|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Sept 3, 2018 19:06:58 GMT -6
Mr. Alexandreu, I demand you restore your wiki page. You set a precedent that your choice to publish your details disentitles you from reclaiming it or editing it. Have some common decency and respect for our laws here. Edit by Glüc da Dhi (6 sep 2018) re violation of Witt.#11: Changed non-Talossan name to Talossan name. Do not revert this edit.
Edit by Viteu Marcianüus (20 Sept 2018) as Glüc da Dhi has shown a complete disregard for well-settled parliamentary immunity and the protections enumerated in the Organic Law, and has abused his power as Secretary of State
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Sept 3, 2018 19:13:21 GMT -6
Well, you only posted the bill three weeks ago, and I started commenting immediately after the first provision leapt out at me as being without merit. Then after you removed that part, BenArd posted a long explanation of his comment. I kept waiting for you to engage with it, reply to it, or acknowledge it... but you never did, instead posting to Cresti only on the 28th. So I returned to the text. You have ignored almost all my questions and concerns since.
For example, you want to impeach BenArd for failure to appear... on what basis? Because he had an attorney represent him?
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Sept 3, 2018 19:17:22 GMT -6
Mr. Alexandreu Davinescu, I demand you restore your wiki page. You set a precedent that your choice to publish your details disentitles you from reclaiming it or editing it. Have some common decency and respect for our laws here. Actually, the precedent is that no one can unilaterally demand someone else delete information over which they have ceded their rights. Everyone is still, and has always been, free to delete things from the wiki in normal process. That's why, after you lost the case, I immediately did this: wiki.talossa.com/index.php?title=Viteu_Marcian%C3%BCs&diff=20948&oldid=20947It was only at that point that I was finally able to safely do so without creating the precedent that former citizens could demand the erasure of their history in the Kingdom (http://wiki.talossa.com/index.php?title=Viteu_Marcian%C3%BCs&oldid=15218). That's why the picture and much of the original page is gone... I was trying to do the decent thing. There is no law or precedent that states that if I were to do something like edit your English name into the wiki page about you, or the name of a law firm, or whatever, that you could not remove it. You're a citizen and able to edit all wiki pages that are unlocked. Edit by Glüc da Dhi (6 sep 2018) re violation of Witt.#11 (in quote): Changed non-Talossan name to Talossan name. Do not revert this edit.
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Sept 3, 2018 19:17:39 GMT -6
Mr. Alexandreu, I do not answer the defenders of homophobes.
Edit by Glüc da Dhi (6 sep 2018) re violation of Witt.#11: Changed non-Talossan name to Talossan name. Do not revert this edit.
Edit by Viteu Marcianüus (20 Sept 2018) as Glüc da Dhi has shown a complete disregard for well-settled parliamentary immunity and the protections enumerated in the Organic Law, and has abused his power as Secretary of State.
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Sept 3, 2018 19:20:43 GMT -6
Shall I post your photo here? Mr. Alexandreu Davinescu, we needed proceed. You think making fun of the intimate sex lives of people like me and your brother is completely okay. I have nothing to say to thay. To you, I'm sub human. To me, you're a hypocrite. Now, bedtime.
Edit by Glüc da Dhi (6 sep 2018) re violation of Witt.#11: Changed non-Talossan name to Talossan name. Do not revert this edit.
Edit by Viteu Marcianüus (20 Sept 2018) as Glüc da Dhi has shown a complete disregard for well-settled parliamentary immunity and the protections enumerated in the Organic Law, and has abused his power as Secretary of State.
Edit by Glüc da Dhi (4 nov 2019) was alerted by third party about non Talossan name still being used: Changed non-Talossan name to Talossan name.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Sept 3, 2018 19:22:39 GMT -6
It is really not cool to keep writing my English name and then outing my brother on the Internet, over and over. This thing where you're trying to punish me for pointing out flaws in your bill is going way too far.
|
|
Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN
Seneschal
the new Jim Hacker
Posts: 6,635
Talossan Since: 6-25-2004
Dame Since: 9-8-2012
Motto: Expulseascâ, reveneascâ
Baron Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
Duke Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
|
Post by Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN on Sept 4, 2018 0:02:34 GMT -6
We don't have three very active justices, much less more than that. If the standards for being a CpI justice is "barely alive and posting on Wittenberg", and competence is nothing but a cheeky bonus, then we might as well pick justices by random selection, like a jury. I would rather have an inactive Cort than a Cort containing even one Justice who (a) doesn't know what he's doing, (b) doesn't do what he's supposed to even when told what it is, (c) offensively trolls other citizens.
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Sept 4, 2018 5:27:55 GMT -6
... I also had to look up suo moto, since I'd never heard of it. A suo moto case is brought by a court itself, rather than any other party. It's a legal phenomenon not accepted in most courts, but it is quite common in India (where BenArd practices) and Pakistan. In India, it's actually enshrined in the Constitution (Article 32), which says in part, "The right to move the Supreme Court by appropriate proceedings for the enforcement of the rights conferred by this Part is guaranteed." It's considered quite important, described by former Indian chief justice BP Gajendradkar as the "cornerstone of the democratic edifice raised by the Constitution." Suo moto cases are not permitted in British or American courts, as far as I know, so they have no place in Talossan law (which looks to established Anglo-American principles of law as a guide, under the OrgLaw).... There is discussion, within the American courts, as to whether suo moto is, in fact, permitted in those courts: it has not yet happened, but there are possible conditions (which have not yet arisen) under which it might: see Quora DiscussionIts place in Talossan Law, however, is a different matter. Talossa uses the established Anglo-American principles of law as a guide, not as a limit. If there is neither discussion within the Talossan Laws of the applicability of suo moto within Talossan Corts, nor any reasonable deduction from those Laws about its possible applicability in Talossa, then despite the (possible) lack of use of those powers in certain legal systems external to that of Talossa, it is as yet legally undecided whether suo moto can be used in Talossa. With all due respect, S:reu Chief Justice, but that is not at all correct. Your own source indicates that the Judiciary of the United States, namely as listed therein, the Supreme Court of the United States, will not decide an issue detached from a case or controversy. In the report in which I addressed this as Attorney-General, I canvassed a number of common-law countries to understand how they approach advisory opinions. Suo moto action and sua sponte are cousins in that they both concern the court acting on its own will. In the U.S., a sua sponte action occurs when the court does something in a live case or controversy that not otherwise requested by a party, not when the court manufactures a case or controversy. In India and Pakistan, a court can, at times, essentially manufacture a case or controversy. That is where we distinguish suo moto from sua sponte. And India and Pakistan are criticized heavily for this. But your assertion that American courts can issue suo moto decisions is well-settled: the federal courts can only issue decisions when there is a live case or controversy. If a sitting federal judge feels that a court should do something about an issue, the court cannot just act; that judge must petition another judge and present himself not as a member of the judiciary but as someone who has standing to seek the redress sought. In any event, in every country, with the exception of India and Pakistan, suo moto actions are not permitted. To the extent an advisory opinion may exist in the US, we find them at the State level (e.g., Arizona, Florida). It exists to a light degree on account of federalism and an old issue in the US we call the Erie Doctrine, where States have permitted federal courts (generally an appellate Circuit Court) to refer a question to the State's highest Court when the issue before that federal court concerns interpretation of a State right because State courts are in the best place to interpret state laws (but note, there is still a live case or controversy connected). At the international level, we find them in the UK and in Canada. Australia, much like the US, does not permit them. In those countries that do, however, it's only a member of the executive, i.e., either the Prime Minister or or the Cabinet, who can refer a question to the court. But again, it's not a judge acting. The court does not manufacture the case or controversy. Even in India, suo moto actions that aren't directly correlative of a sua sponte action is highly disfavored, with the Indian Constitution preferring only the President have the authority to refer a question to the Supreme Court of India. So no, Mr. Chief Justice, this is not unsettled or untried in the United States. It's well-settled. The US Judiciary permits certain sua sponte action by a federal court (e.g., say during a bankruptcy proceeding, the trustee does not do their job, but the parties in the case have not moved to remove him or her; the court may sua sponte remove him or her). Finally, the referenced quora discussion does not reference this per se. LET US BE EXPLICIT HERE - It is not that Ben-Ard, as a sitting UC Justice, issued a suo moto order. He could have done so in a live case or controversy where another Justice would have simply referred to it as sua sponte, it's that he manufactured a case or controversy that had not been referred to the Court,which is, at minimum, required in every other country referenced, and sought to limit the power of the Legislature to act. That is the issue. Mr. Davi[]s[] misunderstands the suo moto contention - it's not the name he called it, it's that the action itself is not permitted in almost every other common-law country, and as such, does not exist in anglo-american tradition.
|
|
Glüc da Dhi
Secretary of State
Posts: 6,112
Talossan Since: 5-14-2009
|
Post by Glüc da Dhi on Sept 4, 2018 5:59:58 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Sept 4, 2018 11:41:50 GMT -6
"Censorship shall never exist in Talossa; every person may freely speak, write and publish his sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the libelous abuse of that right" (First Covenant). Unless it's libelous to do so, convention does not take the power of law.
|
|
Glüc da Dhi
Secretary of State
Posts: 6,112
Talossan Since: 5-14-2009
|
Post by Glüc da Dhi on Sept 4, 2018 13:35:17 GMT -6
V, what are you doing? Regardless of whether wittiquette in enforceable by the admins (and I still very much think so for a variety of reasons), they form the most basic norms of how we communicate with each other in this community. Talossa isn't just a game where winning is everything as long as you stick to the rules. Are you saying you should further break down what little holds us together just because it might be illegal to prevent it?
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Sept 4, 2018 14:20:54 GMT -6
V, what are you doing? Regardless of whether wittiquette in enforceable by the admins (and I still very much think so for a variety of reasons), they form the most basic norms of how we communicate with each other in this community. Talossa isn't just a game where winning is everything as long as you stick to the rules. Are you saying you should further break down what little holds us together just because it might be illegal to prevent it? I am merely applying the logic employed by S:reu Davi[]s[].
|
|
Glüc da Dhi
Secretary of State
Posts: 6,112
Talossan Since: 5-14-2009
|
Post by Glüc da Dhi on Sept 6, 2018 15:37:41 GMT -6
To all concerned, please be aware that this is a private forum and that in accordance with Proboards Terms of Service admins and moderaters are allowed to edit unwanted content and take disciplinary action against users. On Witt this power has been and will be used only with the greatest amount of caution. Repeated violations of wittiquette might in extreme cases lead to sanctions.
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Sept 6, 2018 17:09:45 GMT -6
So the Proboard's TOS trumps the Organic Law?
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Sept 6, 2018 18:49:26 GMT -6
Thank you, Gluc. It was really getting to me that he was using my English name and outing my brother, over and over. I thought about responding in kind, but I thought it would just escalate. I really appreciate the intervention -- thank you!
|
|