The Nationalisation of a Peculiar Wittenberg Act

[Eðo Grischun]

The Nationalisation of a Peculiar Wittenberg Act

WHEREAS the Kingdom of Talossa's primary means of communication is the use of the forum known as Wittenberg, which citizens have enjoyed the use of, in differing forms, for many years, and is host to virtually all official business of the Kingdom; and

WHEREAS H.M. Government and the parliament have sub-boards on these forums and use the same for a variety of purposes, including for the debate of legislation in the Hopper, the enacting or rejection of legislation in parliament and, in lieu of physical meeting places, provide digital representations of the various required facilities such as a Senate chamber, a Cosa chamber and various office spaces for official functions of government; and

WHEREAS certain functions of the Royal Household have sub-boards on these forums and use the same for a variety of purposes, including all business of the College of Arms, all business of the Royal Society for the advancement of knowledge and all business of the Crown itself, such as speeches from the Throne and the awarding of arms and honours; and

WHEREAS the Kingdom's judicial system has sub-boards on these forums and use the same for a variety of purposes, including the hearing of cases, the posting of judicial decisions and rulings and, in lieu of a physical meeting place, provide a set of digital courtrooms; and

WHEREAS the Kingdom's provinces each have a sub-board on these forums and use the same for a variety of purposes, including to act as the public venues for the provinces, for hosting official provincial governmental business and for providing office space to the Crown for provincial matters; and

WHEREAS groups of specialised and niche interests have sub-boards on these forums and use the same for a variety of purposes, including all business of the Talossan Web Designers Guild, all business of the Committee for the Use of the Language and for a wide range of discussions about or in the Talossan national language; and

WHEREAS the public at large enjoy access to these forums and use the same for a variety of purposes, including those already listed, and including any omitted from the above lists as those lists are not intended to be exhaustive; and

WHEREAS the public at large enjoy access to these forums and, in lieu of physical access to the areas of land claimed as Talossan soil, the Wittenberg forums act as a substitute for all physical places by providing a representation of the same by way and in nature of digital peculiarity; and

WHEREAS Wittenberg forums, while being host to all of the aforementioned, is private property and under the sole ownership of John Wooley, not in his capacity as King of Talossa, but in his capacity as a private individual; and

WHEREAS this form of private ownership permits Mr Wooley to enforce a set of rules for use of these forums, known as Wittiquette, which may appear to be a good idea for a variety of good reasons, but still allows one single private individual to control the behaviour and speech of all other individuals, and

WHEREAS, Wittenberg exists in some kind of digital-duality of derivitist and peculiarist realities, with each citizen probably having their own idea of what that really means, but overall can be summed up to say that in lieu of any actual physical 'thing', the sub-forums of Wittenberg provide a digital version of the 'thing', thus it can be said, as examples, that the sub-forum for a province is essentially the very same thing as provincial soil itself or the sub-forum for the uppermost court is essentially the very same thing as a bricks-and-mortar courthouse, and

WHEREAS if that idea holds true then a private individual cannot own these things or enforce blanket rules on all of them, especially if those rules fly in the face of the Covenant of Rights and Freedoms; so


THEREFORE be it enacted by the Ziu of the Kindom of Talossa that:

The forum board titled and styled as Wittenberg (known as Wittenberg, Wittenberg Forums and Witt) is hereby nationalised.


The details to whit are outlined as follows:

1) TITLE J (Telecomuna) of El Lexhatx is stricken from statutory law in it's entirety.

2) The following is hereby enacted and adopted as statutory law and shall be written in El Lexhatx:


TITLE J: Wittenberg Forums

1. A nationalised forum board shall be made available for the use of all citizens. This forum board shall be titled and styled as “Wittenberg”, or as “Witt” in short.

1.1 No one body or person shall be solely responsible for the administration or moderation of the Wittenberg forums as a whole, nor shall any one body or person be solely responsible for the enforcement of rules or terms or conditions of use for the Wittenberg forums as a whole except in cases before the Uppermost Court.

1.2 For international legal purposes, a representative from the Royal House shall be registered as having ownership of Wittenberg. This form of ownership does not imply any right of control under Talossan law.


2. Wittenberg may be sub-divided in such a manner to facilitate ease of navigation and for purposes of compartmentalisation.

2.1. Wittenberg shall be sub-divided in such a manner to allow sub-boards or sub-forums for each individual province. The administration and moderation of and the enforcement of rules of conduct and/or terms or conditions of use of these provincial sub-forums shall be the responsibility of each individual province; with each province being responsible for the sub-forum for their respective province only.

2.2 Wittenberg shall be sub-divided in such a manner to allow sub-boards or sub-forums for any of the Houses that compose the Royal Household as the Royal Household sees fit or as law dictates. The administration and moderation of and the enforcement of rules of conduct and/or terms or conditions of use of these sub-forums shall be the responsibility of the Royal Household; or of an individual House within the Royal Household with that individual House being responsible for a sub-forum for that House .

2.3 Wittenberg shall be sub-divided in such a manner to allow sub-boards or sub-forums for the governmental and legislative branches of the Kingdom of Talossa and these sub-divisions must allow for both The Senate and The Cosa to each have a corresponding sub-forum. The administration and moderation of and the enforcement of rules of conduct and/or terms or conditions of use of these particular sub-forums shall be the responsibility of the speaker of the house; with each speaker being responsible for the sub-forum for their respective house only. The Cosa shall agree on a set of Rules of Order for discussion in the Cosa chamber, while the Senate shall agree on a set of Rules of Order for discussion in the Senate chamber; both sets of rules shall include mechanisms for their enforcement and sanctions for their violation. Any parent forums of this sub-division shall be jointly administered and moderated by the speaker of both houses.

2.4 Wittenberg shall be sub-divided in such a manner to allow for a sub-board or sub-forum to be known as The Hopper. The Hopper shall be a public venue for the initial submission of, the viewing of and the commenting on proposed legislation. The administration and moderation of and the enforcement of rules of conduct and/or terms or conditions of use of the Hopper sub-forum shall be the joint responsibility of the speaker of the Cosa, the speaker of the Senate and the Secretary of State. Only the Secretary of State may be permitted to delegate this responsibility to a deputy if required. The Cosa and Senäts shall agree on a set of Rules of Order for discussion in the Hopper, which shall include mechanisms for their enforcement and sanctions for their violation.

2.5 Wittenberg shall be sub-divided in such a manner to allow sub-boards or sub-forums for the Judiciary of the Kingdom of Talossa and these sub-divisions must allow each individual court to have a corresponding sub-forum. The administration and moderation of and the enforcement of rules of conduct and/or terms or conditions of use of these judicial sub-forums shall be the responsibility of the judiciary with each court responsible for the sub-forum for that respective court only. Any parent forums of the judiciary shall be administered and moderated by the Chief Justice of the Uppermost Court.

2.6 Wittenberg shall be sub-divided in such a manner to allow sub-boards or sub-forums for the use of immigration authorities to allow them to fulfil their statutory obligations defined elsewhere. The administration and moderation of and the enforcement of rules of conduct and/or terms or conditions of use of these immigration sub-forums shall be the joint responsibility of the Secretary of State and the Minister of the Interior. Both the Secretary of State and the Minister of the Interior are permitted to delegate this responsibility to deputies if required.

2.7 Wittenberg may be sub-divided in such a manner to allow sub-boards or sub-forums for use by special interest groups or cultural organisations. The administration and moderation of and the enforcement of rules of conduct and/or terms or conditions of use of these particular sub-forums shall be the responsibility of each individual organisation; with each organisation being responsible for the sub-forum for their respective organisation only.

2.8 Wittenberg shall be sub-divided in such a manner to allow for open public areas to facilitate right of assembly. These areas may be viewable to non-citizens or they may be closed to non-citizens as required. The administration and moderation of and the enforcement of rules of conduct and/or terms or conditions of use of these particular sub-forums shall be the responsibility of the Royal Household.


3. Any rules set by the individual administrators and/or moderators of a sub-forum must not contravene the Organic Law or the Covenant of Rights and Freedoms where such a sub-forum is a public space. Private organisations in control of a sub-forum may set rules of decorum, but cannot infringe on Organic rights.

3.1 No citizen can suffer a blanket ban from all sub-divisions of Wittenberg simultaneously except by order of the Uppermost Court.

3.2 All citizens have a right of appeal against any decision made by any administrator or moderator of any sub-forum. The Uppermost Court is the final court of appeal in these instances.


I petition that it might be so,
Éovart Grischun (MC - RUMP)

[Eðo Grischun]

Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN

I'd be very interested in your input on this. I've plagiarised your line from your "Sheriff" Bill in here somewhere.

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

Well, I'm totally in favour of nationalising Wittenberg in principle. In practice, the fact is that the King - even assuming this law can override his veto - can simply tell us to get stuffed, as the Kingdom of Talossa does not have any effective means to oblige the King to give up his private property. Which is why Telecomuna - setting up a new DG which is State-owned and under real democratic accountable control - was the way to get around this.

[King John]

Whoever administers Witt, it shouldn't be the Corts. We have had quite a few cases where a Witt Admin had to act *quickly*.

And giving it to a politically elected body, the Cosa or whoever, both guarantees very slow actions AND politically motivated ones.

It seems to me that Witt is exactly the kind of thing best left to a non-partisan non-elected official.

— John R

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

Above, the King is trying to spin his unaccountable owner-operatorship over Wittenberg into a positive, rather than a problem and a shackle on Talossan democracy.

The important point to remember is that the King does not abide by any standards but his own. He has made it perfectly clear, for example, that someone who uses profane language will get suspended. Someone who continuously accuses his political enemies without foundation of corruption and other wild, unfounded accusations, designed only to intimidate opposition and get his own political way, is not a problem. But it is my opinion that both should be subject to sanction. But my opinion doesn't matter diddly-squat to John.

We need rules with broad public acceptance. And we need someone accountable to those rules, not someone who will do what he wants, and only when he can be bothered to do so.

Just chew on this for a while - AD "trusts the King" to moderate Wittenberg. The King has no problem with how AD operates in Talossa. You see how this becomes a self-reinforcing loop.

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

I should add that the King's point about needing a "Witt sheriff" who can act quickly on their own recognizance is accurate. Which is why the Ziu should appoint one / give the Túischac'h and/or Mençéi that power. Perhaps for the boards outside the Ziu, where different rules apply, there should be a different "Sheriff", a member of the Civil Service, who can put people in "Witt jail" either temporarily or until the Cort has a chance to rule, and who is accountable for his/her job performance to the elected Government under the Civil Service law.

None of this means that this should be John's job. I have established that I, for one, do not trust his judgement.

[Eðo Grischun]

Feb 24, 2019 16:36:18 GMT -6 Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN said:

I should add that the King's point about needing a "Witt sheriff" who can act quickly on their own recognizance is accurate. Which is why the Ziu should appoint one / give the Túischac'h and/or Mençéi that power. Perhaps for the boards outside the Ziu, where different rules apply, there should be a different "Sheriff", a member of the Civil Service, who can put people in "Witt jail" either temporarily or until the Cort has a chance to rule, and who is accountable for his/her job performance to the elected Government under the Civil Service law.

None of this means that this should be John's job. I have established that I, for one, do not trust his judgement.

Well, the thrust behind this proposal is that each sub-section of Witt would have their own Sheriffs. In the Ziu it would be the Speakers of the House (including the Hopper); the courts sheriff themselves, each province sheriffs itself, etc.

This way no citizen can be banned from or punished in every part of Witt all in one go. They commit an offence in the Ziu then they are punished in the Ziu, but not elsewhere. They commit an offence in a province then they are punished in that province, but not elsewhere.

Serious breaches will have to go before the UC, but that would already be the case with a 'national' crime anyway.

Only the UC can issue a forum-wide ban (ie: nationwide banishment) under this Bill, which has been argued that this is already the case by V - but this extends that principle or spirit of law and puts it into written word as applicable to Wittenberg accounts.


I agree that one individual person cannot wield this much power over all others. The idea that he can get away with it because Witt is "private property" needs to be dropped. It's reminding me of the baddie in one of the Lethal Weapons where the South African is waiving "diplomatic immunity" about.

Wittenberg needs to be seen as an extension of Talossan soil and Witt accounts need to be seen as an extension of our citizenship. Otherwise, the Organic Law and Covenant of Rights and Freedoms have very little point - the list of places they could apply is very, very short once you remove Wittenberg from the equation.

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

Well, I'm happy to work with you on this bill, if you give me some indication of how/why you think John will voluntarily allow Witt to be nationalised - because we have no power to take it off him.

[Eðo Grischun]

Feb 24, 2019 21:29:00 GMT -6 Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN said:

Well, I'm happy to work with you on this bill, if you give me some indication of how/why you think John will voluntarily allow Witt to be nationalised - because we have no power to take it off him.

I actually can't give you an indication on that. As my father often says, if you want a guarantee, buy a toaster.

You're right, we don't have the power to force John to give up what he sees as his private property (and I guess US law backs him up on that).

All I can ask is that we work on it regardless of outcome. He may veto it, he may pass it. We won't know till we get to that point. At least the Ziu will have made it's position clear to him. I can't tell the future, but I imagine following a veto then the most likely outcome from such a constitutional crisis would be the hastening of the opening of Telecomuna, despite the risks.

Or, he might not wish to stalemate himself against the Ziu like that and let it pass.

All we've ever done is debate the 'what ifs' surrounding nationalising Witt. I think we should find out if the Ziu wants to actually do it.

[Dame Litz Cjantscheir, UrN]

Feb 24, 2019 21:53:10 GMT -6 Eðo Grischun said:

Feb 24, 2019 21:29:00 GMT -6 Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN said:

Well, I'm happy to work with you on this bill, if you give me some indication of how/why you think John will voluntarily allow Witt to be nationalised - because we have no power to take it off him.

I actually can't give you an indication on that. As my father often says, if you want a guarantee, buy a toaster.

You're right, we don't have the power to force John to give up what he sees as his private property (and I guess US law backs him up on that).

All I can ask is that we work on it regardless of outcome. He may veto it, he may pass it. We won't know till we get to that point. At least the Ziu will have made it's position clear to him. I can't tell the future, but I imagine following a veto then the most likely outcome from such a constitutional crisis would be the hastening of the opening of Telecomuna, despite the risks.

Or, he might not wish to stalemate himself against the Ziu like that and let it pass.

All we've ever done is debate the 'what ifs' surrounding nationalising Witt. I think we should find out if the Ziu wants to actually do it.

Firstly, I am uneasy about the Government/Ziu using inverse condemnation/ condemnation via eminent domain without just compensation. It creates a very unwelcome precedence where the Government/Ziu can pass a bill and deprive a citizen of his/her private property at whim.

If the Witt is to be nationalised, I would be more in favour of engaging in a process of negotiation with the property owner and drawing up a contract to transfer legal ownership to the State. I would rather this avenue be followed first and exhausted before we look to more extreme legislative measures. Which also raises the question, has anyone formally talked to the King about the transfer of ownership?

Secondly, there is no such Organically defined position of "Chief Justice", but there is a "Senior Justice".

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

Feb 25, 2019 9:27:35 GMT -6 Dame Litz Cjantscheir, UrN said:

If the Witt is to be nationalised, I would be more in favour of engaging in a process of negotiation with the property owner and drawing up a contract to transfer legal ownership to the State.

Oh, I'm not in favour of nationalisation without compensation in this case (even if it were actually possible), but I honestly think John won't sell at any price, or would put up some completely ridiculous price to just end the negotiation.

[Eðo Grischun]

Feb 25, 2019 9:27:35 GMT -6 Dame Litz Cjantscheir, UrN said:

Feb 24, 2019 21:53:10 GMT -6 Eðo Grischun said:

I actually can't give you an indication on that. As my father often says, if you want a guarantee, buy a toaster.

You're right, we don't have the power to force John to give up what he sees as his private property (and I guess US law backs him up on that).

All I can ask is that we work on it regardless of outcome. He may veto it, he may pass it. We won't know till we get to that point. At least the Ziu will have made it's position clear to him. I can't tell the future, but I imagine following a veto then the most likely outcome from such a constitutional crisis would be the hastening of the opening of Telecomuna, despite the risks.

Or, he might not wish to stalemate himself against the Ziu like that and let it pass.

All we've ever done is debate the 'what ifs' surrounding nationalising Witt. I think we should find out if the Ziu wants to actually do it.

Firstly, I am uneasy about the Government/Ziu using inverse condemnation/ condemnation via eminent domain without just compensation. It creates a very unwelcome precedence where the Government/Ziu can pass a bill and deprive a citizen of his/her private property at whim.

If the Witt is to be nationalised, I would be more in favour of engaging in a process of negotiation with the property owner and drawing up a contract to transfer legal ownership to the State. I would rather this avenue be followed first and exhausted before we look to more extreme legislative measures. Which also raises the question, has anyone formally talked to the King about the transfer of ownership?

Secondly, there is no such Organically defined position of "Chief Justice", but there is a "Senior Justice".

I'm not sure what sort of compensation would be appropriate in this case. Monetary? That would move the Bill towards the domain of compulsory purchase orders, but then the question would have to be asked is it appropriate for the Crown to enjoy financial profit from the sale of the Kingdom's infrastructure?

I don't actually want the government to take ownership of Witt anyway. The final solution I would like to see is for the ownership of Witt to be transferred from the private individual John Wooley over to an office of the Crown (ie: from John to King John) and at the same time transfer operational control and administration from John over to non-Royal bodies. Something similar to the Crown Estate in the UK where the Queen owns the infrastructure, but cannot control it or personally profit from it while third parties have the control but not the ownership.

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

Instead of all these hypotheticals, let's just ask the man.

*ahem*

King John Your Majesty sir. If the Government requested, and/or the Ziu passed a law mandating, that administration of Witt be passed to public officials operating under law, would you agree to do so?

[King John]

Dama Miestra, my NOT suspending someone's account by no means indicates that I "have no problem with how [someone] operates in Talossa". I have never suspended Sir Alexandreu's account, or yours, or Mximo's, or V's (until the other day), or Tim Olivieri's — and that certainly doesn't mean I always liked how all of you were acting.

I suspended Grubi's account once for a day. Besides that, I think the only times I've ever suspended an account were when someone had committed a crime and the only way to prevent his deleting the evidence was to suspend him (Ups Martüc, ESB, etc.), or when an account was discovered to be a sock puppet (ESB, ESB, ESB ...)

— John R

[King John]

Dama Miestra, answering hypothetical questions, especially if some kind of negotiation is anticipated, tends to be unwise. Such a law as you envision, for instance, might well be deemed inOrganic. (Under the Covenants, can someone's "life, liberty, or property" be taken without his being found guilty of some misdeed? Does the Ziu have the power to confiscate particular pieces of citizens' property, or might that fall under the prohibition against Bills of Attainder? I don't know how the Cort might rule on these questions, or on others, and an answer to your question might well depend on such a ruling.)

— John R