Regent's Address to the Ziu

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

For my part, I think that you will sometimes get frustrated by a discussion, crank out a bill that accomplishes some of your goals, and then view its success as a matter of personal pride. And that's a problem here. You're trying to do something quite ambitious. It seems not at all unreasonable for a dramatic reimagining of our entire criminal justice system to take more than a few months of sporadic effort.

When I led the reform effort that replaced dozens of disorganized bills with a single civil code, it took a considerable amount of effort. I assure you, it was extremely tempting to just start over with the 30 or 40 provisions that seemed most important and eliminate everything else without going through it. But that would have run contrary to one of the things I wanted to accomplish, which was to preserve and codify all existing law, rather than try to hastily decide what I thought was necessary. My path had to follow my principles, not the other way around.

Big, ambitious things are hard. Often they require time. But it's not as though the discussion had stagnated or dragged on for a long time. This new approach to the problem in your bill is, what, three or four weeks old? And people were objecting and trying to continue the discussion up until the moment you decided you would try to get it passed.

I hope you will reconsider. This new solution is unethical and inorganic. And if you decide the discussion is going nowhere or you get frustrated, you can always clark it again. It will be ready to go at any time.

[Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB]

I hope you will reconsider. This new solution is unethical and inorganic. And if you decide the discussion is going nowhere or you get frustrated, you can always clark it again. It will be ready to go at any time.

With respect, I should mention that is is your opinion that this bill is unethical and inorganic. The CpI ultimately is the arbiter of what is or is not inorganic. As Secretary of State I can also choose not to Clark a bill if I believe it is inorganic on its face. Nowhere in either Statute or Organic law do I see a provision that allows the King (and by extension the Regent) to demand a bill be removed from a Clark.

I review all bills before I place them on the Clark and I found no cause for concern. I'm not saying the bill is a good bill, but it does not seem to be inorganic in my estimation and since it modifies the covenants it has the highest passage requirements of any bill so far this entire Cosa term.

Dame Miestrâ is correct in that this bill is already Clarked. The 6th Clark begins tomorrow and it is too late for me by law to adjust or amend the Clark. All bills must be submitted (or I presume unsubmitted) 24 hours in advance.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

I hope you will reconsider. This new solution is unethical and inorganic. And if you decide the discussion is going nowhere or you get frustrated, you can always clark it again. It will be ready to go at any time.

With respect, I should mention that is is your opinion that this bill is unethical and inorganic. The CpI ultimately is the arbiter of what is or is not inorganic. As Secretary of State I can also choose not to Clark a bill if I believe it is inorganic on its face. Nowhere in either Statute or Organic law do I see a provision that allows the King (and by extension the Regent) to demand a bill be removed from a Clark.

I review all bills before I place them on the Clark and I found no cause for concern. I'm not saying the bill is a good bill, but it does not seem to be inorganic in my estimation and since it modifies the covenants it has the highest passage requirements of any bill so far this entire Cosa term.

Dame Miestrâ is correct in that this bill is already Clarked. The 6th Clark begins tomorrow and it is too late for me by law to adjust or amend the Clark. All bills must be submitted (or I presume unsubmitted) 24 hours in advance.

You are correct, the thing I did not say about my authority would be wrong for me to say. As serving regent, I do not have the power to demand anything be stricken from the Clark or anything of the sort. The straw man is well and truly thrashed.

Yes, it is my opinion that this bill is inorganic. The bill's sponsor herself agrees that its passage would leave it impossible for citizens to know exactly what was against the law, which is a violation of the Covenants of Rights and Freedoms. Citizens may only be convicted of crimes which are known to be crimes, either under current law or foreign law. This bill does not purport to establish crimes in writing or admit foreign law or principles into our law, but instead states that an action may or may not be a crime depending on how the judges feel about the person on trial or their actions.

If you are declaring that you would refuse the Seneschal's request to withdraw her bill, then of course she is out of time to reconsider. This discussion is mooted.

[Sir Txec dal Nordselvă, UrB]

I hope you will reconsider. This new solution is unethical and inorganic. And if you decide the discussion is going nowhere or you get frustrated, you can always clark it again. It will be ready to go at any time.

With respect, I should mention that is is your opinion that this bill is unethical and inorganic. The CpI ultimately is the arbiter of what is or is not inorganic. As Secretary of State I can also choose not to Clark a bill if I believe it is inorganic on its face. Nowhere in either Statute or Organic law do I see a provision that allows the King (and by extension the Regent) to demand a bill be removed from a Clark.

I review all bills before I place them on the Clark and I found no cause for concern. I'm not saying the bill is a good bill, but it does not seem to be inorganic in my estimation and since it modifies the covenants it has the highest passage requirements of any bill so far this entire Cosa term.

Dame Miestrâ is correct in that this bill is already Clarked. The 6th Clark begins tomorrow and it is too late for me by law to adjust or amend the Clark. All bills must be submitted (or I presume unsubmitted) 24 hours in advance.

You are correct, the thing I did not say would be wrong for me to say. As serving regent, I do not have the power to demand anything be stricken from the Clark or anything of the sort. The straw man is well and truly thrashed.

Yes, it is my opinion that this bill is inorganic. The bill's sponsor herself agrees that its passage would leave it impossible for citizens to know exactly what was against the law, which is a violation of the Covenants of Rights and Freedoms.

If you are declaring that you would refuse the Seneschal's request to withdraw her bill, then of course she is out of time to reconsider. This discussion is mooted.

It's not so much that I would refuse to remove it from the Clark as it would be impractical to do so given the current form of how a Clark is conducted. I don't have the ability to on my own remove a bill. It would require me getting the DB administrator to do so also. I cannot know if that could happen in time.

As an example, I made an error on the current Clark and didn't mark a bill as being an amendment. I had to wait a few days to get it fixed due to the schedule of MPF.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

I hope you will reconsider. This new solution is unethical and inorganic. And if you decide the discussion is going nowhere or you get frustrated, you can always clark it again. It will be ready to go at any time.

With respect, I should mention that is is your opinion that this bill is unethical and inorganic. The CpI ultimately is the arbiter of what is or is not inorganic. As Secretary of State I can also choose not to Clark a bill if I believe it is inorganic on its face. Nowhere in either Statute or Organic law do I see a provision that allows the King (and by extension the Regent) to demand a bill be removed from a Clark.

I review all bills before I place them on the Clark and I found no cause for concern. I'm not saying the bill is a good bill, but it does not seem to be inorganic in my estimation and since it modifies the covenants it has the highest passage requirements of any bill so far this entire Cosa term.

Dame Miestrâ is correct in that this bill is already Clarked. The 6th Clark begins tomorrow and it is too late for me by law to adjust or amend the Clark. All bills must be submitted (or I presume unsubmitted) 24 hours in advance.

You are correct, the thing I did not say would be wrong for me to say. As serving regent, I do not have the power to demand anything be stricken from the Clark or anything of the sort. The straw man is well and truly thrashed.

Yes, it is my opinion that this bill is inorganic. The bill's sponsor herself agrees that its passage would leave it impossible for citizens to know exactly what was against the law, which is a violation of the Covenants of Rights and Freedoms.

If you are declaring that you would refuse the Seneschal's request to withdraw her bill, then of course she is out of time to reconsider. This discussion is mooted.

It's not so much that I would refuse to remove it from the Clark as it would be impractical to do so given the current form of how a Clark is conducted. I don't have the ability to on my own remove a bill. It would require me getting the DB administrator to do so also. I cannot know if that could happen in time.

As an example, I made an error on the current Clark and didn't mark a bill as being an amendment. I had to wait a few days to get it fixed due to the schedule of MPF.

I understand entirely. You are saying that you would refuse this request because it is impractical... even if the sponsor requested it, you couldn't do it. That is why you declared that it was too late for her to agree, since in practical terms it's not possible for you to comply. Your job is difficult and you are doing it well, so I wouldn't presume to second guess you about this. Since you would refuse to grant such a request, this discussion is moot. Thank you for letting us know! :-)