I thank the Member for her question. The short version of the answer is: I have no idea what's happening.

The longer version of the answer is this. It has been my goal as A-Xh to help revive the Talossan Bar. Following the example of my party colleague, C. Nouacastra, I applied directly to the Uppermost Cort. Judge V. Marcianüs was kind enough to provide a written Bar exam - the details of which are confidential - which I completed on the 28th of August this year.

After that? Silence, at least officially. From what I can gather from unofficial sources, the issue is that my examination needs to be confirmed by a majority of the CpI - i.e. 3 of the current 4 justices - and only 2 of them have responded.

I must say that I am massively disappointed by this. The Uppermost Cort has always been something of a "retirement" position in Talossa, but this is ridiculous. There are of course procedures to remove a CpI Judge for inactivity, but my reading of the Organic Law and El Lex G.11 convinces me that that only applies to active cases - even though administering the Bar is also the role of the Uppermost Cort (by El Lex G.2).

Given that, my application for the Bar seems stuck in limbo until such point as one of the 2 absent Judges approves it, one of the 2 absent Judges is present enough to retire so that they may be replaced, or their terms expire in -oh, let me just calculate this - July 2025.

So we've got problems with the CpI. Sorry to not have better news.

You might want to reconsider your project of writing it all on your own, then. I am struggling for a way to put this gently, but here goes: you have spent your Talossan political career accusing prominent Talossans of theft; betrayal; corruption; telling them that Talossa would be better off if they resigned and became inactive; etc. Surely you understand that such people are not going to be co-operative sources for your project; that such people will naturally assume that anything you write will be by turns dismissive, condescending, prurient and scolding of the people whom you have targeted throughout your Talossan political career. Why would anyone co-operate with someone who has made their Talossan lives a misery? Why would former citizens of the Republic be happy with having our story written by someone who disagreed with our various existence and characterised us as criminals? I sometimes despair that you show so little insight as to why, to be blunt, you will never be on friendly terms with people who you've spent your Talossan career characterising negatively.

A real Talossan history has to be written - if not by a completely neutral, dispassionate historian - then collectively to make sure of a balanced authorial voice. For this reason I implore you to rejoin, and help restart, the New Talossan History Project.

I *am* the original proposer. The bill is finished. The promised amendments from someone else never arrived and I decided to force the issue.

D:na Schiva has taken point on this so she would be the best person to ask for more details.

... the person who has taken point on this is Munditenens Tresplet, who is deputy Minister of Finance with this particular portfolio. I haven't had active involvement in this issue since I stepped aside as Seneschál (though I support it in principle).

Me, I want to see the revival of the New Talossan History Project.

Hello, yes. Please to be Clarking The Talossan Criminal Law Reform Bill #2, The Legislative Process Improvement Bill #1 (that's the version with Glüc's amendments), and The Big Chocolate Covered Waste of Time Bill. Please note that I reserve the right to make slight amendments to the text up to deadline in response to Ziu feedback.

I've been leaving responding here to give me time to think. I also hoped that The Baron would have popped in to defend his concept of why preliminary hearings as necessary on top of the process involved in 6.3. Of course The Baron doesn't get a vote, but nor does Judge V. And no-one who does get a vote has commented.

My answer to V's first point 6.3 is a test of "if all these facts were true, would the defendant be guilty?" 6.6 is a test of whether there is probable cause" to believe that the facts are true. I'm no legal genius, but that's a different question, surely?

V's second and third points refer to provisions (and clause order) which were copy-pasted directly out of the Wisconsin Statute. Honestly, he makes a good argument, but not good enough for me to actually change the language. If any actual MC agrees with him before Clarking time, I'll make the amendment.