and appreciate why my response seemed pompous, but that mistakes my perspective. Undoubtedly, if someone wants to reduce this entire affair to personality politics and tribalism, then it would look like I am sitting on a haughty throne and sneering down from my high place. On the other hand, if someone expects a certain decorum from a judge of law, then my response makes sense. You'll note how eager AD was to mention the Guy Incognito court case, without the dignity of context, because it benefitted the perceptions that he wants to create (or tell himself): I wonder if we should want someone to sit on the bench who might so enjoy ridiculing others?

My point is this: A court of law is supposed to be a holy place, where justice and truth reign above all else. However, that state of being requires an implicit trust from the public that justice and truth will be found and respected. As soon as a defendant, complainant, attorney, etc. feels in their gut that the presiding judge has bias, has unruly mannerisms, has a disrespectful affect - as soon as they feel that justice won't be served - then the entire objective falls apart. Justice cannot be done without trust in the process. And if AD reacts to this announcement how he did, not to mention all the events preceding it, then how will he react when fellow citizens seek justice from him?

To be a judge is to reflect a certain attitude and represent certain values. That's what it means to be a lawyer. AD's behavior proves that he lacks both the attitude and the values, and that he might well erode the public's trust in our courts.
#148
Respectfully, there is a lot of assumption going on there.

Speaking formally in my capacity as the Attorney-General: I did not make this decision alone, nor singlehandedly. I made the announcement on behalf of the entire Government, who decidedly collectively to withdraw our support. It is plainly incorrect to say that I had or ever had a goal of "keeping AD off the bench"; indeed, I voted for him during the committee process.

Now, speaking for myself only: I understand and appreciate why my response seemed pompous, but that mistakes my perspective. Undoubtedly, if someone wants to reduce this entire affair to personality politics and tribalism, then it would look like I am sitting on a haughty throne and sneering down from my high place. On the other hand, if someone expects a certain decorum from a judge of law, then my response makes sense. You'll note how eager AD was to mention the Guy Incognito court case, without the dignity of context, because it benefitted the perceptions that he wants to create (or tell himself): I wonder if we should want someone to sit on the bench who might so enjoy ridiculing others?

My point is this: A court of law is supposed to be a holy place, where justice and truth reign above all else. However, that state of being requires an implicit trust from the public that justice and truth will be found and respected. As soon as a defendant, complainant, attorney, etc. feels in their gut that the presiding judge has bias, has unruly mannerisms, has a disrespectful affect - as soon as they feel that justice won't be served - then the entire objective falls apart. Justice cannot be done without trust in the process. And if AD reacts to this announcement how he did, not to mention all the events preceding it, then how will he react when fellow citizens seek justice from him?

To be a judge is to reflect a certain attitude and represent certain values. That's what it means to be a lawyer. AD's behavior proves that he lacks both the attitude and the values, and that he might well erode the public's trust in our courts.
#149
Wittenberg / Re: Weak
September 23, 2020, 03:24:24 PM
Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on September 23, 2020, 02:37:09 PM
Quote from: Glüc da Dhi S.H. on September 23, 2020, 12:58:42 PM
Apparently only those who don't criticise the government are allowed to be judges.
Do you want to be a Judge? I think you'd be qualified.

I echo this.  If you are interested in undergoing a public vetting, as the previous two nominees, then please say so (or send a PM). I do not doubt that the Senate would willingly take up another nomination hearing for you.
#150
Quote from: Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on September 23, 2020, 03:08:12 PM
Quote from: Açafat del Val on September 23, 2020, 02:54:52 PM
Quote from: Ian Plätschisch on September 23, 2020, 01:09:38 PM
Quote from: Açafat del Val on September 23, 2020, 12:46:29 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.

Speaking for myself, and not on behalf of the Government or the province of Florencia: I have always expected that a judicial nominee should comport themself in a manner befitting the office. A professional adult should not look like this when rejected for a job:

For those who don't closely follow American politics, the Avocat-Xheneral is here comparing my behavior to a nominee to the US Supreme Court who was credibly accused of rape.

http://changingminds.org/disciplines/argument/fallacies/strawman.htm