News:

Welcome to Wittenberg!

Main Menu

Recent posts

#1
Progressive Alliance / Re: Coalition Agreement the Pr...
Last post by King Txec - Today at 11:02:21 PM
No, you cannot be removed from the Cosa. Your party earned those seats.

-Txec R
#2
Progressive Alliance / Re: Coalition Agreement the Pr...
Last post by Mximo Malt - Today at 10:35:03 PM
Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on Today at 07:07:42 AM


This coalition agreement has been dissolved.  The IDT will not have a place in Government in the upcoming term.  S:reu Malt will still hopefully assist us with language matters, but given our concerns about his views and certainty about his erratic choices, we have opted not to put him in a position of authority.

The Progressive Alliance wants to work with everybody, even when our views differ, but sometimes the choices people make are a harsh limit on the extent to which we're able to welcome their contributions.

We are still open to a confidence and supply agreement which does not grant S:reu Malt any authority or discretion, but a vote is currently ongoing and no decision has been made.

Does this mean I'll be kicked off the Cosă?
#3
Wittenberg / Re: A Formal Apology to the Ta...
Last post by Mximo Malt - Today at 10:33:45 PM
Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on Today at 07:02:27 AMWe've talked privately, and I've told you that we don't traffic in racism around here.  It's universally condemned and unequivocally shunned.  I'm hoping that you were hasty before, and that this recent controversy reflects this haste and your youth.  I think your resolution to back off, quiet down, and spend some time learning is a smart one.  This is a good first step.

I guess I should say thanks? Idk what to do at this point 🤷
#4
Va stätsmint d'apoloxhà püt estar trovat aicì (in anglească).
#5
Whereas, presently the King, Seneschal, and Secretary of State can request an advisory opinion from the Cort pü Inalt, and

Whereas, presently the Government's chief legal advisor, the Avocat-Xheneral, nor the principal originators of legislation-members of the Ziu, can request an an advisory opinion from the Cort pü Inalt, and

Whereas, it seems reasonable for the Government's chief legal advisor to have the ability to also seek advice from the Judiciary, and

Whereas, it also seems reasonable for members of the Ziu to be able to seek judicial review on legislative matters.

Therefore, be it enacted by the Ziu of the Kingdom of Talossa, that Article VIII, Section 6 of the Organic Law, which currently reads as:

QuoteUntil such time as inferior corts are established, a Judge may sit as a nisi prius cort in all civil and criminal matters.

No decision or order issued by an inferior cort or nisi prius cort shall bind a coordinate cort.

The decisions or orders of the Cort pü Inalt shall bind all lower corts according to the doctrine of stare decisis provided that that the panel was composed of no less than three Judges after necessary recusal. The Cort pü Inalt may, as it deems appropriate, issue decisions or orders that are non-binding provided that it explicitly states that intention in the decision or order.

A nisi prius cort or an inferior cort deviating from binding precedent must state so with clarity and refer the matter for appellate review.

Notwithstanding any contrary proscription, the King, the Secretary of State, or the Seneschal may refer an issue to the Cort pü Inalt for an advisory opinion provided that any such panel reviewing the position is composed of no less than three Judges after any necessary recusal, there lacks a live case or controversy that would otherwise determine the issue, and there is a reasonably need for resolution of the question.

A matter arising under the Covenants of Rights and Freedoms is appealable as of right to the Cort pü Inalt. In all other instances, the Cort pü Inalt may not be compelled to exercise its appellate authority. However, when declining to do so, the Cort pü Inalt must issue an order declaring such, and no such declaration shall be deemed as the Cort pü Inalt adopting or setting as binding precedent the appealed from decision or order.

The Cort pü Inalt, and any other cort existing under this article, shall interpret all matters through the lens of the Covenants of Rights and Freedoms.

Any Judge that is a named party in a matter shall recuse himself or herself from hearing any and all parts of the matter.

Is amended to read as follows:

QuoteUntil such time as inferior corts are established, a Judge may sit as a nisi prius cort in all civil and criminal matters.

No decision or order issued by an inferior cort or nisi prius cort shall bind a coordinate cort.

The decisions or orders of the Cort pü Inalt shall bind all lower corts according to the doctrine of stare decisis provided that that the panel was composed of no less than three Judges after necessary recusal. The Cort pü Inalt may, as it deems appropriate, issue decisions or orders that are non-binding provided that it explicitly states that intention in the decision or order.

A nisi prius cort or an inferior cort deviating from binding precedent must state so with clarity and refer the matter for appellate review.

Notwithstanding any contrary proscription, the King, the Secretary of State, the Seneschal, the Avocat-Xheneral, or a member of the Ziu may refer an issue to the Cort pü Inalt for an advisory opinion provided that any such panel reviewing the position is composed of no less than three Judges after any necessary recusal, there lacks a live case or controversy that would otherwise determine the issue, and there is a reasonably need for resolution of the question.

A matter arising under the Covenants of Rights and Freedoms is appealable as of right to the Cort pü Inalt. In all other instances, the Cort pü Inalt may not be compelled to exercise its appellate authority. However, when declining to do so, the Cort pü Inalt must issue an order declaring such, and no such declaration shall be deemed as the Cort pü Inalt adopting or setting as binding precedent the appealed from decision or order.

The Cort pü Inalt, and any other cort existing under this article, shall interpret all matters through the lens of the Covenants of Rights and Freedoms.

Any Judge that is a named party in a matter shall recuse himself or herself from hearing any and all parts of the matter.

Uréu q'estadra så
Breneir Tzaracomprada (MC-GREEN)
#6
Claimed a seat via the database.

Most likely my second and only time.
#7
L'Óspileu/The Chat Room / Re: [Royal] Mourning
Last post by Mximo Malt - Today at 05:13:13 PM
Quote from: King Txec on December 09, 2025, 08:55:04 PMThe Queen and I mourn the passing of our royal cat Oreo. He was our baby from 2010-2025.



-Txec R

Poor kitty... :(
#8
Cézembre / Re: Citizens of Cézembre : cla...
Last post by xpb - Today at 04:26:44 PM
Quote from: xpb on May 26, 2024, 10:23:13 AMI, X. Pol Briga, citizen of the Sovereign Province of Cézembre, hereby claim a seat in l'Etats.

I do this again, but I think the new polling was setup to accommodate this
#9
Wittenberg / Re: [ELECTIONS] November-Dece...
Last post by xpb - Today at 04:19:41 PM
Quote from: Breneir Tzaracomprada on Today at 01:43:10 PM@Sir Lüc
10 American buckaroos have been sent to @xpb by Zelle for payment of the Green Party fee. If you might publicly confirm receipt, Mister Burgermister? Zelle confirmation number is 6BE17ZQ7.
I show the payment as pending but in progress
#10
Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on Today at 01:23:00 PMa lot of our voters, who specifically mentioned some of the URL mailers that motivated them to vote Prog.

I'd be interested to hear from those people. I can understand that the "tone" of the URL mailers might have struck some as overwrought, but the content - that the PA preferred to make an alliance with absolute monarchists, and thus in a very real and practical sense didn't value democracy - had the virtue of being true. That came back to bite you.

It also confirms what I've been saying for ages about how the PA is not held together by political principle, but by an "ingroup/outgroup" distinction. Anyone can join the ingroup if they agree not to criticise anyone else in the ingroup. And this characterisation is something you seem to be really upset by. Equally so as alleged "lies" and "aggression". I'm not sure why, but I hope you accept that this is a good faith political characterisation which makes no imputation of bad character.

In any case, I'm not sure what led you to make that "Leader's Post" in public - an attempt to "negotiate by press release"? a response to internal pressures? - but you have to remember that there are two sides here to the negotiation and it didn't help build good faith on our side.