I mean, I'd do it if you really thought it was important, but honestly I've been trying to take AD's advice, i.e. be absent because it'll encourage people to fill the gap. Hasn't worked, lol

I should point out that the Minister of STUFF emailed the King about moving kingdomoftalossa.net to the same server as our other domain names, and he responded promptly and positively. So he's at least doing something.

I humbly request @the Mençei and the rest of the Senäts to get the requisite hearings going ASAP so we can hopefully put this bill on the First Clark in November.

I also point out that, right now, there are two open seats on the Cort, so there is no obstacle to a certain other nom getting a vote as well.

Under the Provisions of Article VIII Section 4 of the Organic Law of the Kingdom of Talossa, BE IT ENACTED by the King, Cosă and Senäts of Talossa in Ziu Assembled that @Istefan Perþonest is nominated as Puisne Justice of the Uppermost Cort of Talossa.

I humbly suggest GV for Regent, or failing that, myself, just for the heart attacks it would cause :D

The Government has, in fact, discussed this issue, and even reached out to the Leader of the Opposition on the subject.

This is of course the problem with the monarchy, as I've been saying for 23 years. There are no political forms of accountability, so if "informal" forms don't work - i.e. asking him nicely to come and do his job - then we have to either "grin and bear it"; or go to dethronement.

OrgLaw II.4 states:

QuoteIn dire circumstances, when the King is judged by competent medical authority to be incapable of executing his duties, or if he is convicted by the Talossan Uppermost Cort of violation of this Organic Law, treason, bribery, nonfeasance endangering the safety, order or good government of the Kingdom, or other high crimes, the nation may remove the King from the Throne. The Cosa shall pronounce by a two-thirds vote, with the approval of the Senäts, that the King is to be removed, and this pronouncement shall immediately be transmitted to the people for their verdict in a referendum. If a two-thirds majority of the people concur, the King is removed.

The bolded bits seem relevant. Of course, the alternative would be an OrgLaw amendment to just delete Organic Law II.3, which would actually have a lesser threshhold (only a bare majority in the Senäts and in referendum!) But of course, no OrgLaw amendment or dethronement can happen, under current political realities, without the backing of the League of Center Conservatives in the Cosa.

My guess would be that the prospect of getting agreement for the procedure laid out in II.4 would be more likely than for just deleting II.3 - which would require taking a case to the UC that the King just not being here or doing anything (appointing the SoS or the Cabinet, among other things) endangers our safety, order and good government.

The question of at what point such a case is likely to win - i.e. how much the King's absence can be tolerated before it actually starts to hurt the fabric of the Nation - is one I am leaving up to the Attorney-General right now. Poor guy gets all the crappy jobs.

The Cabinet Code of Conduct, endorsed by the incoming cabinet this very week, reads in part:

QuoteCabinet members will also strive to conduct themselves professionally while interacting with the general
public and/or other officers of State while exercising their functions.

It is my judgement, as Seneschál, that Attorney-General Açafat dal Val has not been upholding this commitment when replying to (admittedly sharp, and in some cases unfounded) criticism from Opposition figures and members of the public, re: the Cabinet decision to withdraw our support for naming Sir A. Davinescù to the Uppermost Cort.

Further, the Code says:

QuoteThe Seneschál is responsible for upholding this Code of Conduct, and shall publicly warn any violators.

I am doing so.

I will conclude by saying that I admire the Attorney-General's energy and enthusiasm and Talossan patriotism; I hope we can put the current unpleasantness behind us and move on to great things in the rest of this term.

Quote from: Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on September 23, 2020, 03:08:12 PM
For those who don't closely follow American politics, the Avocat-Xheneral is here comparing my behavior to a nominee to the US Supreme Court who was credibly accused of rape.

HAHAHAHAHA someone on the FreeDems FB group just won a prize!

To be fair though, "Kegs" Kavanagh wasn't rejected, more's the pity.

It is well known that AD likes beer!

Quote from: Glüc da Dhi S.H. on September 23, 2020, 12:58:42 PM
Apparently only those who don't criticise the government are allowed to be judges.

Do you want to be a Judge? I think you'd be qualified.

As I say, I didn't support the Cabinet withdrawing the nom. But it is sheer slander to say that this is "punishing political dissent". I've been saying for years that AD drives people up the wall not because of his political positions, but by his behaviour, tone, and lack of respect for others. Other people just can't see this. They just don't see that AD does anything wrong with the way he expresses his opinions, or that people have good reason to be upset by it. In fact, I believed that - just like V - if AD were on the Cort he would no doubt clean up his act and be more careful in how he expressed himself.

If people in Talossa honestly, honestly see nothing wrong with how AD conducts himself - and they can only believe that he's being picked on because he opposes the Government - then it makes me angry, because there's nothing I can do to persuade those people otherwise. The fact that this was a collective cabinet decision, in which I was a minority, should show everyone that this is not just personal beef with myself. AD alienated other people..

A final note: I sought the advice of the Leader of the Opposition when Cabinet was making this decision. He expressed continued support for AD's nom, and I communicated that to Cabinet. I will fistfight anyone who suggests personal impropriety in this decision, and I may well mean that literally.

IMPORTANT CLARIFICATION

I was in a minority in the Cabinet on this issue. My position that Sir Alexandreu is qualified for this post remains unchanged. But the Attorney-General is correct that this nomination no longer has the support of a majority of Cabinet.

I have formally requested the Leader of the Opposition to take up and Clark the "AD to the UC" Bill, since I no longer can.The Free Democrats will be granted a free vote on this Bill if it is Clarked, that is, every MC may vote how they choose. I will still vote PER if it is Clarked.

Me, March 11 2012:

QuoteThe Kingdom is enforcing the 14 year old age limit on immigrants, right? Benny the Corncob is raising my suspicion he might actually be two 7-year-olds in an adult trenchcoat.

... hold on there a motorscootin' moment. That date is before Reunision. I didn't realise ESB started this malarkey so early! Which puts to bed the idea that it was all a plot to win Kingdom elections for the ZRT, a party which didn't exist yet.

Quote from: Eiric S. Bornatfiglheu on September 22, 2020, 05:26:28 PM
The others were a lot less well fleshed-out than Benedict Stamford, to be honest.  When King John called me to confront me, he asked me how I had got ahold of BenStam's logins.  I had to tell him I'd made him up as well.

;D The lesson from this is: ban all dramaturges from citizenship, they're too cunning and convincing.

Honestly, the only one which made me suspicious was "Judah P. Benjamin". Since I'd just finished reading one of Harry Turtledove's "CSA wins the Civil War" alt-histories.

Quote from: Glüc da Dhi S.H. on September 22, 2020, 05:09:37 PM
Benedict Stamford was an idiot and a charicature. I don't think people took him seriously at all.

I hate to break it to you, but being abused and insulted by an idiot and a caricature happens to me quite often in Talossa and in other places, and it still hurts, badly. Just making sure that - even in your version of history where ESB was mainly motivated to help my party win - you don't think I was "in on it", or approved of it.

Quote from: Glüc da Dhi S.H. on September 22, 2020, 04:59:12 PM
he did use his sockpuppets to vote, engage in political arguments, attack political opponents and in one case pretend to support a party he didnt like in a way that made the sockpuppet (and thus the party) look like a complete tool.

Perhaps its true he was just trying to see how much he could get away with. I think its very likely he was also motivated by partisan interest.

This is a tendentious rewriting of history. ESB's sock puppets - inc. Benedict Stamford - personally attacked me in a way that makes AD's sniping look like friendly banter. A strange way to go about it if he wanted to help the ZRT win. Of course most of the socks voted ZRT, but that surely comes under "supporting a party in such a way that made the party look like a complete tool", as you say.

In any case, this is why we should have a paragraph on the ESB Affair in the New Talossan History Project. Maybe you should write, Glüc?