The Title Protection Act

[Deleted]

I am not hearing any major objections. I'd say if this made the deadline, let's set this up for the next Clark and let the Cosa decide.

[Owen Edwards]

My continuing objection is that, despite your argument that "those are things we don't physically deal with in Talossa", other items of identity fraud are not covered by this Act (as well as fears of redundancy re Wittiquette, but I'll read through this tomorrow again to gather my thoughts on that).

[Vit Caçeir]

Oct 28, 2008 19:45:14 GMT -6 Owen Edwards said:

...other items of identity fraud are not covered by this Act...

if this Act would apply specifically to military titles, couldn't a civilian follow up Act be written during the next Clark or something?

I agree with your concerns, but in my opinion, they don't justify opposition to this bill.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

Oct 28, 2008 20:15:50 GMT -6 Vit Caçeir said:

Oct 28, 2008 19:45:14 GMT -6 Owen Edwards said:

...other items of identity fraud are not covered by this Act...

if this Act would apply specifically to military titles, couldn't a civilian follow up Act be written during the next Clark or something?

I agree with your concerns, but in my opinion, they don't justify opposition to this bill.

There does not seem a dire need for this bill immediately , and I think making better legislation is worth it if we can. Let's just hash out the whole deal and pass it in a single bill, which will help avoid many possible contradictions and redundancies.

[Deleted]

Oct 28, 2008 19:45:14 GMT -6 Owen Edwards said:

My continuing objection is that, despite your argument that "those are things we don't physically deal with in Talossa", other items of identity fraud are not covered by this Act (as well as fears of redundancy re Wittiquette, but I'll read through this tomorrow again to gather my thoughts on that).

I don't think we need to fear redundancy re Wittiquette. Wittiquette is just that, etiquette for Witt and Witt alone. Etiquette is not law and does not extend to the kingdom beyond Witt.

Other items of fraud are not dealt with in this act, that is true, but the primary goal of this act is not to define fraud, but to address the issue of using titles fraudulently.

[EM Vürinalt]

I understand the purpose of this bill and here are several examples of the use of this bill:

Joe Smith goes into a bar and sits down and tells this babe that he's a major general in the Talossan military and has been on so many campaigns, won all the medals 4 times over and is the most decorated Talossan military man in the history of the nation.

Except the problem is...Joe Smith is not in nor never was in the military. By using these false titles and claiming possession of these military awards, he dishonours those who truly served.

Dr. Jane Somebodyoranother just opened up their own orthodontic shop. She places 2 doctorate, 3 masters, and a bachelors degree on the wall.

Problem is...she's not a doctor. By using this title, she is endangering the life of those who go and visit her.

Jack Everybody says that he is the son of the Grand Duke of Luxembourg, and because of this tie to "real" royalty, he begins to act with actions of those of the King (or higher than the King) because he possesses "ancient blood of a royal line." Not only kicking the King in the face, he demands an honourary grant of royalty from the Nation.

Sad thing is, Jack is not a member of a royal line. But this is found out only after the nation was shaken under his assumed power. The honour and prestige of both the Monarchy and Nobility are now severely undermined and lessened.

This bill is not refering to Wittiquette but is instead voicing concern over a very real issue. Both of the aforementioned examples are crimes in many countries, including the USA. One simply cannot claim to possess things they do not own.

I support this bill, I beg all of you Major General Archduke of Liechtenstein Joe/Jane Genericlastname; D.D.S. do the same.

[Owen Edwards]

Well, quite, Vuri. Hence why AD and I have voiced hopes that this Bill might be extended to cover identity fraud in general.

[Deleted]

And I'm always open to a bipartisan effort to improve legislation. However, no such offer to help improve it was made, only vague recommendations such as "cover identity fraud."

If you do not support the bill as written, I will understand if it is defeated, but I also invite members of the PP, CCCP or GRUMP to aid in legislation such as this so that we can improve things together.

The reason this does not cover other areas of identity fraud is because this addresses a very specific need, much like the Anti-Imposter and Liar Act did.

If we draft a piece of legislation that is too broad and covers too many things, my fear is that in the future, if one part of that bill is disputed, it could result in the entire act being repealed rather than the individual part.

That's just my approach.

[EM Vürinalt]

I like that approach too. Specifics are always a good thing. I believe that covering all types of fraud would be very difficult, very long and tedious, and most of it is more than likely covered in the Wisconsin State Code (so it would be unneeded).

[Owen Edwards]

MV:
As regards "very difficult", an extra section or two being added regarding false claims on academic and medical titles hardly seems "very difficult". And hey, Tim, if you want someone to suggest an amended text, I'll try to provide you with one, if I can find the time and space to think through the additions.

[Deleted]

I always welcome participation with any of my legislation.

[Owen Edwards]

As you can see, I've abstained on this version in the Clark. If it passes we'll have to consider a supplementary Bill for other forms of identity fraud.