Quote from: Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial on June 07, 2021, 05:06:43 PM
The statute in question begins with the words "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 any of the following, whether legally constituted or exercising powers as if legally constitutedis guilty of a Class H felony", which sound like what youre asking for.
Thanks for that - that's the basis for a Talossan Perjury Bill right there, lol.
QuoteI'm afraid I'd have to sift through 173 years worth of court cases to find everything that might be relevant (a problem with Common Law in general) so probably not.
That's precisely right. My opponents want a Common Law system based on stare decisis. Incorporating Wisconsin law into Talossan law means that Wisconsin precedent becomes relevant. Only actual trained lawyers in the Wisconsin jurisdiction are capable of doing that. Cresti himself commonly brought up Wisconsin precedents in Talossan court cases; and yet some people who defend this transclusion of Wisconsin law also say that "Talossan law must be open to amateurs".
I've suggested a Civil Law system where only the text of statute matters, but that wasn't popular.