The Speech from the Throne

[King John]

Dear friends and fellow-countrymen —

Happy Independence Day! The 40th year of our national existence has begun! And once again, it falls to me to address the nation as we congratulate ourselves (and each other) for our utter brilliance and good taste in being Talossans.

There are a lot of things about Talossa to celebrate, even to be ridiculously proud of. The Scribe is doing some amazing work for all of us, preserving the documentation of the nation’s early heritage; the Database seems to be working well (for which we owe many thanks to S:reu M-P Fuxheir); elections have gone more smoothly recently; we have coins!; and so on.

Of course, as always, there are a few things that merit a more cautionary sort of mention.

I’m concerned that some of the bad qualities that have been more and more on display in our macro-nations (especially, but not limited to, the United States) are making their way into Talossan life, and making Talossa simply less fun for a lot of people than it used to be. (Some of us revel in down-and-dirty political skirmishing, but some don’t. Some are totally turned off by it.) Good citizens have renounced — which always seems a sort of disaster to me, when I see it happen —, and quite a number of others have simply stopped participating. Many of those have said publicly or privately that the whole Talossan enterprise simply isn’t enjoyable any longer, that backbiting and over-the-top nastiness have turned Talossan participation from a pleasant recreation into nothing short of a painful burden. I’ve heard from several that the toxic levels of partisan acrimony which, sadly, seem increasingly to characterize Talossan politics, have led them to abandon the country. I wish they wouldn’t quit, and I tell them so; but I understand their disappointment, and I can’t really blame them for it. I feel it too. Maybe we should all somehow grow thicker skins, but it’s hard to argue with someone who simply can’t easily endure verbal abuse (or seeing his friends abused), and has concluded he’ll be happier just finding something else to do with his time. It’s my conviction that when this happens, we all lose — even though one “side” might feel they’ve won something.

Another serious and related danger we’re gradually slipping into, I believe, is the use of the Corts — prosecutions for alleged crimes, motions for relief, etc. — that either are, or are widely perceived to be, political in their motivation. Any time the Government takes legal action against political opponents, it must be absolutely clear to everyone that these things are NOT being done with politics in mind; and sadly, this has not been the case in Talossa these last years. The Government should bend over backwards to avoid all appearance of gamesmanship with the judiciary. The Justices should be especially sensitive to this, and perhaps a bit more diligent in not letting the Corts be used in this way.

In short, we should all take care that a visitor to our boards will see a group of people who, even as they debate and disagree and compete, still exhibit kindness and good will toward one another — or are at the very least reasonable, calm, and polite —, rather than showing the kind of acrimonious nastiness that can be easily found on any website that allows political discussion.

On a happier, personal note, I am very pleased to make mention of the expansion of the Royal Family (and the extension of the line of succession). Prince Patrick and his lovely bride have provided us with a new Prince (and me with another handsome grandson), His Highness Prince Demetrius John.

I haven’t mentioned La Caciun Naziunal in some time, and some of you have asked after her. Pup is doing well, for the old lady she is — fourteen years old in just a few days. She’s slowed down a lot, and suffers a bit from arthritis in her knees — our thousand-and-one rabbits are no longer in any serious danger from her, but she’s still happy to give them a run now and then —, and she doesn’t hear nearly as well as she used to, but she’s still her utterly sweet self. (Dogs often get sweeter and nicer as they get older, don’t they?, in marked contrast to, say, me.)

Many thanks to so many of you for your many kindnesses and friendship. Let’s make this a good year in our beloved Talossa, by pursuing the good as best we can, and resolving to be good to one another. Wishing all of you a Merry Christmas and any other Holidays you may celebrate, happiness and success and blessing, and a joyful New Year,

With much affection,

— John R

[Gödafrïeu Válcadác’h]

Many thanks, sir, and well-spoken. And many felicitations to you and yours on the expanding royal family. :-)

[Ian Plätschisch]

Thank you for your address, Your Majesty.

I would like to counter one claim within it, however. The only case you could be referring to when you say:

Another serious and related danger we’re gradually slipping into, I believe, is the use of the Corts — prosecutions for alleged crimes, motions for relief, etc. — that either are, or are widely perceived to be, political in their motivation.

is Petition: Vacate Conviction of ESB. However, the Attorney-General at the time as well as the presiding Justice took many steps to ensure that the proceedings and decision were not political.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

Who argued on the victims' behalf against the Avocat-Xheneral, when he began litigating for the exoneration of your political ally?

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

Jan 3, 2019 19:23:24 GMT -6 Sir Alexandreu Davinescu said:

Who argued on the victims' behalf against the Avocat-Xheneral, when he began litigating for the exoneration of your political ally?

Ha ha, I was a "victim" of ESB's shenanigans, as my political party was discredited by it. I don't remember you asking for my opinion.

[Gödafrïeu Válcadác’h]

Jan 3, 2019 19:23:24 GMT -6 Sir Alexandreu Davinescu said:

Who argued on the victims' behalf against the Avocat-Xheneral, when he began litigating for the exoneration of your political ally?

Some 'ally'. ESB torched our political party, in case you have forgotten. How many Miestrâ-voting sock-puppets did he have? He was the best friend the RUMP ever had, and you know it. :-)

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

Jan 4, 2019 13:56:57 GMT -6 Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN said:

Jan 3, 2019 19:23:24 GMT -6 Sir Alexandreu Davinescu said:

Who argued on the victims' behalf against the Avocat-Xheneral, when he began litigating for the exoneration of your political ally?

Ha ha, I was a "victim" of ESB's shenanigans, as my political party was discredited by it. I don't remember you asking for my opinion.

Indeed, it doesn't seem like anyone was consulted. The Avocat-Xheneral invented a new process, where past convictions receive a one-sided review.

I think you're being a little harsh when you say that you guys were discredited by the fraud. It didn't look good, of course, but it wasn't particularly the party's fault, was it? You guys were victims just as much as anyone else.

It will happen again. It's probably already happened again, since it doesn't seem to have gotten much harder -- and since the threat of punishment has faded somewhat, once it was revealed the A-X could just have a new trial without a prosecutor if he wanted to get you out of it.

C'est la vie. Spiral continues.

[Viteu Marcianüs]

Jan 3, 2019 19:23:24 GMT -6 Sir Alexandreu Davinescu said:

Who argued on the victims' behalf against the Avocat-Xheneral, when he began litigating for the exoneration of your political ally?

You were invited to make your position known, but you missed the window.  You only have yourself to blame.  But I think it is quite telling that you would throw out due process or fundamental rights simply to uphold a conviction.  

[Viteu Marcianüs]

Dec 28, 2018 16:10:20 GMT -6 King John said:

Dear friends and fellow-countrymen —

Happy Independence Day! The 40th year of our national existence has begun! And once again, it falls to me to address the nation as we congratulate ourselves (and each other) for our utter brilliance and good taste in being Talossans.

Of course, as always, there are a few things that merit a more cautionary sort of mention.


Another serious and related danger we’re gradually slipping into, I believe, is the use of the Corts — prosecutions for alleged crimes, motions for relief, etc. — that either are, or are widely perceived to be, political in their motivation. Any time the Government takes legal action against political opponents, it must be absolutely clear to everyone that these things are NOT being done with politics in mind; and sadly, this has not been the case in Talossa these last years. The Government should bend over backwards to avoid all appearance of gamesmanship with the judiciary. The Justices should be especially sensitive to this, and perhaps a bit more diligent in not letting the Corts be used in this way.

With much affection,

— John R

It's pretty pathetic when the "non-partisan" monarch is PARTISAN. The Government has not used the Corts to achieve political goals, and your innuendo that it has without even offering an iota of proof evinces that you're unfit to be the Monarch of Talossa.  

The King should bend over backwards to avoid all appearance of gamesmanship with politics - something you fail at.  You're a coward and a tyrant, John, lashing out because you feel your power and privilege slipping.  It's pathetic.  

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

Jan 7, 2019 19:49:28 GMT -6 Viteu Marcianüs said:

Jan 3, 2019 19:23:24 GMT -6 Sir Alexandreu Davinescu said:

Who argued on the victims' behalf against the Avocat-Xheneral, when he began litigating for the exoneration of your political ally?

You were invited to make your position known, but you missed the window.  You only have yourself to blame.  But I think it is quite telling that you would throw out due process or fundamental rights simply to uphold a conviction.  

Yes, I was too busy and didn't notice what you were doing quickly enough to intervene. It's pretty much like how when a firefighter arrives too late to save a house, it's their fault and not the arsonist's fault, right?

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

Jan 4, 2019 15:08:58 GMT -6 Gödafrïeu Válcadác’h said:

Jan 3, 2019 19:23:24 GMT -6 Sir Alexandreu Davinescu said:

Who argued on the victims' behalf against the Avocat-Xheneral, when he began litigating for the exoneration of your political ally?

Some 'ally'. ESB torched our political party, in case you have forgotten. How many Miestrâ-voting sock-puppets did he have? He was the best friend the RUMP ever had, and you know it. :-)

Isn't he an MZ right now? Is it for the RUMP? I forget.

[Viteu Marcianüs]

Jan 8, 2019 9:41:07 GMT -6 Sir Alexandreu Davinescu said:

Jan 7, 2019 19:49:28 GMT -6 Viteu Marcianüs said:

You were invited to make your position known, but you missed the window.  You only have yourself to blame.  But I think it is quite telling that you would throw out due process or fundamental rights simply to uphold a conviction.  

Yes, I was too busy and didn't notice what you were doing quickly enough to intervene. It's pretty much like how when a firefighter arrives too late to save a house, it's their fault and not the arsonist's fault, right?

Shit analogy. Again, your hubris knows no bounds. Your failure to pay attention does not mean you get special treatment. Talossa does not run on your schedule. 

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

As I see the ashes underfoot, I do regret that I wasn't able to intervene earlier.

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

Jan 8, 2019 10:44:38 GMT -6 Sir Alexandreu Davinescu said:

As I see the ashes underfoot, I do regret that I wasn't able to intervene earlier.

Describing the Attorney-General's decision to ask the CpI to review what he considered a miscarriage of justice in terms of arson is the kind of hyperbole which adds heat but no light to a debate; it just annoys one's interlocutors, perhaps in the hope of "riling up a political base".

Or, in other words:

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

The precedent now exists that the A-X can unilaterally bring up previous convictions and bring them before a justice for a one-sided tribunal to have them overturned. The convict is his fellow party member, sitting in the Cosa with the A-X. No attempt was made to preserve even the appearance of impartiality. The A-X made the decision to do this by himself and argued it by himself and declined to appoint anyone to represent the interests of justice (beyond himself, of course, lol).

The precedent is now set.

Imagine if a RUMPer were caught perpetrating large scale electoral fraud to benefit the RUMP. The criminal is caught, confesses, and is convicted. A few years later a RUMP Avocat-Xheneral decides that they want this overturned. They make that decision by themselves. They take it before a justice. No one speaks against their arguments or challenges their reasoning. Maybe they have a good reason, or maybe they don't. And then... well, unsurprisingly, a one-sided argument is often successful.

Preserving the fair and adversarial justice system is important. If one lawyer gets to make arguments to a justice in private, where those arguments cannot be heard or answered by the other party, that's corrupt. It's vastly worse when no one represents the contrary interests at all! Then it's not just corrupt ex parte conversation... then it's a lawyer who gets to argue unopposed. And those arguments are easy to win, making justice nothing but a temporary inconvenience to those who can get their friends in power.

I am already aware that this sort of thing does not bother you.