|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Jun 17, 2019 8:06:28 GMT -6
Talossan is not our greatest cultural treasure. But again, it's considered bad form to only speak a language that others can't speak, and to do so in a conversation already occuring in another language when you can speak the primary language used. You, the Victorian that gets offended by certain language, should appreciate good form in conversation. Unless, of course, you're doing your usual contrarian trolling that is your wont.
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Jun 17, 2019 7:19:34 GMT -6
We get it. You speak Talossan. But the reality is, you're responding to people in a language they don't speak. It's rude, arrogant, and pretentious. He writes posts in Talossan. If you don't want to respond in Talossan, then simply don't reply. Iac wasn't the one who switched languages, Eðo was. We have two national languages. What do you expect would be the use of Talossan if every single word has to be translated? That's nonsense Ian, and you know it. The posts ARE IN ENGLISH. He responds IN TALOSSAN. He knows full well that most of us do not know Talossan (and some of us, such as myself, have absolutely no interest in learning Talossan and find the language to be silly). And yes, my feelings about the Talossan language have been long known, so don't act surprised. Seriously, he's acting like an arrogant (insert expletive here that will offend your sense of language). This is not me coming into a discussion in Talossan demanding everyone speak English. This is someone coming into a conversation in English speaking only Talossan, responding only in Talossan, and acting aghast that some of us don't have time to learn the nonsense that is Talossan.
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Jun 17, 2019 6:12:32 GMT -6
We get it. You speak Talossan. But the reality is, you're responding to people in a language they don't speak. It's rude, arrogant, and pretentious. C'e vrätsmint sa unraziunaval, qe, schi si tent estescu 'n Talossan quáisevois ars, si säpadra misma 'n früstüglh da Talossan? Cool story, bro. You're so clever.
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Jun 17, 2019 5:18:07 GMT -6
Any chance you could provide translations with your posts, please? Solamint schi zonadrás dals glheþinaziuns da voschtri posts. We get it. You speak Talossan. But the reality is, you're responding to people in a language they don't speak. It's rude, arrogant, and pretentious.
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Jun 17, 2019 5:17:19 GMT -6
I'm struggling to imagine a circumstance where Eðo would support E.8. This is only the second time in 15 years that it's been used, which to me suggests it's understood and accepted as being only for extreme circumstances.
I also can't imagine how the evidence presented against Ben is not sufficient to invoke E.8. If not that, than what? I can't imagine what kind of evidence Eðo is looking for.
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Jun 16, 2019 15:48:05 GMT -6
RZ10 - PËR RZ11 - PËR RZ12 - PËR RZ13 - PËR RZ14 - PËR RZ15 - PËR RZ16 - CONTRA: I wish I engaged in this when it was hoppered. I like the idea of requiring the applicant to engage with other Talossans as a requisite. I don't like that it excludes Wittenberg. I get what the act is trying to do, but I see potential for abuse here. Also, not everyone may want to correspond with complete strangers on facebook messenger, or through email, etc. off of a forum that they have just signed up for.
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Jun 16, 2019 12:27:50 GMT -6
Eðo Grischun Thank you for posting the digests. Is there a way we can pin those?
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Jun 16, 2019 12:11:50 GMT -6
The Distain has begun publicly and repeatedly referring to me with a vulgar expletive, so it looks like this was discarded the instant it became inconvenient. (1) I'm not Distain. (2) In your Victorian sense of language, I breached the Code of Conduct. I have censored/removed the alleged offending language from the post, informed the Seneschál and the Cabinet of the breach, and await the public warning required under the Code of Conduct. Mr. Davinescu, I do hope you'll accept my apology for being honest in my feelings towards you. It does sadden me that people find honesty offensive. So please accept this heartfelt apology--I'm sorry that you found my use of language offensive.
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Jun 16, 2019 11:22:49 GMT -6
Partially agreed. The criticism of the Cosa's action, whether warranted or not, has been that it was not presented to the Cosa for consideration. Hence its perception as partisan. I'm merely trying to mitigate that issue and depoliticize the matter. I would support a resolution by the Senate in its own right to refer the matter to the Ziu, or rather, one in support of the Cosa, if there are two other Senators on board. But I felt it better to present the question first to the Chamber for discussion.
This may well be a waste of breath, but hey, if we can set up some type of convention for how to approach this in the future, why not give it a try?
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Jun 16, 2019 11:05:54 GMT -6
I don't disagree with your proposition. But I've gotten the impression that the Senate, as a separate house, would like the opportunity to be heard in the initial referral. I recognize that this would have no legal effect, hence it styled as a Sense of the Senate. I am of the mind that a Senate resolution supporting the Cosa's petition would be bipartisan and remove some of the politicization of the matter.
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Jun 16, 2019 10:31:59 GMT -6
Whereas, on 12 June 2019, a citizenship application was posted to the Immigration Forum on Wittenberg; Whereas, said application was submitted by applicant Robert Ben Madison; Whereas, the applicant has a long, complicated history with the Talossan nation; Whereas, the Cosa, pursuant to el Lexhatx § E.8, has pass a resolution with the requisite one-third support, to block the petition; Whereas, the Senate possesses equal authority and desires to be heard on the matter; Therefore, the Senator from the United Provinces of Vuode and Dandenburg hereby petitions this august Chamber to debate and discuss the merits of the applicant's petition and potential readmission; Further, upon the conclusion of a period of debate for one week, a vote for the Sense of the Senate shall occur to determine if there is the requisite one-third support for the blocking of the applicant's petition until such time as the Ziu directs the issuance of a grant; Finally, the Senator from the United Provinces respectfully refers this matter to the Lord President of the Senate Lüc da Schir to set forth the parameters of the debate.
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on May 28, 2019 15:29:03 GMT -6
This bills seeks to prevent constantly running to the Cort. This does not impact the Kings veto at all. But if he states it's because he thinks it's Inorganic, than, with the referral of two others, including himself, the Cort could certify the question.
The issue of advisory opinions is unresolved. To the extent they're premissible, this limits them. Otherwise, if the Cort has such authority, at the moment, *anyone* can petition for an advisory opinion.
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on May 24, 2019 17:12:55 GMT -6
On another note, I nominated myself for Premier last time, and it wasn't an issue. I nominated you this time--I see no reason why you should not be able to second. It is noted that the first order of business must be election of a Premier, so absent that your seconding my nomination, Chirbi couldn't take on the role of Presiding Officer. :-(
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on May 24, 2019 16:13:12 GMT -6
You're talking about belief. I'm talking about motive and legal duty.
If it's just, "the person didn't believe they were making a false statement" how do we prove otherwise? I'm speaking about "mental state." Also, did they have a duty to ensure that what they said under oath was truthful?
What I've seen with perjury is that a witness who "honestly believes" the statement is true did not perjure themselves. But a person who knowingly makes a statement they know to be materially false is guilty of perjury. That is, they had the mental culpability to mislead.
Finally, i don't see why there is so much resistance to simply changing "willingly" to one of the four accepted types of mens rea? Like, it's one word really. I've already addressed the problems that arise out of "willingly."
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on May 24, 2019 16:03:32 GMT -6
Instead of passing a Bill *about* advisory opinions, in order to test whether the Cort believes itself to have the power to issue such opinions, someone could just ASK the Cort for an advisory opinion, no? That would give them a chance to say Yea or Nay to the question of whether they can provide it. Another question arises. 13.2.1.2. refers to a situation in which the Secretary of State declines to promulgate a Bill that has passed the Ziu and received the Royal consent. Wait, what? Where did that come from? Did I miss something? — John R Partially agree to your first point. But as I mentioned, we've asked the Cort this question a few times and haven't gotten a definitive answer. Hopefully, we could get one now. The intended litigation for the holiday issue is likely to be twofold: (1) the meaning of holidays ( responding to your post elsewhere)--obviously we take different positions on this, and I'm happy to let the Cort decide. I do not intend to frame this this as a "constitutional crisis" per se, but, in my estimation, a reasonable disagreement on whether you have the sole power to declare "holidays" per se or if that only means "national holidays" as opposed to "days of celebration", "public holiday", or "national holiday." I will include my point about the "democratically grants" clause. I do not see this as a "John is abusing his power with respect to the veto" issue but an honest disagreement on Organic authority. It's not personal in this instance. I hope to have the draft petition done by Sunday and will send it to you in advance as promised. I understand that you will be out-of-town for a few days. I had figured I'd give you five days notice for fairness. Considering, in my opinion, we are not dealing with a monumental constitutional crisis, I see no issue in holding off until May, June 3rd, at 7:30 p.m. EDT to file--and if you happen to get to it before then and let me know, filing it as an order petition requesting the Cort give you 14 days to join issue. Again, my goal here is, if the Cort takes the matter, a full, fair,and impartial hearing. If you would like to appoint an attorney before you leave that can accept "talossan" service on your behalf, you can message me privately who that individual is. (2) The petition will address, among other things, the advisory opinion issue. Regarding this bill, I wanted to get a feel for how others might feel about setting parameters for "certified questions" so we don't set a precedent where everything the Government or State or Crown does results in immediate petitions for advisory opinions. If the Cort doesn't agree it has this authority, then the bill would be moot. If it does and the Ziu can set parameters, then we'd have something in place. (3) Regarding 13.2.1.2 - I wanted to consider every plausible eventuality. I cannot think of an instance where the SOS declined to promulgate a Bill. I'm not saying it hasn't happened; but I didn't see the harm in adding it. I do read the Org Law to mean that once a bill receives assent, it's Law. If we are all in agreement on that, I would remove that section. My goal was to be as fair as possible in drafting this (i.e. I'm not picking on you). I'm not married to the exact language of what I proposed. I want this to be perceived as objective, even-handed, and a reasonable compromise.
|
|