The question of "what the Secretary of State can do" right now is subservient to the question of "when will the Database get much-needed repairs, or be replaced altogether", a question which is being worked on out of the public eye.

Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial on July 25, 2021, 05:40:39 AM
I hate misspelled names. I hate them so much that I wrote a blog post about it, albeit in Talossan... anyway, the rampant misspellings that float around on here are the bane of my existence, especially considering that the correct spellings are not recorded in one place. The Database, the Wiki, Talossa.Net and of course Witt all have different flavours of misspelled names, making it impossible for laypeople to figure out which one is actually correct!

In that case, it sounds like we need a programme to make sure the correct spellings are used on the Database, the Wiki and talossa.net. This sounds like something the Ladintsch Naziunal, @the Secretary of State and @the Minister of STUFF should be getting their heads together on, ASAP.

The argument for a Real Cosa has to be tied to the argument that it is not right that any joker should be able to get legislative seats just with their own vote and $10. I've run the numbers and you could definitely get a seat in a 21-seat Real Cosa with 2 votes, although 15 would make it trickier.

The Coalition Agreement states: "Any further fundamental Organic Law reforms, including the question of a unicameral Ziu or a "Real Cosa", will be referred to a Standing Committee of the Ziu representing all elected parties."

This is that Committee, and I hope to see all 8 (!) parties represented in the Ziu commenting here. The goal of this Committee is that we don't want to run the Ziu aground on struggles over future OrgLaw reforms, so let's try to come to a consensus on fixes before writing up a bill and Clarking it.

Without further ado, here are some suggestions I want to raise:

• That old chestnut, the Real Cosa. Organic Law IV.1 to be changed to: "The Cosa is the national legislative assembly, and is composed of seats apportioned among political parties based on their performance in the General Election. The number of these seats shall be set by law, except that it shall be no fewer than twice the number of Senators, minus one. It may administer itself as it sees fit."
• Write the Túischac'h into the OrgLaw. The Mençéi is an Organic post, why not the President of the Cosa?
• Possible further fixes to the Seneschál election. My top two questions: do we want to make it possible to abstain? Do we want to continue to require MCs to name two preferences?

The floor is now open for further vague suggestions.

So what do you guys reckon on my bill for a form of "two readings" of legislation?

WHEREAS the quality of legislation passed by the Ziu of our Kingdom has always been of questionable quality, given not only the volunteer, part-time nature of our MCs and Senators, but also of the lack of "professional" legal advisers to proofread amateurishly-written bills;

AND WHEREAS the Hopper itself was an early attempt to improve the process; but has always been hampered by the disinterest or forgetfulness of MCs and Senators in reading legislation until it is Clarked, by which stage it is too late for amendments;

AND WHEREAS the last Cosa brought in la Comità da Redacziun Lexhislatïu (CRL) to streamline this process, but this body simply did not function in the last Cosa;

AND WHEREAS even if the CRL functions as foreseen in this Cosa, it does not solve the large problem mentioned above, that MCs and Senators do not pay attention to the details of bills until after they are Clarked;

AND WHEREAS the idea of a system of "multiple readings" of legislation before they become law has been raised in the past;

AND WHEREAS the incoming Attorney-General and Túischac'h have agreed on this proposal, which will require a form of "first reading", whereby bills will need a affirmative majority of both houses (along the same lines as a Túischac'h election) to go to the CRL, and subsequently cannot go to Clark for 30 days unless the CRL gives its affirmative say-so;

AND WHEREAS at the very, very worst this bill will only mean a 30-day delay in Clarking bills;

AND WHEREAS there is still an "escape hatch" for cases of legislative urgency, in the provisions of Organic Law VII.6: "The Seneschál shall have the right at his discretion to withdraw any legislative proposal from the Hopper and instruct the Secretary of State to treat it as a properly submitted bill"; and also in the provision for Prime Dictates;

AND WHEREAS a future reform, whereby the Cosă and Senäts will vote separately on legislation to allow even more opportunity for scrutiny and debate, may be presented later in this Cosă term, whether this bill passes or not;


BE IT ENACTED by the King, Cosă and Senäts of Talossa in Ziu assembled that

1.  El Lexhatx H.6 shall be replaced in its entirety as follows:

Quote6. No bill may be published in a Clark unless it has passed the Hopper, as provided in this section.

6.1.  All citizens of Talossa are entitled to participate fully in discussions and debates in the Hopper, within the bounds of law and of the decisions of the administering and presiding authorities of the Hopper. Any citizen may submit a draft of legislation to the Hopper, though these shall not be considered to be "legislative proposals" until sponsored by one or more individuals authorised to submit legislative proposals under Organic Law VII.5.

6.2. After a legislative proposal has spent at least 10 days in the Hopper, its proposer may request that it "move to committee". A bill shall be considered to have "moved to committee" after at least half of the Senators and half of the Cosă seats express their support in the Hopper for it doing so.

6.3. 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 once they have moved to committee; and may recommend acceptance or rejection, or suggest amendments in their best judgment.
6.3.1 The CRL shall conduct all its deliberations openly in the Hopper.
6.3.2 The CRL shall consist of the incumbent Mençéi, Túischac'h, and Avocat-Xheneral.
6.3.3. The CRL may create further committees to which their functions may be delegated, as concerns any bill or category of bills. Such a committee must have at least 3 members, including at least 1 MC and at least 1 Senator.

6.4. After the CRL has given its recommendation, or if it gives no recommendation within 30 days of the bill having passed to committee, the sponsor of the bill may ask for it to be Clarked, with or without amendments.
6.4.1 The same bill can not be submitted to the Clark more than once in the same Cosa, unless the original bill was vetoed, the original bill had been retired or voted down by its main sponsor during the voting period, or the bill has been substantially amended, as judged by the Secretary of State.
6.4.2. Bills must be submitted to the Secretary of State more than 24 hours before the publication of the Clark. Bills received less than 24 hours before publication of the Clark shall be published in the next Clark or postponed for one Clark, at the Secretary of State's discretion.

6.5. The Secretary of State is empowered to refuse to put a certain bill on a Clark if said bill;
6.5.1. appears to him to be obviously on its face inorganic, or to have such grave errors as would make it ineffective and/or require further legislation or a Prime Dictate to make it effective.
6.5.2. does not specify exactly the Law(s) or Article(s) which it seeks to amend, change, or repeal, if the bill seeks to amend, change, or repeal any Article of the Organic Law or any Law
6.5.3. is not clearly typed or word-processed; and/or
6.5.4. is so substantially different from its form as a legislative proposal when "passed to committee" that it constitutes a significantly different proposal.
6.5.5. Any such decision shall be subject to judicial review.

6.6. All bills submitted for the Clark shall be in one of the national languages.

6.7. The Secretary of State shall remove legislative proposals from "The Hopper" at the request of the author.
6.7.1 If a legislative proposal has remained in the "The Hopper" for more than 59 days, it shall be considered to have been removed, though any person entitled to do so may subsequently re-publish it.

6.8. Notwithstanding the rules about a bill's eligibility to be Clarked, if no bill was submitted to the Clark at the moment of publication, the Secretary of State shall be allowed to add to the Clark a simple bill asking for Quorum where Cosa Members and Senators can vote to confirm their presence for the Clark.

6.9. The Secretary of State is under no obligation to create a permanent record of legislative proposals in "The Hopper."

2. El Lexhatx H.7, H.11, H.12 and H.13 are hereby deleted in their entirety, and Title H of El Lexhatx will subsequently be renumbered.

Yipes! Thanks for picking that up. Will do so in 24 hours hopefully. Done! I had 10 minutes while waiting for the train lol.

BUMP. I'm minded to Clark this unless I get any feedback on specific amendments. I've spoken to the Túischac'h and he likes it.

BUMP. I'm minded to Clark this unless I get any feedback on specific amendments. I've spoken to the Túischac'h and he likes it.

I should note that I'd forgotten that a fast track to avoid this process exists, and that's Organic Law VII.6: "The Seneschál shall have the right at his discretion to withdraw any legislative proposal from the Hopper and instruct the Secretary of State to treat it as a properly submitted bill."

Wokay. Well, we can't do anything about the reclarked 55RZ21 because it needs to be the same language as last time. So you guys got anything to say about the Criminal Law Reform bill?

Hello, yes. Please to be reclarking The Talossa Shall Choose Its King Amendment (passed as 55RZ21 by the previous Cosa).

Also, please to be clarking The Talossan Criminal Law Reform Bill #1.

It is proper to let the people of Talossa know what will be happening with 55RZ21, the Talossa Shall Choose Its King Act (aka the Historic Compromise), adopted by the requisite margin in the last Cosa but vetoed, ¡qët 'n supriça!, by the King who doesn't want to get unchosen.

The recent election of the Cosa gave 120 seats to parties committed to supporting the bill - not the 2/3 majority required. Therefore, for the bill to have any chance in the new Cosa, some kind of "Compromise on the Compromise" was necessary.

First of all, the Free Democrats exercised their mandate to form a Government. This was a different task than pushing forward the Constitutional issue (for example, MC M. Tresplet pledged his support and help with a FreeDems government while being 100% opposed to changes to the monarchy). Our first choice of partners was the League of Centre Conservatives (LCC), who - while having differences with us on precisely what kind of monarchy reform is necessary - were clearly the most enthusiastic of the other parties for the hard work of government, and with whom we had a pretty good relationship on a personal level.

We were also approached, without solicitation, by the leader of the Talossan National Congress (TNC), volunteering his services as part of a new Government. We accepted this happily, although it was not necessary for a Cosa majority, because a broader-based government would be more stable and have more resources.

The new three-party Government then discussed where to move on monarchy reform (for which we would still require at least the other two pro-55RZ21 parties to consent, i.e. the Peculiarists and the Tafialistàes).  The preferred option was to find some kind of fresh bill which could get the necessary 3/4 margin to start from scratch but still override the royal veto.

To this end, the LCC (chief proponents of the Compromise on the Compromise) engaged in talks with the "King Lüc Party". Certainly, the pro-compromise parties could have totally gotten behind King Lüc I. But the course of these discussions revealed that - a) the KLüP was not prepared to actually put their flagship policy into action at this time; (b) after a week or two of delays, we found out that no-one had actually asked Lüc da Schir, who actually does not want to be King of Talossa. So that went nowhere, and the KLüP's voters might wonder what they actually voted for.

The next step would have been to create some kind of sequencing. The plan was that the LCC would support 55RZ21 now, long enough to elect a new King, and then the Ziu would enact the LCC's preferred compromise - of a mechanism of triggering Votes of Confidence in the monarch, rather than regular 7-year renewals of the mandate. In theory, this got support from the other pro-Compromise parties. But the TNC leader insisted in Cabinet that he couldn't agree to this without seeing details of the "revised compromise" bill in advance. The LCC pointed to their current proposal in the Hopper (which the FreeDems don't support in its current form, but is at least a basis for beginning discussions). The TNC did not reply to this.

The next thing we learned was that the holder of the TNC's Cosa seats had broken Point 1 of the coalition agreement by not voting for Txoteu Davinescù to become Seneschál. Our Seneschál-candidate sent a message to the TNC leader about this, saying in part: "I need to hear from you directly by noon TST tomorrow or I will be forced to remove your party from the coalition". The TNC leader's response to this was to... quit the coalition, on the justification that the Seneschál-candidate had "threatened" him - and to not respond to any further communications from either FreeDems or LCC leaders after that.

While cxhn. Davinescu could certainly have phrased his please-explain letter in a less confrontational way, bear in mind that he is brand new to the highest echelons of Talossan politics and is still learning the proper modes of communication. Senator Itravilatx could be certainly excused for taking offence, but cxhn. Davinescù has subsequently apologised, both privately and publicly, for his hard tone - to no avail. You could see this as a huge overreaction from the TNC leader; or, alternatively, as an escape hatch from a situation of government which was harder than he had anticipated.

Senator Itravilatx's  withdrawal has not only required a last-minute Cabinet reshuffle, but ended the negotiations that were underway to get 55RZ21 through (and the King replaced) in return for a "reform of the reform" later. As to the first, the Government, now comprised of two parties, welcomes Francal I. Lux MC on board to take up the Cabinet posts abandoned by the TNC.

Meanwhile, if the TNC no longer wnt to talk, there is no point in further negotiations on "cunning plans" to get monarchy reform through. Our last, best hope is now that the LCC will at least abstain on this bill, if they cannot in good conscience support it - and that the TNC will stick to their pre-election pledge to support it.

The Free Democrats will thus go straight to reintroducing 55RZ21 on the First Clark. In the event that it fails to get the 2/3 of the Cosa necessary, we will revert to our manifesto position - "to enact the result of the Ranked Choice referendum, i.e. an elected Head of State", through some yet-to-be determined means, at a time when the electoral calculus is better.

Just checking if my incoming colleagues on this committee, @the Mençéi and @the Túischac'h, are ready to start work for the First clark?

WHEREAS Talossan criminal law, as contained in Title A of El Lexhatx, has been "imported" from the law of the State of Wisconsin since the 31st Clark;

AND WHEREAS this has never been a satisfactory state of affairs, except for those familiar with Wisconsin law and how to look things up in it;

AND WHEREAS this provision takes part of its wording from Wisconsin statute, wherever necessary, to make sure that the transition to indigenous law will be as smooth as possible;

AND WHEREAS another bill is foreseen for this Cosa, which will relate to outstanding issues of:
a) the crime of bringing Talossa into disrepute by conviction of an infamous crime in an extra-Talossan jurisdiction;
b) questions of the procedure of criminal trials, including the possibility of preliminary hearings;


BE IT ENACTED by the King, Cosa and Senäts in Ziu assembled as follows:

PART ONE. The substantive reform.

That Title A Sections 1-8 of El Lexhatx are hereby replaced in their entirety by the below text:

Quote

1.      General provisions of Talossan jurisprudence:

1.1.   Talossan courts shall interpret Organic and Statute Law through the lens of the Covenants of Rights and Freedoms, and otherwise in accordance with Talossan juridical precedent. Judges may also use precedent from other legal systems with which they are familiar to guide their decisions, though such precedent shall not be binding.
1.2.   Only crimes described in Talossan Organic and Statute Law may be prosecuted in Talossan courts.
1.3.  A single action of a defendant may be considered to break more than one law and may be charged accordingly.

2.      Felonies and misdemeanours. All crimes against Talossan law shall be classed as misdemeanours unless stated otherwise.

3.      Authorized punishments for all crimes classed as felonies shall be as follows:

3.1.    Banishment. Banishment may be ordered in conjunction with revocation of citizenship in any felony case. Banishment prohibits the former citizen from entering the territory of the Kingdom of Talossa. A former Talossan who has been banished may not be reinstated as a citizen.
3.2.    Revocation of citizenship. A sentence of revocation of citizenship directs the Chancery to remove the offender from the list of Talossan citizens. Simple revocation is without prejudice to a future reapplication for citizenship.

4.      Authorized punishments for all crimes classed as either felonies or serious misdemeanours shall be as follows:

4.1.   Civil disability. Civil disabilities may include any or all of the following, for a maximum term of 5 calendar years for a felony or 1 calendar year for a serious misdemeanour:
4.1.1.      Bar from holding national executive office
4.1.2.      Bar from holding national judicial office
4.1.3.      Bar from holding national legislative office
4.1.4.      Bar from holding provincial office
4.1.5.      Bar from performing military service
4.1.6.      Bar from service in the Royal Civil Service
4.1.7.      Bar from posting on Wittenberg

5.      Authorized punishments for all crimes shall be as follows:

5.1.   Fines. When a fine is imposed as a component of any sentence, the court shall specify the period within which the sum must be paid, which period shall not be less than thirty days. The court may, in the interests of justice, allow the offender to pay the sum in more than one installment, according to a schedule prescribed by the court. Willful failure to pay a fine within the time provided is punishable as criminal contempt of court. The maximum fine that may be levied is ℓ500 for a felony, ℓ100 for a serious misdemeanour or ℓ50 for a misdemeanour.
5.2.   Restitution. When imposing sentence for any crime, a court, in addition to any other penalty authorized by law, shall order the offender to make full or partial restitution to any victim of a crime considered at sentencing or, if the victim is deceased, to his or her estate, unless the court finds substantial reason not to do so and states the reason on the record. The court must specify a reasonable period of time, not less than thirty days, within which the offender must make restitution. Willful failure to make restitution within the time provided is punishable as criminal contempt of court. Court-ordered restitution shall not bar any victim from pursuing any civil remedies available at law to recover any amount or type of damages not covered by the order of restitution.
5.3.   Reprimand. In all criminal cases, a court may reprimand the offender in addition to (or in lieu of, where no minimum punishment applies) any other authorized punishment.

6.      Suspended sentences:

6.1.   A court may order the suspension of all or part of any sentence, for a period of time not to exceed five calendar years. At the end of the period of suspension ordered by the court, the suspended punishment is rescinded if the offender has not violated any condition of the suspension.
6.2.    If a court determines, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the offender violated any condition of his suspension during the period of the suspension, the suspension shall be revoked and the original punishment imposed. Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to prohibit prosecuting an act violating a condition of suspension as a criminal offense in its own right, either in the same or a separate action as the revocation of suspension.
6.3.    Refraining from committing any further crimes is an implicit condition of every suspended sentence. Other conditions which may be imposed by the court include, but are not limited to:
6.3.1.      Injunction from requesting or accepting royal honours
6.3.2.      Injunction from violating Wittiquette
6.3.3.      The performance of a fixed amount of community service under the supervision of a public body or not-for-profit organization, as directed or approved by the court.
6.4.   Civil disabilities may be imposed in conjunction with a suspended sentence upon conviction of a felony, but where a sentence of revocation of citizenship has been suspended.

7.      Talossan Criminal Code

7.1.   Definitions.
7.1.1.      "Fraud" shall mean any act of deception carried out for the purpose of unfair, undeserved and/or unlawful gain, or the assumption of a false identity to such deceptive end.
7.1.2.      "Harassment" shall mean engaging in a course of conduct or repeatedly committing acts which harass, intimidate or distress a person and which serve no legitimate purpose.
7.2.   Crimes against the Kingdom.
7.2.1.      Treason. Whoever knowingly endangers the existence of the Kingdom of Talossa, its laws, institutions and state property, by enlisting or attempting to enlist the aid of non-Talossans, commits the felony of treason.
7.2.2.      Perverting the course of justice. Whoever uses fraud, harassment, physical or sexual violence or threats thereof to attempt to influence an active case in any Cort under the Organic Law is guilty of the felony of perverting the course of justice.
7.2.2.1.            Perverting the course of justice shall also include fabricating or disposing of evidence, as well as suborning perjury.
7.2.3.      Sedition. Whoever uses fraud, harassment, physical or sexual violence or threats thereof to attempt to influence any election or any other decision made under the Organic Law of Talossa (outside of an active case in any Cort), or to remove or replace officials duly empowered by that Organic Law, is guilty of the felony of sedition.
7.2.4.      Contempt of court. Contempt of court is a serious misdemeanour consisting of intentional:
7.2.4.1.            Misconduct in the presence of the court which interferes with a court proceeding or with the administration of justice, or which impairs the respect due the court;
7.2.4.2.            Disobedience, resistance or obstruction of the authority, process or order of a court;
7.2.4.3.            Refusal as a witness to appear, be sworn or answer a question; or
7.2.4.4.            Refusal to produce a record, document or other object.
7.2.5.      Perjury. Whoever under oath or affirmation orally makes a false material statement which the person does not believe to be true, in any matter, cause, action or proceeding, before the Ziu, any committee of the Ziu, or court of law, is guilty of the serious misdemeanour of perjury.
7.2.6.      Crimes against state property.
7.2.6.1.             Whoever steals or diverts to their own use without authorization the monetary or physical property of the Kingdom of Talossa is guilty of a felony if the monetary value of such theft is 100 louis or above, and a serious misdemeanour otherwise.
7.2.6.2.            Whoever improperly uses the intellectual property of the Kingdom of Talossa is guilty of a serious misdemeanour if with the intention of misrepresenting the Kingdom or improperly claiming the authority of the Kingdom, and a misdemeanour otherwise.
7.2.6.3.            Whoever improperly accesses any computer or information system belonging to the Kingdom of Talossa is guilty of a serious misdemeanour if with the intention of committing any other crime, and of a misdemeanour otherwise.
7.2.6.4.            Whoever makes a counterfeit of any official document or item pertaining to the Kingdom of Talossa and uses it to gain a benefit to which they were not otherwise entitled is guilty of a serious misdemeanour.
7.2.7.      Solicitation. Whoever induces or attempts to induce any other Talossan to break the Law of Talossa is guilty of the same class of offence as that which they sought to induce.
7.2.8.      Conspiracy. Whoever agrees with any other Talossan to break the Law of Talossa is guilty of the same class of offence as that which they agreed to commit.
7.2.9.      Bribery. The felony of bribery is committed by:
7.2.9.1.            Anyone who offers any officer of the Kingdom or witness in a Court case anything of value in return for the performance of their official duties or to influence their testimony.
7.2.9.2.            Any officer of the Kingdom or witness in a Court case who accepts a bribe (as above) without revealing it as soon as may be practical to the proper authorities.
7.3.   Crimes against the person
7.3.1.      Whoever commits physical or sexual violence or threats thereof against any citizen or "judicial person" under Talossan law is guilty of a felony.
7.3.2.      Whoever commits fraud or harassment against any citizen or "judicial person" under Talossan law is guilty of a serious misdemeanour. Whoever commits threats of the above is guilty of a misdemeanour.
7.3.3.      Theft and invasion of privacy.
7.3.3.1.            Whoever commits theft or misappropriation of physical or monetary property valued at 100 louis or more, or improperly publishes a Talossan citizen's private information, is guilty of a felony.
7.3.3.2.            Whoever commits theft or misappropriation of physical or monetary property valued at less than 100 louis, or of any intellectual property, or improperly accesses a Talossan citizen's private information without publication, is guilty of a serious misdemeanour.
7.3.4.      Defamation. Whoever publicly defames the reputation of a Talossan individual without justification in such a way as to bring them into hatred, ridicule and contempt is guilty of a serious misdemeanour.
7.3.4.1.            No statement shall be considered to be defamation if it is justified by being true, or by being fair comment in the absence of malicious intent.
7.3.5.      Whoever deprives an individual of the free exercise of their rights under the Organic Law in a way not otherwise mentioned in law commits a serious misdemeanour.

8.      Public Defender: No Talossan shall be convicted of any crime under this Lexhatx unless they have had the opportunity of defending themselves in Court. The Ministry of Justice shall appoint a Public Defender who is a member of the Talossan Bar at the request of any defendant, or if the defendant is for any other reason unable to defend themselves in Court.

PART TWO: Revisions of references to classes of misdemeanour and felony

1. El Lexhatx A.9.10. is amended to read:

Quote9.10. Commission of any of the criminal acts defined in A.9. constitutes a serious misdemeanour for a first offence, and a felony for a subsequent offence.

2. El Lexhatx A.22 is amended to read in its entirety

Quote22. The unauthorised usage of any official seal of the Crown, of the Government, or of any other official body, shall constitute a serious misdemeanour. Authorisation may be given by the Seneschal or the respective Minister, or by the head of the body concerned, or any of their duly designated proxies. (46RZ23)

    22.1. The unauthorised bearing, signing or displaying of any official seal of the Crown, of the Government, or of any other official body, shall constitute a serious misdemeanour. Authorisation to bear any seal may be granted by the Seneschal, or the respective Minister, or by the head of the body concerned.

    22.2. The use of any seal, that is attached unto a document, or a notification, or a declaration, or similar, that bears sufficient resemblance to any official seal, which is used by the creator in a document, or notification, or declaration, or similar, so as to create the impression of officiality, in order to:

        (a) obtain any personal advantages or benefits; or,
        (b) put a person or a body in disadvantage, or discredit a person or a body; or,
        (c) obtain any benefits and advantages for another person,

    shall constitute a serious misdemeanour.

        22.2.1. Whether any seal, that is used in such a manner, bears "sufficient resemblance", must, in cases of doubt, be decided by the Courts on an individual basis.

        22.2.2. The use of the Kingdom's colours ("El Bicoloreu") on any seal does not satisfy the requirements of "sufficient resemblance".

    22.3. Any subsequent unauthorised use of any seal, committed by a formerly punished convict of this act, shall constitute a felony.

3. El Lexhatx C.1.4.4. shall be amended to read as follows:

QuoteAny person who damages or causes to be damaged any Public Archive or Record in the control of a Governmental or Royal Civil Service body; or damages or causes to be damaged any Public Archive in the control of a Private body, Community and/or Individual; or removes, destroys or erases such Public record or archive otherwise than in accordance with this provision or any other law, shall be guilty of a serious misdemeanour if such damage, removal, destruction, or erasure was wilful, or guilty of a misdemeanour if such damage, removal, destruction, or erasure was reckless.

If we don't get agreement on the "preliminary hearing" thing or other matters related to 7.2.10 by end of month, I will simply Clark a version of this with 7.2.10 omitted. Replacing Wisconsin law is a much higher priority than sorting out exactly how to punish Talossans for infamous extra-Talossan crimes, though debate on that has to go on.