Legal Questions

[Sir Ian Plätschisch]

(Replying to V; didn't see intervening comment)

That was not meant as an attack on you; proofreading any completely new Organic Law would be really hard. That's what had to be done, but it was hard to get myself to do it, and I brought it up to point out I'm not perfect and I can't always muster that kind of energy.

Note that I am not the one who presented these criticisms; you're right that it would not be great if I voted for something and then started complaining about it because I hadn't read it properly. But these criticisms are being brought by someone who did not vote on it and thus shouldn't be expected to base their schedule on when Clarks occur.

[Sir Ian Plätschisch]

No statement has been raised by me here or elsewhere that criticisms be invalid for being "raised too late", or that late criticisms are inherently disingenuous; that's a hasty, false, and impugning assumption.

What? You just said:

Aye, and it is self-evidently disingenuous that these criticisms were laid out after the fact when the same critic had access to The Hopper and could well have asked these questions then.

[Açafat del Val]

Operative word: these criticisms, not all criticisms. It's not my fault that you extrapolated past the plain language.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

I must also add that AD has said in the past that there must be a very low threshold for people to engage in politics and law. But then he mercilessly seizes upon infelicities of language in legislation. This looks very much like bad faith. If we want "ordinary people" to be able to do politics and law in Talossa, not just politics nerds and people who're involved in law outside Talossa, then we have to accept that infelicities of wording are nigh-inevitable and not use them as sticks to bash political opponents with.

I have been of the opinion for ages that there should be a Clerk of the Ziu whose job would precisely be legal proofreading. I.e. a real "legal janitor". That's the only way to avoid these little snafus but not exclude the vast majority from law and legislating.

[Sir Ian Plätschisch]

I never acknowledged that AD's criticisms were valid; on the contrary, I was suggesting that, if he wishes to complain, he should hopper some bills to correct the errors. "Put up or shut up", as it were.

It looked like the beginning of this thread was a constructive conversation between the two of you. What I mean by "valid" is not that you agree with him, only that you see why someone could think that.

I have been pretty consistent from the beginning in assessing that this thread was started and continues in bad faith.

Again, that is really not how I interpreted your first couple of comments.

You read that correctly and are more than welcome to hold it against me: If you're not willing to offer an alternative idea, an amendment, or at least a valuable piece of constructive feedback, then you should continue to stay silent.

I get that you are trying to target more established citizens with this, but we better be really clear that we are not holding new or newly-returning citizens to this standard. It's already hard enough to get them to stick around; imagine how hard it would be if no one who is not in a position to propose something concrete feels comfortable airing concerns.

The LCC is still in very early days and just spent the entire election providing alternative proposals to the Free Democrats. I can assure you there will be no shortage of LCC participation in the coming months.

[Açafat del Val]

I have been of the opinion for ages that there should be a Clerk of the Ziu whose job would precisely be legal proofreading. I.e. a real "legal janitor". That's the only way to avoid these little snafus but not exclude the vast majority from law and legislating.

I know that this is very off-topic, but I would be eminently interested and qualified to take up this job, and would do it with incredible pride. I like writing "legalese" and can do so without bias (i.e., I would do this job honorably even for political opponents).

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

But you're Attorney-General, there's a conflict of interest.

In any case, said Clerk would have to be pretty apolitical, almost like the SoS, to avoid suggestions that she were deliberately sabotaging the "other party"'s bills

[Sir Ian Plätschisch]

Operative word: these criticisms, not all criticisms. It's not my fault that you extrapolated past the plain language.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

these criticisms are being brought by someone who did not vote on it and thus shouldn't be expected to base their schedule on when Clarks occur.

A problem I see is that there seem to be real differences of opinion on what water-tight legal language is. If a person who is known to have strong partisan feelings says "the Party-Whom-I-Don't-Like submitted a shoddily worded bill", and refuses any requests for an alternative by saying "not my job", then the question arises in some minds: is there really a legal problem at all? Or is this guy just causing mischief by raising a problem which doesn't actually exist? Note that this same brain genius ginned up a scandal about "ex parte corruption", which most people disagree ever existed.

[Açafat del Val]

The LCC is still in very early days and just spent the entire election providing alternative proposals to the Free Democrats. I can assure you there will be no shortage of LCC participation in the coming months.

Respectfully: (a) I look forward to this participation, but (b) if Davinescu does not partake in this participate then he should be silent.

He can participate without or under the color of the LCC - his choice - but the principle remains. For that matter, it applies to other LCC members (such as the incumbent Governor of Florencia).

Ian, it is unacceptable to attack (even implicitly) a provincial Constitution which even Breneir critiqued and tweaked in concert with me. That's call intellectual dishonesty. I am well aware that this particular subject is well outside the bounds of this specific topic, but I bring it up to make a wider point: if the LCC is going to commence its opposition by slinging poo and arguing in bad faith, then it's a pretty poor opposition.

Attacking the FreeDems (and, conversely, attacking the LCC or NPW) is not how we rebuild or improve Talossa.

Operative word: these criticisms, not all criticisms. It's not my fault that you extrapolated past the plain language.

[picture]

;D ;)

[Açafat del Val]

But you're Attorney-General, there's a conflict of interest.

In any case, said Clerk would have to be pretty apolitical, almost like the SoS, to avoid suggestions that she were deliberately sabotaging the "other party"'s bills

Perhaps for another time then, but I would like to be considered. I wouldn't just be good at it; I would enjoy it.

[Sir Ian Plätschisch]

these criticisms are being brought by someone who did not vote on it and thus shouldn't be expected to base their schedule on when Clarks occur.

A problem I see is that there seem to be real differences of opinion on what water-tight legal language is. If a person who is known to have strong partisan feelings says "the Party-Whom-I-Don't-Like submitted a shoddily worded bill", and refuses any requests for an alternative by saying "not my job", then the question arises in some minds: is there really a legal problem at all? Or is this guy just causing mischief by raising a problem which doesn't actually exist? Note that this same brain genius ginned up a scandal about "ex parte corruption", which most people disagree ever existed.

I'll let AD answer this himself, but if deficiencies in wording cause there to be real ambiguity as to what the law means, that seems to me to be a problem. I can't say whether that is the case here because IANAL (I am not a lawyer).

[Eðo Grischun]

There is not much appeal in the role of legislative janitor.

Such a spanner at times.

[Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC]

I'll let AD answer this himself, but if deficiencies in wording cause there to be real ambiguity as to what the law means, that seems to me to be a problem. I can't say whether that is the case here because IANAL (I am not a lawyer).

Neither is AD, except in Talossan terms. The vital jurisprudential issue is that it is the Cort who decides what correct legal language is and isn't, in a proper case. Anything raised by lawyers, amateur or otherwise, is like, just their opinion, man.

This is why I want to replace the Royal legislative veto with the right of the King to submit any bill to the UC for a legal opinion, on whether it's inOrganic or alternatively on whether it's so badly worded as to defeat its purpose. That might work better than establishing a Ziu Janitor.

[Sir Ian Plätschisch]

I'll let AD answer this himself, but if deficiencies in wording cause there to be real ambiguity as to what the law means, that seems to me to be a problem. I can't say whether that is the case here because IANAL (I am not a lawyer).

Neither is AD, except in Talossan terms. The vital jurisprudential issue is that it is the Cort who decides what correct legal language is and isn't, in a proper case. Anything raised by lawyers, amateur or otherwise, is like, just their opinion, man.

Yes, but it would be better if everyone agreed on what the law said so we didn't need to spend months in Cort.