Legal Repair Act

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

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 basically none of our criminal laws or rules about the cort system actually work, and

WHEREAS currently there does not appear to be any sunset on appeals, so something can be appeal even after ten years, and that's not okay, and

WHEREAS we have a law permitting sanctuary on the books, even though it's extremely unclear how that could possibly work,

PART ONE: LEGAL OVERSIGHT

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

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

PART TWO: APPEALS

FURTHERMORE a new provision shall be inserted in the first subsection of the third section of Title G of el Lexhatx, reading

Quote
3.1.1 There is a 90-day statute of limitations on all judicial appeals.

FURTHERMORE, the Scribe is directed to renumber the third section of Title G in a sensible fashion.

PART THREE: HOUSEKEEPING

FURTHERMORE, the Scribe is directed to eliminate from el Lexhatx all "empty" provisions, as when a provision has been deleted but left empty, and to renumber the Titles in question in a sensible fashion.

FURTHERMORE, the Scribe is further directed to repair any cross-references within el Lexhatx that were created as a result of these repairs.

Uréu q'estadra så:
Baron Alexandreu Davinescu

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

Consider this the reintroduction of this act for the new Cosa.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN]

I would be advising the Free Dems to support this, but I can't abide by this provision:

FURTHERMORE, the Scribe is directed to eliminate from el Lexhatx all "empty" provisions, as when a provision has been deleted but left empty, and to renumber the Titles in question in a sensible fashion.

As I've said before, but I can't find where, there are too many places where cross-references in El Lex have been rendered inoperative due to renumberings. "This section intentionally left black" works well in some cases.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

I would be advising the Free Dems to support this, but I can't abide by this provision:

FURTHERMORE, the Scribe is directed to eliminate from el Lexhatx all "empty" provisions, as when a provision has been deleted but left empty, and to renumber the Titles in question in a sensible fashion.

As I've said before, but I can't find where, there are too many places where cross-references in El Lex have been rendered inoperative due to renumberings. "This section intentionally left black" works well in some cases.

Sure.  I'll add in a provision directing the Scribe to fix any cross-references.

[Sir Lüc]

FWIW, Lex.H.17 also contains broken cross-references - I noticed them recently while looking for the missing Tuischac'h election provisions.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

I bet there's a good number of them!  I think it might make sense to try to collect miscellaneous fixes like that in this bill, and I'll put it on my to-do list.  Let me know if you notice any others!

[Üc R. Tärfă]

A cross-referencing fix now to repair the law might be a good endeavour.

However in the future "renumbering provisions" in bills should be simply avoided to avoid (sic!) generating many of those broken references.

[Viteu]

I haven't followed most of the proposed legislation in the Hopper in may years for reasons stated elsewhere, so tonight is my first time seeing this Act.

I appreciate the general idea behind this Act and have long advocated for bill drafters to reference the part of the Org Law that gives the Ziu authority to act in that area. So I'm kinda loving what this Act is doing.

Based on a quick comparison of (what I hope is) most of the provisions in Title A and G of el Lexhatx to the Org Law, it appears that there may be an argument that the Ziu may have acted within its authority.

I post this only for consideration and am not entirely convinced either way on the issue.

Org.L.Art.VII.3 vests the Ziu with the "power to make laws for peace, welfare, and good government of the Kingdom with respect to:"
2. census and statistics
3. weights and measures
4. currency, coinage, and legal tender
6. copyrights, patents, and trademarks
7. Postal, telegraphic, telephonic, radio, television, internet, and other like services
8. Defense of the Kingdom
11. Immigration
12. Treason and sedition
15. Matters referred to the Ziu by the Government of the Province
16. Execution of the Federal Government
17. Symbols etc. of the Kingdom

The provisions of Title A could fall within the foregoing as follows:

Lexh.A.1 – 6 – No comment
7.1  - definitions of fraud and harassment
7.2 – Crimes Against the Kingdom –
7.2.1 – Treason – see VII.3.12
7.2.2. – Perverting the course of justice – see VII.3.16
7.2.3 – Sedition – see VII.3.12
7.2.4 – Contempt of Court – maybe VII.3.16
7.2.5 -  Perjury – see VII.3.16
7.2.6 – Crimes against state property –
   7.2.6.1 – see VII.3.4, 8, 16
   7.2.6.2 – see VII.3.6
   7.2.6.3. – see VII.3.7
   7.2.6.4 – see VII.8 and 16
7.2.7 – Solicitation – this is fine if the crime itself is permissible (meaning, solicitation of sedition would pass muster, see supra)
7.2.8 – Conspiracy – see solicitation, supra.
7.2.9 – Bribery – see VII.3.8
7.2.10 – Bringing Talossa into Disrepute – see VII.3.8 and 16

7.3 Crimes against the person
7.3.1 – Physical and Sexual Violence
7.3.2 – Fraud and harassment – depends on how it is done (e.g. over the internet? By phone?)
7.3.3 – theft or invasion of privacy – depends on the exact nature of the crime (e.g. monetary value could fall under VII.3.4; IP clearly falls under VII.3.6, etc.). But see the Fourth Covenant for the right to privacy.  .
7.3.4 – Defamation – if done by computer, phone, etc., see VII.3.7 but also, the First Covenant says a person shall be responsible for the libelous abuse of the right to speak, write, and publish freely.
7.3.5 – Deprives an individual of the free exercise of rights under Org Law – see Tenth Covenant

7.15 – see VII.3. 7 and 11,

7.18 – see VII.3.7 and 16

7.20 – see VII.3.17

Most of the remaining sections under Title A may not actually constitute criminal law.

Next, Title J. Telecomuna – doesn't appear to be a criminal statute, but see VII.3.7 and 16,

In terms of criminal punishment, perhaps the Fifth Covenant, which also grants the Ziu the power to enforce it with appropriate legislation.

The Sixth Covenant withholds all rights from a person who engages in activities to injure, endanger, risk, or compromise the physical health, privacy or tranquility of other person through pretended exercise of said right.
 
The Ninth Covenant speaks directly to criminal prosecutions by the Crown.
 
The Tenth Covenant protects against infringement of the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Covenants and permits recovery of punitive and compensatory damages. (Perhaps more civil?)

Of course, VII.3.15 suggests that a workaround might be if all of the provinces passed laws allowing the National Government to enact criminal statutes.
 
I am 50-50 on whether the Act is correct in that all or part of Title A or G is inorganic as is or if the comparison outlined above is correct.  For a conclusive answer, however, the King, SOS, or Seneschal may refer the issue to the Uppermost Cort for an advisory opinion pursuant to VIII.6.

Hope this is helpful.

Separately, as it relates to the time to appeal, I no reason why the UC cannot promulgate a rule requiring all appeals be filed within 90 days.  This is exactly how it works in our neighbor to the South. I will ask the UC to consider promulgating such a rule; of course, however, our deliberations will be confidential.

V

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

I would be advising the Free Dems to support this, but I can't abide by this provision:

FURTHERMORE, the Scribe is directed to eliminate from el Lexhatx all "empty" provisions, as when a provision has been deleted but left empty, and to renumber the Titles in question in a sensible fashion.

As I've said before, but I can't find where, there are too many places where cross-references in El Lex have been rendered inoperative due to renumberings. "This section intentionally left black" works well in some cases.

Sure.  I'll add in a provision directing the Scribe to fix any cross-references.

I was thinking about my own idea here, and I actually think it's a bad one.  It's too much of a burden on the Scribe.  There's no rush with this bill, since it's an amendment, so let's just try and actually find and fix the broken references.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

I am grateful for the judge's opinion, above. I do think that some of our criminal laws could be shoehorned in under existed provisions of the OrgLaw, but some cannot.  It seems wiser to recognize that we do want the capability to enact criminal laws and to regulate some administrative aspects of the justice system.  Should the Cort pu Inalt begin actively working on its own administrative stuff, consistently, then I would support that very much and would be happy to get the Ziu out of its way with any statutes.  So overall, I do think these provisions are very necessary.

[Viteu]

I am grateful for the judge's opinion, above. I do think that some of our criminal laws could be shoehorned in under existed provisions of the OrgLaw, but some cannot.  It seems wiser to recognize that we do want the capability to enact criminal laws and to regulate some administrative aspects of the justice system.  Should the Cort pu Inalt begin actively working on its own administrative stuff, consistently, then I would support that very much and would be happy to get the Ziu out of its way with any statutes.  So overall, I do think these provisions are very necessary.

Regarding administration, I fear that this could be used by the Ziu to control/punish the UC especially if done under the guise of responding to the populist whims of the majority angry at an unpopular decision.

As I have said elsewhere, either Talossa wants an independent and impartial Judiciary, a necessary component to the Rule of Law, or it does not.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

I'm glad that the proposed subsection 20 is settled, then.

I'd be willing to back off of the proposed subsection 21 if it were possible, but Cort efforts to regulate themselves have been very thin on the ground, and even you yourself have proposed statutes by which the Ziu makes rules about Cort administration.  So this provision would just recognize the reality of things.  It's not helpful to just pretend otherwise and hope no one else but me and Miestra notices the problem.

[Ián Tamorán S.H.]

I would be advising the Free Dems to support this, but I can't abide by this provision:

FURTHERMORE, the Scribe is directed to eliminate from el Lexhatx all "empty" provisions, as when a provision has been deleted but left empty, and to renumber the Titles in question in a sensible fashion.

As I've said before, but I can't find where, there are too many places where cross-references in El Lex have been rendered inoperative due to renumberings. "This section intentionally left black" works well in some cases.

A cross-referencing fix now to repair the law might be a good endeavour.

However in the future "renumbering provisions" in bills should be simply avoided to avoid (sic!) generating many of those broken references.

The simplest fix to the problem of "moving references" is to change ALL law names, and paragraph numbers, etc. to something unchangeable. So law XYZ would have paragraphs 1, 2, 17, 29, 33 because law ABC (which, in time, followed the adoption of law XYZ) has removed those paragraphs 3-16, 19-28 etc., or negated their contents. This would, at most, involve marking any altered/deleted paragraphs with reference to the *subsequent* law which removed/changed them. Thus ALL back references would be correct.....

BUT if there are two (or more) back references to a changed paragraph - and we must always assume that there will be - then each reference must either point to "paragraph 27.3 of law XYZ of date <date>" or point to "paragraph 27.3 of law XYZ as updated at the time of consultation". I grant that this makes back references a little longer to type - but they NEVER have to be subsequently altered - only an additional label attached to a modified / deleted paragraph stating that it is deleted or indicating where the "next" version of that law/paragraph may be found... which may mean following a longer chain (tedious - but not difficult).

AND THEN we would no longer have need to "put off till tomorrow" the cross-numbering references throughout the whole law, every time there is a change to the law.

...This is what other countries do. And Talossa, being Great, can learn from other nations, and adopt useful techniques from them.

(P.S. "We have never done that before" is NOT a good argument for "we can't do that now".)

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

I would be advising the Free Dems to support this, but I can't abide by this provision:

FURTHERMORE, the Scribe is directed to eliminate from el Lexhatx all "empty" provisions, as when a provision has been deleted but left empty, and to renumber the Titles in question in a sensible fashion.

As I've said before, but I can't find where, there are too many places where cross-references in El Lex have been rendered inoperative due to renumberings. "This section intentionally left black" works well in some cases.

A cross-referencing fix now to repair the law might be a good endeavour.

However in the future "renumbering provisions" in bills should be simply avoided to avoid (sic!) generating many of those broken references.

The simplest fix to the problem of "moving references" is to change ALL law names, and paragraph numbers, etc. to something unchangeable. So law XYZ would have paragraphs 1, 2, 17, 29, 33 because law ABC (which, in time, followed the adoption of law XYZ) has removed those paragraphs 3-16, 19-28 etc., or negated their contents. This would, at most, involve marking any altered/deleted paragraphs with reference to the *subsequent* law which removed/changed them. Thus ALL back references would be correct.....

BUT if there are two (or more) back references to a changed paragraph - and we must always assume that there will be - then each reference must either point to "paragraph 27.3 of law XYZ of date <date>" or point to "paragraph 27.3 of law XYZ as updated at the time of consultation". I grant that this makes back references a little longer to type - but they NEVER have to be subsequently altered - only an additional label attached to a modified / deleted paragraph stating that it is deleted or indicating where the "next" version of that law/paragraph may be found... which may mean following a longer chain (tedious - but not difficult).

AND THEN we would no longer have need to "put off till tomorrow" the cross-numbering references throughout the whole law, every time there is a change to the law.

...This is what other countries do. And Talossa, being Great, can learn from other nations, and adopt useful techniques from them.

(P.S. "We have never done that before" is NOT a good argument for "we can't do that now".)

I read this a couple of times, but don't quite get it, I'm sorry.  Why would this force people to be better about checking for broken cross-references?  It's only human that we're going to sometimes miss some, and I'm not sure moving away from a clear legal code in a single law would be helpful.

[Üc R. Tärfă]

I am not comfortable removing the ennumeration of the Ziu's powers.  It would be a drastic expansion of government power, and any such change should be considered in isolation and carefully.

Except that it's not an "expansion of state power" VS citizens: according with IX.6 those powers not enumerated in VII.3 are organically vested in the Provinces.

I would also appreciate a response to the question of throwing off the "bogus federalism" verbiage and moving to an explicit "devolved government" model.

I think it's a bad idea, and it's not something I'm willing to entertain in the context of this bill.  Limiting the powers of the Ziu is a way of protecting our citizens from future unknown abuse of their civil rights, since I don't think the Covenants are sufficient in the case of a country like Talossa.

So, using your own words, today the citizens are not protected from any "future unknown abuse of their civil rights" because those powers are not limited: Provinces have them. "Future unknown abuses of their civil rights" you are afraid of could be carried even today by the Provinces.

And I hope you all agree with me that in Talossa the national level is more suited and equipped (and active) to protect citizens from abuses than the provincial ones.

This is one of the few instances (there are more, like the whole VII.3.15) when in the OrgLaw survives a "U.S. federal approach" which is not part of the nature of our nationette that we should get rid of in my opinion. In by far the greatest part of the OrgLaw clearly the sovereignty flows top-down (from the Kingdom to Provinces) and not bottom-up. From a constitutional point of view Provinces derives their existence, powers and authority from the OrgLaw, they are created by the OrgLaw and partake in the Kingdom's own and exclusive sovereignty, and not the opposite way. One big fat evidence of this is the fact that Provinces do not need to consent to OrgLaw amendments because they are not the source of the Kingdom sovereignty (as in federal nations like the U.S., Canada, Australia, Germany, Austria, Switzerland, etc...).

Those very few "U.S. instinctly surviving" pieces of the OrgLaw should be modified accordingly.

Your bill is fine -as it is (and with the agree that we should stop to add renumbering clauses in the future) but the above is a topic worth to be addressed I believe.