|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Jan 1, 2020 18:36:09 GMT -6
I have no proposed changes at this time and fully support this vetting process. I only seek clarification as to when the Committee will come to order and commence the process.
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Dec 30, 2019 8:17:14 GMT -6
I don't, by any stretch, follow the development of the language, but isn't there a group of Talossans that are charged (or have taken it upon themselves) to develop the language?
I don't think Ben-Ard's request is unreasonable. If the word for Asia does mean "bad temper," perhaps we could encourage a word that isn't inherently pejorative. Of course people will use what they use, but that shouldn't be officially sanctioned to the extent we have some control over the language.
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Dec 23, 2019 16:07:57 GMT -6
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.
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Dec 23, 2019 13:17:21 GMT -6
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. :-)
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Dec 23, 2019 12:57:56 GMT -6
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.
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Dec 22, 2019 17:12:01 GMT -6
May it please the Cort, Please find the amicus curiae of Viteu Marcianüs available for download here: Amicus Curiae by Viteu Marcians.pdf (186 KB) Respectfully Submitted, Viteu Marcianüs
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Dec 20, 2019 20:42:41 GMT -6
As Premier, I accept Vuode's seat on the Council of Governors.
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Dec 19, 2019 12:03:18 GMT -6
I began writing and realize my post was too long, so here is a condensed version: FWIW - Alex is absolutely correct to raise the concerns he's raising. I also appreciate those who are supporting my potential nomination. Etho hits the nail on the head with his analogy, and it's something about myself of which I am self-aware and can attempt to explain upon request. But I am going to restrain myself because many of these issues should/may come up when I am officially nominated, and I would rather explain them at that juncture.
I do want to point out that the Ziu can remove a justice, and certainly has, for behavior it has found to tarnish the reputation of the court and unbecoming of a justice. So I do not think it would tolerate a justice acting in the manner that gives rise to Alex's concerns. I will point out that I continue t support the prior initiatives to set term-limits (with renewals) for UC Justices, and to slightly relax the strict separation of powers to allow the Ziu to set ethical rules on UC Justices.
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Dec 18, 2019 21:45:44 GMT -6
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.
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Dec 18, 2019 21:18:39 GMT -6
I am honored that the Government parties intend to nominate me to fill the vacancy in the Uppermost Cort.
I look forward to a thorough vetting process. If confirmed, I look forward to retiring from political life to focus on the Cort.
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Dec 18, 2019 11:36:37 GMT -6
and then act wounded that anyone thinks it was wrong or pretend that you just didn't know. No need to be condescending.
Nothing about your quote addresses the fact that applicant's personal information is posted where it can read, but the applicant is not informed of this prior to submitting it.
A reasonable person would assume that their information would be utilized by the government for their own internal process, not that it would be published on a forum.
The informed consent in the immigration form as written extends only to right of collection, but not right to disclosure. Talossa is breaching privacy in each case it publishes the personal information of each applicant.
No one should trust us.
Not true. I reapplied for citizenship on August 13, 2016. Ian Anglatzara emailed me noting an obvious error on my form--my birthday! I had accidentally filled in the date of the application (obviously I was not born on that date, although I'm sure there's a snarky comment somewhere to suggest otherwise). I provided my proper birthday in response. After I recreated my account, I sent the following email: I created an account using my old name. Is is possible that my surname not be publicly posted on Witt? I have certain ethical obligations." The ethical obligations concerned a position I had at that moment and where I was applying for employment post-graduation. Both my externship and the (then-hopeful) positions to which I applied precluded me from sharing political leanings that could be traced back to my work. Ian had no issue accommodating my request (his response: "Sure, we know your surname, no need to have it out in the (semi-) open"). The immigration post listed my name as "Vito John M." ( click here for post). Literally no one mentioned it in the subsequent discussion. I kept my name confidential until about March 2019, well after I completed my post-graduate clerkship and went into private practice. But Talossa respected my privacy on the matter. It actually never came up. I share this because it is entirely possible to request that certain required information be redacted. Your claim that the informed consent only extends to the right of collection is misplaced for several reasons. AD is correct that your full and actual given name is required. Contrary to the cort's nonsensical, pseudo-existentialist "what is a name" analysis, there are other fields that cover the various names an applicant may go by: "What do your friends call you" and "What other names/aliases do you use in Internet-related activity." It is patent that we value some ability to verify you are who you say you are. There are three separate fields for names: your actual (legal) name; what your friends call you; and what other names/aliases you use. The form notes other required information: gender, birthday, mailing address, telephone number, and email. Under the telephone number field, it states the following: "Your mailing address (except for the city) and telephone number will be kept confidential, but are required information." Under the email address field, it says the following: "As with your mailing address, unless you request otherwise, your e-mail address will be kept confidential, for government use only." The form also allows an applicant to provide optional information: Facebook URL, GoogleTalk/GChat ID, etc. The form notes the following: "This information is optional, however, and, like your other contact information, will not be published without your permission, although (unless you request otherwise) you may be invited by members of the government into groups and conversations even before gaining full citizenship." Based on the foregoing, a reasonable person understands that the information non-confidential is subject to publication. Confidential information is obviously that which requires the applicant's permission for the Government to publish. Your name is not identified as confidential information. However, as illustrated by my experience, an applicant can request that part of their name (or, I'd wager, if they do provide their proper name and a name they generally use elsewhere, their full legal name) be redacted from publication. Hence, the informed consent extends beyond the right of collection to the right of disclosure for that information not deemed confidential. An applicant's name is not confidential, but an applicant can request reasonable accommodation. Talossa is not breaching an applicant's privacy in each case that it publishes non-confidential information. Look, for what it's worth, I'm not unsympathetic to an applicant's desire to keep certain information from public view (including the applicant's legal name). But we must weigh this against Talossa's interest in verifying that an applicant is who they say they are. Talossa does not require that an applicant furnish verification (e.g. an identification card), but has chosen to extend its trust to complete strangers to be forthcoming and honest when submitting an immigration application. In exchange for the instant trust, Talossa places a legal duty of candor on the applicant because Talossa assumes an applicant's veracity at face value. Talossa presumes that an applicant matches the trust that Talossa places in the applicant through honest and accurate representations on an immigration application. Essentially, we trust the applicant to be honest, and, in turn, the applicant must trust us to not abuse that information. The issue here is: your fallacious disclosure broke the law and abused Talossa's trust. For what it's worth, I am open to including explicit language in the immigration form that, upon request, an applicant may request that, when publish, Talossa redact certain non-confidential information. As it relates to a full legal name, partial redaction or, if a "street name" or "alias" is given, full redaction. But I get the impression that this would have been insufficient for you. An instance such as yours, in my estimation, undermines the trust that Talossa places in applicants that they provide accurate and proper information. It's a quid pro quo--we trust you and you trust us. Tellingly, you became a citizen on February 19, 2014, right before the scandal and criminal matter surrounding ESB. At the very minimum, you knew then that Talossa greatly values an applicant's candor because that honesty is how we verify applicants; you knew the legal requirements for applicants and knew that you had violated those requirements. Sev, you and I do not see eye to eye on a lot of things. You have contributed tremendously to Talossa. That does not absolve you of breaching the collective trust of Talossa, and breaking its law, at inception. And I certainly do not want to see this one mishap tarnish your many contributions and work. You could have requested that Talossa withhold your full legal name from Witt (as I did). But you did not. You took it upon yourself to do that and, accordingly, lied to Talossa and breached Talossan law. Truly, I hope that you take a day or two to reflect on the situation and maybe approach it from a different perspective. I am not gambling person, but I dare wager that, at the outset of this, the universal response from everyone who agrees that you violated the law is that the most lenient punishment should be imposed. Nobody is seeking retribution. Nobody is saying that you needed to provide your full name to everyone. What many of us are saying is simple, "Sev messed up, and we need to make sure our laws are followed. But the facts of this case do not warrant a severe punishment." You digging your heals in is blowing this up beyond what it needs to be. I'm certain that if you took a different approach, this entire issue can be quickly resolved and many of us will move on.
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Dec 17, 2019 21:48:31 GMT -6
It's really sad to be living in a world with thousands of liars. Freddie Mercury made a bunch of albums under a false name. Mark Twain wrote a bunch of books under a false name. And Banksy... what a lying jerk. Filling the world with art. Who the hell is she? He? bell hooks. Garry Kasparov. Titian. Peyo. Ayn Rand. Elizabeth Arden. Bernard Shakey. El Greco. John le Carré. Voltaire. And then there's Yusuf Islam, or Cat Stevens, or Stephen Georgiou, or whoever he really is under his multiple identities. Creeps. The world would've been better off without them and their fraudulent contributions. Oh, and Dr. Seuss. Nefariousness at its worst. Messing with the minds of children. I didnt realize we had such an extensive list of Talossans going all the way back to Voltaire. Wow. But really, did Dr. Seuss apply for immigration to another country using his pen name? Here's the reality-our law is pretty clear that you must provide your real name on the citizenship application. You decided not to. No matter how you want to spin that, you lied and broke Talossan law. You're ostensibly lucking out with a judge who doesn't care about the plain text of the law. So fantastic job at breaking Talossan law and then rendering our law absolutely meaningless. All of your good work for Talossa has culminated in you establishing that a judge can legislate from the bench in Talossa. THANKS
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Dec 17, 2019 21:23:08 GMT -6
Ian's decision is results oriented, focusing more on the outcome than the law. I imagine he thinks he's serving justice, but what he's doing is mooting criminal law and overstepping the Court's authority. I strongly encourage him to reconsider. He enjoys some discretion but this is actual judicial activism on steroids.
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Dec 16, 2019 14:44:58 GMT -6
I didn't see AD's post immediately preceding mine prior to posting. But, for a moment, I am in full agreement with his position.
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Dec 16, 2019 14:43:39 GMT -6
Hopefully a plea bargain can be struck. If Epic can plea him out, agreeing to come into compliance with existing law, I imagine that the Government wouldn't want to push for penalties worse than some community service and a period of civil disability. Heh. We agree. Assuming this *allegations* are true, I must say I'm a bit conflicted. The part of me that recognizes Sev's tremendous contributions favors leniency (ie no period of civil disability). The other part of me that wants our laws to be respected and complied with favors civil disability because contribution and generally being well-liked should not serve as a "get out of jail free" card.
|
|