As far as I can tell, what happened was that the TNC MC forgot, or wasn't told, that his party had agreed to vote for T. Davinescu for Seneschál. Txoteu's expression of exasperation to TNC leader Senator Itravilatx concerning this was construed as a threat, leading the TNC to announce they were pulling out of the coalition.

I certainly hope this can be sorted out before the Seneschál election ends. We certainly want Brenéir's undoubted talents in the Government - but a coalition agreement is supposed to bind ALL Senators and MCs. There are problems with overreactions and ramping up the stakes in a disagreement here, on both sides.

1. Txoteu Davinescù
2. Iac Marscheir

I endorse the nomination of s:reu Tafial as Túischac'h, and I call upon my Free Democrat colleagues to do likewise

Sorry, missed that. Fine, make a draft.

Quote"The courts shall consent to hear no case until presented with written evidence by the Prosecution proving to a majority of court members that a reasonable chance of obtaining a conviction actually exists."

Right, but you want something stronger than that, you want a preliminary hearing where it's not just the Prosecution presenting the evidence, but the accused/Public Defender can challenge it. Have I got that right?

So how's about this cut-and-paste job from Wisconsin Statutes 970:

Quote1. A preliminary examination is a hearing before a court for the purpose of determining if there is probable cause to believe a felony or a serious misdemeanour has been committed by the defendant.

2. The preliminary examination shall be commenced within 20 days after the receipt by a Cort of a charging instrument alleging a felony or serious misdemeanour, as described in El Lexhatx G.6.2.

3. A plea shall not be accepted in any case in which a preliminary examination is required until the defendant has been bound over following preliminary examination or waiver thereof.

4. The defendant, or their Public Defender, may cross-examine witnesses against the defendant, and may call witnesses on the defendant's own behalf who then are subject to cross-examination.

5.. If the court finds probable cause to believe that a felony or serious misdemeanour has been committed by the defendant, it shall bind the defendant over for trial.

6. If the court finds that it is probable that only a misdemeanour has been committed by the defendant, it shall amend the complaint to conform to the evidence. The action shall then proceed as though it had originated as a misdemeanour action.

7. If the court does not find probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed by the defendant, it shall order the defendant discharged forthwith.

If this isn't good enough, can you write something that is? I'm helping birth a baby in the next few days.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on June 19, 2021, 10:25:34 PM
1.  He'd be charged and a public defender would be appointed for him.
2.  The Government would ask for leave to prosecute him in absentia, which it would certainly get (since it's pretty easy to show that he can't be at the trial).
3. The initial hearing would be held, in which the Government would supply the US documentation and show how US courts are credible.  Hard to see how they would lose at this stage -- probably just checking the box.
4. The trial would occur, in which the Government would file a brief arguing that the conviction met the statutory definition.  Again, hard to see how they would lose.
5.  Sentencing would occur.

Okay. I don't have any objections in principle to this process; but explain to me how the two stages offer extra protection for the defendant. As opposed to a single trial where the prosecution would have to supply the documentation; show how the foreign court is credible; AND show how the crime meets the stat definition, and if it fails on any of those, the prosecution is lost.

Okay, different approach, for all felonies and serious misdemeanours we require a preliminary hearing of some kind?

BTW, forget about that other thing I asked for, it's not worth it.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on June 19, 2021, 09:48:38 PM
In other words, just possessing this status will be a crime.  We're saying it is a crime to be a person who has been convicted of specific things in certain courts, and that the only burden of proof is "does this conviction exist," something that is usually just a records search away.  We have to afford people some protection and avenue to protest not only that their conviction fits the specified categories (which presumably will be what the trial is about) but also a chance to show that the conviction as a whole is unjust.  Further, we're also talking about people who may be unable to come to their own defense for some time by the very nature of the accusation (since they'll be in a prison).

All right. Give me an example how your ideal system would have pursued the prosecution and trial of I. Canún  with a trial for "bringing Talossa into disrepute".

BTW, the Government in re: Hooligan was guilty of entrusting the case (after 2 resignations) to an Attorney-General who didn't know what he was doing and gave up at the least sign of a robust defence. You are still clearly quite upset about the case, but your accusations about the motives behind it are slanderous and guaranteed to start a fight that should have been over 6 years ago. I personally think Hooligan had a case to answer and I am ashamed - not that the case was brought - that it was brought so incompetently that he never actually had to answer for his deeds. I would consider it a favour, in the interests of continuing civil debate over this legislative project, if you were to delete that paragraph (and I'll delete this one).

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on June 19, 2021, 01:19:38 PM
Maybe it might make more sense to adapt it into a provision in the law which directs that BHAID issue recommendations on what part of a fine might be donated by the state and to which charities, where they deem appropriate?  Same result with more flexibility and less risk.

Or, much more simply:

QuoteA fine shall be payable to the Burgermeister of Internal Revenue, or to any appropriate charitable institution as the Cort may direct, and shall be considered paid upon receipt for that payment being received by the Cort.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on June 15, 2021, 06:14:51 PM
The person in question is going to be unlikely to defend themselves, so they need state representation -- does the public defender proposal already here cover them enough?

That was what I wrote it specifically to do, but I value any suggestions for improvement.

Quote
A charge of bringing Talossa into ill-repute may only proceed to prosecution if a judge, after a full and fair hearing conducted in the presence of counsel for the accused, determines that the foreign conviction meets the following criteria:
1. The conviction is likely to qualify as the crime of bringing Talossa into ill-repute under the terms of 7.10.1,
2. The conviction took place after a full and fair hearing in a competent court of law.

This is, like, 90% of the actual burden of proof for the crime, so I'm not sure it makes sense to put it into a preliminary hearing before a judge? Like, you'd want to have a "double trial"? If the accused has to retain and instruct counsel, exactly how are they saved any hassle by going through this process?

There is also the problem of: why is this crime so special that it needs a "double trial"? As opposed to, I dunno, treason or harassment within Talossa?

I get your point about not wanting to open the door to political prosecutions. But any crime can be open to a political prosecution. If you were to ask Lord Hooligan, I'm sure he'd say his own prosecution (out of the aftermath of the ESB Affair) was a political hit-job. If you want to avoid political prosecutions in general, then I would suggest something like a grand jury system. One which wouldn't indict a ham sandwich like its US equivalent, though.

Quote from: GV on June 17, 2021, 11:45:21 PM

Quote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN on June 17, 2021, 08:30:03 PM
Still thinking about this. Feel free to talk amongst yourselves.

We need a durable and specific definition of 'treason'.

7.2.1 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.

Still thinking about this. Feel free to talk amongst yourselves.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on June 15, 2021, 07:26:43 AM
As I see it, you're suggesting two things need to be resolved to meet this standard:

1. Was someone convicted of a crime that matches the definition of stuff we really don't like?
2. Was this conviction fair (ie, was it in a place like Auckland or a place more like Tehran)?

I think that in the vast majority of cases, the second question will be one of just checking the box.  It's not often going to be in dispute about whether or not a conviction was actually fair, especially if we are clear that the specifics of the trial really aren't the question.  We don't want people trying to argue that they had ineffective counsel, for example.  So we can probably handle these questions in that order, and the central part of the process will just be the very simple question of whether a conviction qualifies as "bribery" or whatnot.  I don't really worry about anyone getting persecuted or railroaded with such a process.

Before continuing, does all of that seem correct to you?

I believe that all this is correct, but I also like Ián T.'s approach. I think we have to keep in mind that we don't want a process which is so strict or so complicated that it just won't be used.

We should keep in mind the only precedent for this situation - the I. Canún situation - and whatever standard we raise, we should think: how would the I. Canún case have played out under this standard? I mean, I would like to believe that whether a foreign court ruling is credible would be a box-ticking exercise: but unless I'm very mistaken, at the time of the Canún case, certain prominent Talossans were saying that the US court ruling was not credible, based on their conservative political beliefs about how it's "too easy" to be convicted of  sexual violence these days.

I wouldn't be averse to excising 7.2.10 and debating it separately, if the rest of the bill is uncontroversial and won't attract a Royal veto.

Quote from: xpb on June 15, 2021, 10:26:51 AM
some kind of lottery or drawing

Lotteries are currently illegal under El Lexhatx A.1 which incorporates Wisconsin statute 945. Hopefully we'll have that repealed soon though.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on June 13, 2021, 12:27:25 PM
adding in some basic provisions about this would probably be a good idea, ie: "A single action of a defendant may be considered to break more than one law and may be charged accordingly."

Sure, why not. (now section 1.3)

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on June 13, 2021, 12:35:00 PM

Quote5.4.

This should be deleted, or we should be honest and just state that revocation is a possible punishment for all crimes.  Putting it this way is just misleading, I think, since it basically says, "Only serious and terrible crimes that we call felonies may lead to losing your citizenship but not really, actually anything can."

Sure, why not - it was only there because it's in the existing law (as A.5.2.2). Should we think about something else to deal with the "habitual criminal", though?

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on June 13, 2021, 12:37:06 PM
Two years is not a long time for probation, especially for serious crimes.  I'd suggest five years.

Sure, why not.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on June 13, 2021, 12:40:18 PM
Are you open to some more work on the crimes definitions? ... Some are great, but I'm looking in particular at things like fraud and harassment.

Sure, why not; but I don't want them to become too complicated. The definition of harassment comes from Wisconsin law, whereas the definition of fraud comes from the dictionary.

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on June 13, 2021, 12:45:05 PM

Quick rewrite {of 7.2.10} for readability:

Thanks!

Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on June 13, 2021, 12:45:05 PM
we are asking that part of the trial judgment include judging whether or not a foreign court is both credible and abides by Talossan values, but we're not defining either of those very squidgy ideas.  Definitions of these terms should be added to the definitions section.

Hmmm. You know, I forgot that I put the term "Talossan values" in there, and I'm not sure I still like it, so happy to hear alternatives. I think honestly we have to go at this through a negative definition - i.e. it's far easier to declare that a Court is not "credible" or doesn't abide by our values than the other way around (i.e. it doesn't provide a fair trial in the way we would recognize it in Talossa, because of lack of judicial independence or serious bias against certain kinds of people.)

But honestly, very glad to hear you seem to like the direction I've gone in with this. Thanks again to Marcel for the idea. Speaking of which...

QuoteMy idea for maximum punishments would be something like this:
Felony -- 5 years of civil disability and/or ℓ500 ($750)
Severe misdemeanour -- 1 year of civil disability and/or ℓ100 ($150)
Misdemeanour -- 6 months of civil disability and/or ℓ50 ($75)

An ordinary misdemeanour doesn't carry civil disability, by definition - but apart from that, sure, why not.

Check out the updated version: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OfQlUZrowS4frssyea6-SLxz8Pcss5WNNxyKud82lQw/edit?usp=sharing

I've noted all the above and will hopefully reply when other events are less pressing. In the meantime it would be good to hear other voices.