CRL Committee for the 57th Cosa

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

Also this:

WHEREAS there is a large legal loophole that would permit virtually any crime, including very serious crimes such as threats of sexual assault, theft, bribery, or anything else, and

WHEREAS the problem lies with the fact that we're offering unlimited and unqualified sanctuary under terms which clearly reference the medieval Christian practice of offering church protection from secular law, thereby allowing anyone to claim the right of sanctuary if accused of crimes, and

WHEREAS it's hard to find any other way to interpret this bit of the law so that it makes sense, and so therefore this reading probably is going to be a valid one, or at the very least would be an incredible complication that might make it impossible to prosecute someone, and

WHEREAS no one has yet taken advantage of it, but there's no reason to think that will last forever,

THEREFORE the tenth section of Title A of el Lexhatx, which currently reads

10. The Ziu hereby recognizes the historic right of churches and other religious organizations to offer sanctuary to individuals in dire need.

is hereby stricken in its entirety.

FURTHERMORE, the words "Except as provided in A.17," shall be struck from section 16.

FURTHERMORE, the Scribe is directed to renumber Title A in a sensible fashion.

Uréu q'estadra så:
Baron Alexandreu Davinescu

[esbornatfiglheu]

Submitting this to the committee:

WHEREAS currently the entire status of much of our legal system is possibly itself illegal, since the Ziu's ennumerated powers do not include any power to write criminal laws at all, nor to regulate any aspect of the legal system, meaning that most of Titles A & J are very much in doubt if challenged in cort, and

WHEREAS this means that anyone in cort can very reasonably ask under what authority the Ziu purports to organically restrict their behavior, when all such power seems reserved to the provinces under the letter of the law, and can also ask how the Ziu gets to set any standards for the bar or other things,

THEREFORE the third section of Article VII of the 1997 Organic Law shall be amended to include these additional provisions:

20. Criminal justice designed to protect the personal and property rights of citizens.
21. Administrative matters incidental to the functioning of the justice system.

Uréu q'estadra så:
Baron Alexandreu Davinescu

So far as I can tell, this work appears sound.

[esbornatfiglheu]

Also this:

WHEREAS there is a large legal loophole that would permit virtually any crime, including very serious crimes such as threats of sexual assault, theft, bribery, or anything else, and

WHEREAS the problem lies with the fact that we're offering unlimited and unqualified sanctuary under terms which clearly reference the medieval Christian practice of offering church protection from secular law, thereby allowing anyone to claim the right of sanctuary if accused of crimes, and

WHEREAS it's hard to find any other way to interpret this bit of the law so that it makes sense, and so therefore this reading probably is going to be a valid one, or at the very least would be an incredible complication that might make it impossible to prosecute someone, and

WHEREAS no one has yet taken advantage of it, but there's no reason to think that will last forever,

THEREFORE the tenth section of Title A of el Lexhatx, which currently reads

10. The Ziu hereby recognizes the historic right of churches and other religious organizations to offer sanctuary to individuals in dire need.

is hereby stricken in its entirety.

FURTHERMORE, the words "Except as provided in A.17," shall be struck from section 16.

FURTHERMORE, the Scribe is directed to renumber Title A in a sensible fashion.

Uréu q'estadra så:
Baron Alexandreu Davinescu

In looking through, I'm pretty sure that this dots its "i's" and crosses its "t's."  Should work

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

Thanks! And I'm also okay with them both, so that's sorted.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

Can I please submit for the CRL's appraisal the Let's Make This Official Compromise Bill

[esbornatfiglheu]

The Let's Make This Official Compromise Bill

WHEREAS the Kingdom recognizes the importance of celebrating important dates and events in Talossan history, and

WHEREAS the Republican schism of June 1 2004, as the act of defiance that sparked the movement leading to the abdication of a tyrannical King and the restoration of democracy in the Kingdom, was an incredibly important moment in the history of Talossa; and

WHEREAS Reunision as the re-uniting of our nation's monarchist and republican traditions also marks an incredibly important moment in the history of Talossa;


Therefore be it resolved that two new subsections are placed at El Lexhatx F 2.4, with any necessary renumbering of following subsections, to read:

20 April. Reunision Day. Commemorating the royal proclamation of Reunision and the end of the National Schism.

1 June. Democracy Day. Commemorating the foundation of the Talossan Republic as a day to honour democracy and the popular will, for both Republican and Monarchist traditions.

On the face of it, I see nothing wrong.  But I do want to get a touch of clarity.

There are, essentially, two bills doing very similar things, yes?  There is the "Let's Make This Official Act" by Tzaracomprada/Davinescu and the "Let's Make This Official Compromise Bill" as proposed by Schivă.  Both enshrine Reunison Day, while the latter also enshrines Democracy Day. 

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

That's exactly right. I suggested this amendment to the former bill and I was simply ignored. So I thought, what the hell.

I should also point out that - if present political positions hold - the former bill will not pass, while mine has a good chance to.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

That's exactly right. I suggested this amendment to the former bill and I was simply ignored. So I thought, what the hell.

I should also point out that - if present political positions hold - the former bill will not pass, while mine has a good chance to.

There already is a Democracy Day. It commemorates the start of democracy in the country. So that is a serious flaw in the bill that will need to be fixed.

Your flexible memory aside, I proposed a compromise between the two bills, Dama.  It remains the last post on the thread, since you ignored it.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

Your flexible memory aside, I proposed a compromise between the two bills, Dama.  It remains the last post on the thread, since you ignored it.

... actually, I never saw it. My apologies - I have been rather unwell for the last month and only checking Witt once a day, which means some things fall off the "latest 59" post.

I am happy to make that amendment you suggest.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

Your flexible memory aside, I proposed a compromise between the two bills, Dama.  It remains the last post on the thread, since you ignored it.

... actually, I never saw it. My apologies - I have been rather unwell for the last month and only checking Witt once a day, which means some things fall off the "latest 59" post.

I am happy to make that amendment you suggest.

It's okay!  Things happen, and it's entirely understandable if you miss something.  But that means you should probably give others the same benefit of the doubt, right?

Would you be open to just having Republic Day on the day of Reunision, and no Reunision Day at all, and getting basically 100% of the Cosa behind this?  I really don't want to endorse the narrative that Reunision was the defeat of the Republic, and this alternative would specifically celebrate its history and heritage but not the unfortunate schism that separated so many for so long.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

Your flexible memory aside, I proposed a compromise between the two bills, Dama.  It remains the last post on the thread, since you ignored it.

... actually, I never saw it. My apologies - I have been rather unwell for the last month and only checking Witt once a day, which means some things fall off the "latest 59" post.

I am happy to make that amendment you suggest.

It's okay!  Things happen, and it's entirely understandable if you miss something.  But that means you should probably give others the same benefit of the doubt, right?

Would you be open to just having Republic Day on the day of Reunision, and no Reunision Day at all, and getting basically 100% of the Cosa behind this?  I really don't want to endorse the narrative that Reunision was the defeat of the Republic, and this alternative would specifically celebrate its history and heritage but not the unfortunate schism that separated so many for so long.

What precisely is happening here?

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

Your flexible memory aside, I proposed a compromise between the two bills, Dama.  It remains the last post on the thread, since you ignored it.

... actually, I never saw it. My apologies - I have been rather unwell for the last month and only checking Witt once a day, which means some things fall off the "latest 59" post.

I am happy to make that amendment you suggest.

It's okay!  Things happen, and it's entirely understandable if you miss something.  But that means you should probably give others the same benefit of the doubt, right?

Would you be open to just having Republic Day on the day of Reunision, and no Reunision Day at all, and getting basically 100% of the Cosa behind this?  I really don't want to endorse the narrative that Reunision was the defeat of the Republic, and this alternative would specifically celebrate its history and heritage but not the unfortunate schism that separated so many for so long.

What precisely is happening here?

You submitted your bill to the CRL, and Dama Miestra submitted her bill.  ESB asked to confirm that they were really very similar, and that has led into a discussion where I'm trying to hammer out a compromise that might be agreeable to both of you.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

Your flexible memory aside, I proposed a compromise between the two bills, Dama.  It remains the last post on the thread, since you ignored it.

... actually, I never saw it. My apologies - I have been rather unwell for the last month and only checking Witt once a day, which means some things fall off the "latest 59" post.

I am happy to make that amendment you suggest.

It's okay!  Things happen, and it's entirely understandable if you miss something.  But that means you should probably give others the same benefit of the doubt, right?

Would you be open to just having Republic Day on the day of Reunision, and no Reunision Day at all, and getting basically 100% of the Cosa behind this?  I really don't want to endorse the narrative that Reunision was the defeat of the Republic, and this alternative would specifically celebrate its history and heritage but not the unfortunate schism that separated so many for so long.

What precisely is happening here?

You submitted your bill to the CRL, and Dama Miestra submitted her bill.  ESB asked to confirm that they were really very similar, and that has led into a discussion where I'm trying to hammer out a compromise that might be agreeable to both of you.

It is not acceptable to me. By submitting the original to the CRL and then clarking it...I thought that was clear.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

Your flexible memory aside, I proposed a compromise between the two bills, Dama.  It remains the last post on the thread, since you ignored it.

... actually, I never saw it. My apologies - I have been rather unwell for the last month and only checking Witt once a day, which means some things fall off the "latest 59" post.

I am happy to make that amendment you suggest.

It's okay!  Things happen, and it's entirely understandable if you miss something.  But that means you should probably give others the same benefit of the doubt, right?

Would you be open to just having Republic Day on the day of Reunision, and no Reunision Day at all, and getting basically 100% of the Cosa behind this?  I really don't want to endorse the narrative that Reunision was the defeat of the Republic, and this alternative would specifically celebrate its history and heritage but not the unfortunate schism that separated so many for so long.

What precisely is happening here?

You submitted your bill to the CRL, and Dama Miestra submitted her bill.  ESB asked to confirm that they were really very similar, and that has led into a discussion where I'm trying to hammer out a compromise that might be agreeable to both of you.

It is not acceptable to me. By submitting the original to the CRL and then clarking it...I thought that was clear.

Okay then!  Never mind, Dama Miestra.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

Well, if all that's sorted out, I'm happy to confirm that I think my bill (with the minor amendment suggested by AD) is good to go; once I hear the same from the Túischac'h and/or the Mençéi I'll Clark it.