Writ of Dissolution of the 48th Cosa

[C. Carlüs Xheraltescù]

I have no idea what was sent to you, but I was under the impression that what was discussed was the fact that we couldn't proceed until a writ had been issued.

[Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H.]

Jan 5, 2016 6:49:58 GMT -6 C. Carlüs Xheraltescù said:

I have no idea what was sent to you, but I was under the impression that what was discussed was the fact that we couldn't proceed until a writ had been issued.

Exactly, and she said you were of the same opinion, therefore, I was under the impression that you had in fact, implied a month of Recess.

If you never expressed an opinion that you were of the opinion that we couldn't proceed in January, then we have a big problem, because my argument for easily settling for February rests on the Seneschal asking for an election in Feburary, therefore an implied month of Recess.

But if only the A-G was of that opinion, then the implied month of Recess doesn't work because neither of us can do a month of recess, only the Senechal.

It still doesn't fix if the election is either in January or February, but my solution to treat January as a month of Recess doesn't solve the problem of what January is if the election is only in February.

If you did not in fact tell the A-G that the election should occur in February, then my opinion of when the election should be returns to:

1 ) The 6th Clark was published, so we should have an election the month after (January 15th)
2 ) The Last Clark had a failed VOC, so we should have an election the month after (January 15th)
3 ) The Writ of Dissolution wasn't issued in time, so the election appears to be scheduled for Feburary 15th

This is a contradiction I feel that the Chancery is NOT able to make on it's own and would need to turn to the Cort to resolve it.

The only reason I felt confident that the election would occur in February, was that Miestra told me that you were busy but confirmed that the election should be in February, therefore adding a month of Recess, solving this issue in a neat little bundle.

Without you issuing the request for February, we are BACK at Square one and the Cort needs to act, and act QUICKLY, because I might have to run and election on January 15th, in only 10 days.

[Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H.]

It's even worse, the problem isn't with Miestra.

I just reread our conversation and I simply misunderstood something she said. Stupid me. Stupid me. STUPID ME.

These last few days, I have been completely off my game.

[Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun]

Jan 5, 2016 7:02:51 GMT -6 Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H. said:

This is a contradiction I feel that the Chancery is NOT able to make on it's own and would need to turn to the Cort to resolve it.

I remember having turned to the Corts for a declaratory judgement quite a while ago, and that I was told that Talossan Corts do not, in fact, issue declaratory judgements. Therefore, you could not (and, seeing how slow the Talossan Corts are, you should not) turn to the Corts to resolve this problem. The only way this problem could/would be resolved by the Corts is, if you took action, and somebody did not agree with you, and requested an injunction against the Chancery to proceed in another way, or not to proceed in a specific way.

The following is not a legal opinion, but: just go with Feb 15—that way, we won't have goddamn general elections over the holidays, and over the summer. Yeah, that'd be cool.

[Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H.]

Jan 5, 2016 7:23:00 GMT -6 Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun said:

Jan 5, 2016 7:02:51 GMT -6 Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H. said:

This is a contradiction I feel that the Chancery is NOT able to make on it's own and would need to turn to the Cort to resolve it.

I remember having turned to the Corts for a declaratory judgement quite a while ago, and that I was told that Talossan Corts do not, in fact, issue declaratory judgements. Therefore, you could not (and, seeing how slow the Talossan Corts are, you should not) turn to the Corts to resolve this problem. The only way this problem could/would be resolved by the Corts is, if you took action, and somebody did not agree with you, and requested an injunction against the Chancery to proceed in another way, or not to proceed in a specific way.

The following is not a legal opinion, but: just go with Feb 15—that way, we won't have goddamn general elections over the holidays, and over the summer. Yeah, that'd be cool.

Then I guess Feburary 15h it is, and I favor this: more time for the 2.0 ballot which will allow for better Senate voting.

[Sir C. M. Siervicül]

Jan 5, 2016 7:02:51 GMT -6 Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H. said:

If you did not in fact tell the A-G that the election should occur in February, then my opinion of when the election should be returns to:

1 ) The 6th Clark was published, so we should have an election the month after (January 15th)
2 ) The Last Clark had a failed VOC, so we should have an election the month after (January 15th)
3 ) The Writ of Dissolution wasn't issued in time, so the election appears to be scheduled for Feburary 15th

This is a contradiction I feel that the Chancery is NOT able to make on it's own and would need to turn to the Cort to resolve it.

The only reason I felt confident that the election would occur in February, was that Miestra told me that you were busy but confirmed that the election should be in February, therefore adding a month of Recess, solving this issue in a neat little bundle.

Without you issuing the request for February, we are BACK at Square one and the Cort needs to act, and act QUICKLY, because I might have to run and election on January 15th, in only 10 days.

Honest question: If the Seneschal did not request a month of recess (as now seems to be the case), why not follow your own precedent from the 46th Cosa election? I thought your reason before for not doing the same now as then was the request for a month of recess.

[Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H.]

Jan 5, 2016 7:35:34 GMT -6 Sir C. M. Siervicül said:

Jan 5, 2016 7:02:51 GMT -6 Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H. said:

If you did not in fact tell the A-G that the election should occur in February, then my opinion of when the election should be returns to:

1 ) The 6th Clark was published, so we should have an election the month after (January 15th)
2 ) The Last Clark had a failed VOC, so we should have an election the month after (January 15th)
3 ) The Writ of Dissolution wasn't issued in time, so the election appears to be scheduled for Feburary 15th

This is a contradiction I feel that the Chancery is NOT able to make on it's own and would need to turn to the Cort to resolve it.

The only reason I felt confident that the election would occur in February, was that Miestra told me that you were busy but confirmed that the election should be in February, therefore adding a month of Recess, solving this issue in a neat little bundle.

Without you issuing the request for February, we are BACK at Square one and the Cort needs to act, and act QUICKLY, because I might have to run and election on January 15th, in only 10 days.

Honest question: If the Seneschal did not request a month of recess (as now seems to be the case), why not follow your own precedent from the 46th Cosa election? I thought your reason before for not doing the same now as then was the request for a month of recess.

Because it's not MY precendent for the 46th Cosa election! I have explained it before! Iusti was SoS for the 46th Cosa election, and I replaced him AFTER he scheduled the election.

Had I know the Writ was not issued, I would have raised the issue and we would have had this current debate back in the 46h Cosa election!

In fact, I was only the Acting SoS for that election.