... ya Allà, reading those threads reminds me of why I had to take 6 months off Talossa after the Proclamation Crisis. AD's legal tactics caused me literal sleepless nights and deprived me of all joy in this nation.

Quote from: King John on January 20, 2020, 04:52:19 PM
the most important case in which stare decisis was, I think we can all agree, entirely ignored...

there wasn't any "petition to re-argue", nor any re-argument.  Simply the Cort announcing a different decision in a case they'd already decided. 

That is simply false. I may not have used the term "petition to re-argue", but I forwarded a petition which presented different facts and alternative legal reasoning to the original decision re: 47RZ28, which the UC accepted. I find it hard to believe you don't remember this, but there you are: there was an original case, then the Government asked for the case to be re-heard on different evidence and a different legal principle.

"I think we can all agree" is a phrase often used by people who know what they're about to say is controversial but want to shift the burden of proving that to their opponents.

You said that Talossa was a place where people can be what they can't be in real life; well, I'm sorry that real life doesn't offer you enough places to be a smart-ass.

Seriously: the King is still going on about the Proclamation Crisis? Talk about "holding a grudge". And honestly I think V's answer to that was great: that in New York law, courts get petitions to re-argue quite often, and sometimes they admit they get it wrong.

It would certainly be a problem if our Head of State were to be someone who held grudges and had strong personal antipathies to Talossans with whom he had crossed swords in the past.

Oh wait.

Quote from: Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on January 16, 2020, 03:52:48 PM
Oddly and I'm sure by accident, you cut off the last bit of that sentence.

Nope, did it on purpose, to emphasise that you think Republican views contribute to disqualifying for a UC justice. If you mean that only when in conjunction with "personal animus", then I'll accept that - but then you're opening the door for everyone of professed Republican sympathies to be interrogated (or their Witt posts searched) as to whether they don't like the King personally, while those of Monarchist views (who might have a real problem with the incumbent, who might for example want KR1 back) get away free.

QuoteIt is fairly important that V has expressed immense animus against the king, personally, in addition to the throne. He swore there would be no peace until abdication, remember?

"Swore". It would be funny if he actually did swear, and I'm sure you have the receipts. But I don't consider it good precedent to declare that personal animus previously expressed towards a prominent person is disqualifying for a Justice (if it were, given Talossan history, we'd be short of candidates) - as long as the candidate can convince the Cort that they would do their job. I would have the same attitude if it were one of the many, many Talossans who have expressed personal animus against me up for nomination.

Funny thing - in a fine example of Freudian projection, King Robert I, possibly the most hate-filled grudge-holding person in Talossan history, similarly used to describe all his opponents as hate-filled and holding grudges. The cunning thing about this was that Ben used to infuriate people into losing their tempers at him - which, in his mind, proved their hatefulness. It was a brilliant strategy because so many of us are brought up to value being "nice" and not openly expressing animus/conflict as a social must.

QuoteI think you also had a significant record of temperance and good faith best efforts as a track record.

Why, thank you. I honestly assumed I was in the same "hateful, corrupt, grudge-holder" basket as V.

Quote from: Lüc on January 16, 2020, 03:15:41 AM
A personal grudge is not the same as philosophical differences

The "personal grudge" AD alleges is a figment of his imagination. I've said equally intemperate things about KJ1 personally when I've been particularly incensed at some monarchic míeida or other, and you've seen me operate as his Seneschál on a perfectly respectful and mutual productive basis for the best part of a year, even when we disagree.

AD has made a habit of claiming that his political opponents are full of hatred, hold grudges and are personally and politically corrupt. It's his "finishing move".

ETA: AD admits in his closing statement it's V's republican views to which he objects:

QuoteI submit to this committee that I think it likely that the nominee will find it hard to give any case involving the throne an unbiased hearing, given his emphatic and emotional opposition to the institution

More from the peanut gallery:

Quote from: @agbdavisSo in what way could you assure us of your impartiality when confronting a case, as you most certainly will be asked to do, concerning an institution you have sworn to abolish and a person you have sworn you despise?

If AD's line of questioning makes sense, it would entail that no Talossan of Republican beliefs could sit on the High Cort: which would disqualify at least one or two of the incumbents.

I think it's because criminal convictions are so incredibly rare. I think ESB is the only one in my "Talossan lifetime".

Ián P said something on OldWitt about memorable Talossan judicial precedent. My favourite one would have to be from the 1992 case recorded in Ár Päts, where KR1 was actually convicted of treason (for attempting to secede Vuode), but was given no punishment as a "first offence".

Pienamaintschen were the "updates" to our national vocabulary, El Tresiour, necessitated by the CÚG's various reforms issued as Arestadas.

I wonder whether @El Duceu dàl SIGN could possibly provide a Pienamaintsch to get us from either KR1-era Talossan, or from the Talossan last updated by the CÚG, to the spelling envisaged by the Provisional Rules? Or give others a hint so we could write it ourselves? To give an example, what would be the rules by which I could transform this (written in KR1-era Talossan) into Provisional Rules Talossan, or Talossan 4.0 as I call it?

QuoteEls Tütschen füvent casâ mhe
Me zirevent: resighnetz-te
Mas non tignhoveu pör
Reprendeveu va rifal

Teu cambiat cînt fäts va nômina
Teu pierdat fieux és femina
Mas teu cetantis d'amici
Teu la Francâ entieir

Dîn 'n ceatarasi, 'n senesch
Noi ascunçeva për el nich't
El Tütschen lo tent anflat;
Morteva sînc supriça

El vînt, el vînt eißala
Trans els graveux, el eißala
La livertà ischà;
És noi surxharhent dàls umbrâs.

You're welcome.

I officially apply for SIGN membership. When are we going to have a website where the Official Rules are displayed? Or at least a TalossaWiki page?

To be snarky, I wouldn't expect Senator Guy Incognito to have the same ideas as the rest of us on what "real" means  :D

I'm travelling with my family until Friday and my Witt browsing may be reduced. For urgent matters in that time, @the Distáin, Ián Plätschisch has full authority.

WHEREAS the Magistrate's Cort was abolished by 47RZ39;

and WHEREAS the main reference in El Lexhatx to the Magistrate's Cort was removed by 48RZ26;

and WHEREAS I can't believe no-one noticed until now that there are all manner of other references to this defunct Cort floating around in El Lexhatx

and WHEREAS this bill replaces all of them I can find, with the exception of provisions relating to the privileges of former Magistrates:


BE IT ENACTED by the King, Cosâ and Senäts of Talossa in Ziu assembled that El Lexhatx be amended as follows:

1. El Lexhatx A.9.5 shall be amended by the DELETION of the words indicated below:

QuoteAll members of the Ziu, the Cabinet, the Uppermost Court, the Magistrate's Courts, the Chancery, or the Royal Treasury must report the following information to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs within 15 days of assuming the aforementioned office or of a change in micronational status, whichever is later:

2. El Lexhatx A.17 shall be REMOVED entirely.

3. El Lexhatx D.2.5.1.7 shall be amended by the DELETION of the words indicated below:

QuoteThe Ministry of Justice shall not engage in post-hoc review of prior convictions before a magistrate unless the interests of justice are represented in the form of an independent counsel, appointed by the Avocat-Xheneral, who shall be responsible for vigorously contesting this review.

4. El Lexhatx G.4 shall be amended by the DELETION of the words indicated:

QuoteAll appeals, as with other court actions, shall be filed with the Clerk of Courts. Upon official judicial assignment, the Justice(s) , Judge or Magistrate may either dismiss the case, by declining to hear it, or begin hearing opening arguments in the matter as presented by all relevant parties.

5. El Lexhatx G.5.2 shall be amended by the DELETION of the words indicated:

QuoteThe clerk shall then assign the case to a Judge, Magistrate or Justice in the lowest court holding jurisdiction over the matter.

6. El Lexhatx G.5.8 shall be amended by the DELETION of the words indicated:

QuoteThe individual holding the office of Clerk of Courts shall enjoy immunity from civil or criminal suit for any actions performed in the course of his or her official duties while holding this office. This immunity shall be lost upon leaving office. Due to the nature of the Clerk's responsibilities, an individual may not hold the office of Clerk of Courts, or any deputy thereunder, while simultaneously holding office as a Justice , Judge or Magistrate of the Uppermost Cort or any national inferior court.