[Cantzelerïă/Chancery] Call for Bills for the May Clark / 58th Cosa

[Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB]

The Second Catchment Area Reform Act was explicitly approved by ESB on March 29th and by Baron Davinescu also on March 29th. @Baron Alexandreu Davinescu would you be able to confirm your approval?

The approval was kinda buried so I missed it. I will Clark this bill.

[Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB]

The Cjovani Ziua Auservada Bill was changed to reflect comments BY the CRL. Why would this prevent it from being clarked?

The bill was changed after approval. The remedy is of course to get approval once more and I will Clark it.

[Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB]

I would like to re-Clark the Compromise on the Compromise Amendment

I have two questions: 1) Has the bill passed the muster of the CRL? and, 2) What is the link to the bill so I can Clark the correct version.

Thanks.

1) Yes, it passed the CRL last term
2) https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=848.0

Mr. Secretary I would cite this as precedent where you allowed the bill in question above to be clarked without another approval of the CRL. Am I mistaken?

Please point me to the exact thread so I can review it. Thanks.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

I would like to re-Clark the Compromise on the Compromise Amendment

I have two questions: 1) Has the bill passed the muster of the CRL? and, 2) What is the link to the bill so I can Clark the correct version.

Thanks.

1) Yes, it passed the CRL last term
2) https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=848.0

Mr. Secretary I would cite this as precedent where you allowed the bill in question above to be clarked without another approval of the CRL. Am I mistaken?

Please point me to the exact thread so I can review it. Thanks.

Here you go. https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=1458.msg12319#msg12319

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

All three of my bills are separated parts of a single larger bill. I believe they each received full consideration, since the text is not different. I would ask you to reconsider, although this is completely your prerogative.

I'm more than happy to reconsider. Can you show me which bill these three new bills all stem from? Thanks.

The Legal Repair Amendment's language and the Appeals Act's language have been in the Hopper and received commentary and feedback for many months.
 As you can see from this post, it was being discussed in its current form a year ago, and reintroduced for this Cosa in February (with the same language as here) at this point: https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=1469.msg17327#msg17327

The Unsanctified Act was split off and considered separately as its own bill, but reintroduced unchanged in this Cosa: https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=1468.msg17328#msg17328

[Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB]

I would like to re-Clark the Compromise on the Compromise Amendment

I have two questions: 1) Has the bill passed the muster of the CRL? and, 2) What is the link to the bill so I can Clark the correct version.

Thanks.

1) Yes, it passed the CRL last term
2) https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=848.0

Mr. Secretary I would cite this as precedent where you allowed the bill in question above to be clarked without another approval of the CRL. Am I mistaken?

Please point me to the exact thread so I can review it. Thanks.

Here you go. https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=1458.msg12319#msg12319

The difference was that the Compromise on the Compromise was re-Clarked after failing in a previous Cosa. Was this bill Clarked last term?

[Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB]

All three of my bills are separated parts of a single larger bill. I believe they each received full consideration, since the text is not different. I would ask you to reconsider, although this is completely your prerogative.

I'm more than happy to reconsider. Can you show me which bill these three new bills all stem from? Thanks.

The Legal Repair Amendment's language and the Appeals Act's language have been in the Hopper and received commentary and feedback for many months.
 As you can see from this post, it was being discussed in its current form a year ago, and reintroduced for this Cosa in February (with the same language as here) at this point: https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=1469.msg17327#msg17327

The Unsanctified Act was split off and considered separately as its own bill, but reintroduced unchanged in this Cosa: https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=1468.msg17328#msg17328

Thanks for the quick response. I'll Clark the three bills later today or tomorrow.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

I would like to re-Clark the Compromise on the Compromise Amendment

I have two questions: 1) Has the bill passed the muster of the CRL? and, 2) What is the link to the bill so I can Clark the correct version.

Thanks.

1) Yes, it passed the CRL last term
2) https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=848.0

Mr. Secretary I would cite this as precedent where you allowed the bill in question above to be clarked without another approval of the CRL. Am I mistaken?

Please point me to the exact thread so I can review it. Thanks.

Here you go. https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=1458.msg12319#msg12319

The difference was that the Compromise on the Compromise was re-Clarked after failing in a previous Cosa. Was this bill Clarked last term?

This bill also was clarked and failed last term. There is no difference.

[Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB]

I would like to re-Clark the Compromise on the Compromise Amendment

I have two questions: 1) Has the bill passed the muster of the CRL? and, 2) What is the link to the bill so I can Clark the correct version.

Thanks.

1) Yes, it passed the CRL last term
2) https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=848.0

Mr. Secretary I would cite this as precedent where you allowed the bill in question above to be clarked without another approval of the CRL. Am I mistaken?

Please point me to the exact thread so I can review it. Thanks.

Here you go. https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=1458.msg12319#msg12319

The difference was that the Compromise on the Compromise was re-Clarked after failing in a previous Cosa. Was this bill Clarked last term?

This bill also was clarked and failed last term. There is no difference.

Gotcha. I completely lost the thread and was talking about a different bill entirely. I do see it was Clarked last term and failed. I will get it Clarked as soon as I can.

[Breneir Tzaracomprada]

I would like to re-Clark the Compromise on the Compromise Amendment

I have two questions: 1) Has the bill passed the muster of the CRL? and, 2) What is the link to the bill so I can Clark the correct version.

Thanks.

1) Yes, it passed the CRL last term
2) https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=848.0

Mr. Secretary I would cite this as precedent where you allowed the bill in question above to be clarked without another approval of the CRL. Am I mistaken?

Please point me to the exact thread so I can review it. Thanks.

Here you go. https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=1458.msg12319#msg12319

The difference was that the Compromise on the Compromise was re-Clarked after failing in a previous Cosa. Was this bill Clarked last term?

This bill also was clarked and failed last term. There is no difference.

Gotcha. I completely lost the thread and was talking about a different bill entirely. I do see it was Clarked last term and failed. I will get it Clarked as soon as I can.

Thank you Mr. Secretary!

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

All three of my bills are separated parts of a single larger bill. I believe they each received full consideration, since the text is not different. I would ask you to reconsider, although this is completely your prerogative.

I'm more than happy to reconsider. Can you show me which bill these three new bills all stem from? Thanks.

The Legal Repair Amendment's language and the Appeals Act's language have been in the Hopper and received commentary and feedback for many months.
 As you can see from this post, it was being discussed in its current form a year ago, and reintroduced for this Cosa in February (with the same language as here) at this point: https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=1469.msg17327#msg17327

The Unsanctified Act was split off and considered separately as its own bill, but reintroduced unchanged in this Cosa: https://wittenberg.talossa.com/index.php?topic=1468.msg17328#msg17328

Thanks for the quick response. I'll Clark the three bills later today or tomorrow.

Thank you for your diligence.

[Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB]

RZ11 - The Cjovani Ziua Auservada Bill
RZ12 - The Appeals Act
RZ13 - The Legal Repair Amendment
RZ14 - The Unsanctified Act
RZ15 - The Second Catchment Area Reform Act
RZ16 - SoS Succession Reform Act

All of the above have been Clarked.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

I apologize for the trouble, but would you remove the Appeals Act from the Clark?  Luc believes it didn't go through regular order, entertaining many of your same doubts, and I want everything to be on the up-and-up.

[Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB]

I've never actually removed a bill so I will have to get the help of MPF as I don't have that ability myself.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

I've never actually removed a bill so I will have to get the help of MPF as I don't have that ability myself.

I apologize for the hassle.  Can we officially consider it withdrawn, even if it technically runs on the Clark, either way?