So, how does one currently join the Bar?

[Istefan Perþonest]

The webpage seems way out-of-date, so I don't trust it.

[Viteu Marcianüs]

The UC was supposed to set the procedure or devolve authority to a Bar. They haven't done either. Technically, if you've been admitted elsewhere, hold a law degree, or have completed one year of school and a year of training, you can be waived on motion with support of two justices.

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

Also, the Seneschál and the Attorney-General are admitted ex officio.

[Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă]

When I was admitted to the bar I took and passed the bar exam administered by Dame Litz. I asked to help or take over the process when I joined the Uppermost Cort but it never happened.

[Açafat del Val]

Whenever the UC may undertake the effort, I would like to seek admittance to the Bar myself.

[Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun]

Yes, V did try to get the Bar reformed, but... I think the King wouldn't have it? Or was it the Ziu in general? I cannot remember.

[Viteu Marcianüs]

Dec 23, 2019 11:29:48 GMT -6 Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun said:

Yes, V did try to get the Bar reformed, but... I think the King wouldn't have it? Or was it the Ziu in general? I cannot remember.

My dear, V already answered this. The Bar Reformation Act did indeed pass into law law. John vetoed 50RZ27, and the Ziu overrode that veto with 51RZ17.  The Uppermost Cort has not set seen fit to set a bar exam or delegate that responsibility. 

I do not know why you thought it necessary to falsify the foregoing, but you are free to look up those bills for clarity, munchkin. 

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

Dec 23, 2019 12:57:56 GMT -6 Viteu Marcianüs said:

Dec 23, 2019 11:29:48 GMT -6 Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun said:

Yes, V did try to get the Bar reformed, but... I think the King wouldn't have it? Or was it the Ziu in general? I cannot remember.

My dear, V already answered this. The Bar Reformation Act did indeed pass into law law. John vetoed 50RZ27, and the Ziu overrode that veto with 51RZ17.  The Uppermost Cort has not set seen fit to set a bar exam or delegate that responsibility. 

I do not know why you thought it necessary to falsify the foregoing, but you are free to look up those bills for clarity, munchkin. 

This future member of the Cort pu Inalt has no particular reason to be so contemptuous of Epic nor to call him names, but there's a grudge going, you see.

[Viteu Marcianüs]

Dec 23, 2019 13:11:47 GMT -6 Sir Alexandreu Davinescu said:

Dec 23, 2019 12:57:56 GMT -6 Viteu Marcianüs said:

My dear, V already answered this. The Bar Reformation Act did indeed pass into law law. John vetoed 50RZ27, and the Ziu overrode that veto with 51RZ17.  The Uppermost Cort has not set seen fit to set a bar exam or delegate that responsibility. 

I do not know why you thought it necessary to falsify the foregoing, but you are free to look up those bills for clarity, munchkin. 

This future member of the Cort pu Inalt has no particular reason to be so contemptuous of Epic nor to call him names, but there's a grudge going, you see.

I did not call Epiq any names.  "My dear" is how he referred to me in a separate facebook discussion roughly a week ago. Munchkin is mere continuing these terms of endearment in the spirit of his use of "My dear," which he claimed was a german idiom.  I probably should have clarified that my somewhat cheeky response was merely an extension of that exchange and not pejorative.  I hope that clears up any misconception. :-) 

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

lol ok

[Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun]

I never claimed anything, but your being so vile towards me when I have been nothing but neutral or tried to be nice to you is really childish. But you know what, go ahead, keep doing it in public fora. It makes you look really level-headed.

[Viteu Marcianüs]

Dec 23, 2019 15:41:13 GMT -6 Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun said:

I never claimed anything, but your being so vile towards me when I have been nothing but neutral or tried to be nice to you is really childish. But you know what, go ahead, keep doing it in public fora. It makes you look really level-headed.

I'm unsure how or when I was vile to you since you've become active in Talossa again.  I was merely unsure why you needed to make a "V failed!" type post that was not based on actual events.

I'm also unsure where I have been childish.  I thought I've engaged you as an equal and with a level-head, eagerly debating topics such as civil law, common law, equity, stare decisis, jurisprudence constante, indemnity, etc. with you.  When I have felt the discussions were headed in a contentious direction, I made the simple decision to walk away.  Out of interest for others, I removed myself from the equation.  

Even in the chatbox discussion below, our disagreement is not personal but stems from our respective preference for either the civil law or the common law systems.  It very much mirrored our prior discussion on the subject matter. I do not see how that is vile. 

Truly, I really have no idea what you're talking about regarding how "vile" I am or have been towards you, especially when I did nothing more than correct an attempted slight cast by you in a factual manner.  

All in all, this thread will lead nowhere, and if we continue it will likely move to the bowels of the Thunderdome. So I'll decline to engage further. I do hope that we can move passed this. But for now, tschuess, liebling.