|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Nov 17, 2016 10:21:27 GMT -6
I would like to point out that since I announced my candidacy for the senate seat for Vuode, we now have a third candidate running, as well as posts from Sir T. We also are likely to have a debate. Citizens of Talossa; people of Vuode - I've already shown that I can make good on my promises - I said I want to make Vuode more active, to make Talossa more active, and within hours of that promise, Vuode and Talossa are more active. V is for Vuode. I want to know who of you will make Vuode grate! Nicely done, Sir! I'm of the mind that we need an honest and frank conversation about Vuode and Talossa. The seat we three seek demands respect and civility. And it demands a commitment to Vuode and Talossa that we will listen to what our constituents want and to what Talossa and Vuode need. That is what I am promising if elected. I will not be the one to make Vuode or Talossa grate; I will be the one to say, "let's get active again; let's get working!" To that end, I want to see all of Talossa become active, and I want us to start acting more like a real country. At the moment, any issue we have ends up getting a debate in the legislature, and laws get changed based on whims. If there is a question, we turn to the legislature to pass a new law. That is not how this is supposed to work. Our laws should change only because they need to be changed, but how we clarify them, how we apply them, how we use them - when those questions come up, the judiciary should step in. This concept is the hallmark of a common law country, and we cannot truly consider Talossa an active country, or a real country, until all of our institutions function properly. I want to reform the judiciary and get more Talossan lawyers. I want an active, fully functioning, and independent judiciary.
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Nov 17, 2016 8:28:08 GMT -6
Sir T,
You speak of direct democreacy, but would you support a bill in the Ziu to give the people of this country a say in whether they wish to remain a monarchy?
V
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Nov 17, 2016 8:24:19 GMT -6
I would like to point out that since I announced my candidacy for the senate seat for Vuode, we now have a third candidate running, as well as posts from Sir T. We also are likely to have a debate.
Citizens of Talossa; people of Vuode - I've already shown that I can make good on my promises - I said I want to make Vuode more active, to make Talossa more active, and within hours of that promise, Vuode and Talossa are more active.
V is for Vuode.
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Nov 17, 2016 6:02:34 GMT -6
I can accept Sir Cresti if we have Miestra also as a our moderator.
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Nov 16, 2016 16:23:11 GMT -6
Wonderful!
Let's give Sir T or day or so to respond and then we can figure out the format. Meanwhile, I encourage all of our fellow citizens of Vuode to post questions/concerns you would like us to discuss.
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Nov 16, 2016 16:09:58 GMT -6
With news that Sen. Grischun has announced a bid for reelection, I would like to challenge him and Sir T to a debate.
I eagerly await their response.
Remember, V is for Vuode.
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Nov 16, 2016 13:45:50 GMT -6
Moment ago in Vuode, I announced my candidacy for the open Senate seat.
I am running as a Free Democrat of Talossa. It is time we had an active government again; it is time we had an active Vuode again. The sleeper must awaken.
Citizens of Vuode, when you vote this election, remember, V is for Vuode.
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Nov 16, 2016 13:38:52 GMT -6
Fellow citizens of Vuode -
I'm pleased to announce my candidacy for the Senate seat of Vuode as a Free Democrat.
I understand this comes a little late in the game, but a vibrant democracy always needs challengers, and it behooves me to ensure that Vuode is getting a Senator that they voted for in a contested election.
As your Senator, I promise to be accessible to every one of my constitutes, and to consider the desire of our province;
As your Senator, I promise to work to bring life to areas of Talossa and Vuode that have suffered from neglect, primarily in the judiciary;
As your Senator, I pledge to help wake Vuode up and to help wake Talossa up;
and as your Senator, I promise to finally bring a vote on the question that has long been debated in Talossa - should the monarchy be abolished.
Fellow citizens, I ask you to support my candidacy for Senate. When you vote- vote for Vuode; vote for V.
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Nov 15, 2016 16:01:42 GMT -6
I appreciate your clarification.
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Nov 15, 2016 9:34:19 GMT -6
Referendum question:
10. It is strongly suggested that MCs limit their bill submissions to five at the very most for each Clark. (25RZ91)
11. The Secretary of State is empowered to refuse to put a certain bill on a Clark if said bill;
11.1 has the SLIGHTEST problem in excess of five (misspellings, inorganicity, etc.); and/or
11.2 is not clearly typed or word-processed; and/or
11.3 is so substantially different from its original form as a legislative proposal that it constitutes a significantly different proposal.
11.3 - What mechanism is there to override the arbitrary decision of the Secretary of State to refuse to put a certain bill on the Clark? Also, what requirement is there that a bill cannot be introduced as written without any debate (put another way - why are we going to require a proposal first?
The wording here is way to broad and gives the SOS too much discretion.
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Oct 20, 2016 10:30:47 GMT -6
Yeah, heh, so I'd say the operative word in my comment was "honest." That is, we should abolish the monarchy in its entirety, and those of us who believe this, should propose an amendment that does that. A simple up or down vote by the Ziu informs the Talossan people, in unequivocal terms, where each one of their representatives stands on the issue.
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Oct 19, 2016 14:46:20 GMT -6
So is there a party that clearly states, as a plank, to complete abolition of the monarchy? Mximo's Republican Party, I guess. Most republicans are currently in the FreeDems, which are formally agnostic on the monarchy. Interesting. I'd like to see a party put forth a plank that they will introduce an honest amendment to the org law that abolishes the monarchy in its entirety, and then actually do it. While the futility of any proposed amendment is not in question, having an actual up or down vote in the Ziu I think is good.
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Oct 19, 2016 12:50:09 GMT -6
So is there a party that clearly states, as a plank, to complete abolition of the monarchy?
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Oct 1, 2016 10:00:33 GMT -6
...Further, during the aforementioned apprenticeship, the attorney may issue a student practice order, allowing said student to practice law, but accepts all ethical and legal issues as their own, within reason, that may arise from that student's work.... As stated here, this could be, in my opinion, a little dangerous. A student either is a student/apprentice or makes statements/gives advice on their own behalf. The lawyer to whom the apprentice is apprenticed should not be held responsible for any of the apprentice's actions or statements unless that lawyer him/herself has issued an explicit imprimatur. If the student is just a student (and a just student) then, by definition, that student cannot pass off onto another the blame for his/her actions unless that other explicitly permits it. This follows from the statement that the student is not (yet) qualified.
If the master lawyer gives no imprimatur than he/she takes no blame. If the master lawyer does not acceded to a judgement, then that judgement has not been made, except in an advisory capacity. If, however, the master lawyer has issued/does issue an imprimatur then he/she also willingly takes on the ethical burden, and the advice or judgement stands. The master cannot (and should not) be blamed for the actions of the student if the master is not aware of those actions, or has not acceded to them.
I would suggest that this is a part of the meaning of "within reason" in V's statement.I addressed this in my response and altered the language to the proposed act. Again, this is just a proposal. That being said, in the American system, a lot of jurisdictions that have modeled their ethical rules after the MPR have adopted, in some form, MR 5.2, which holds that a supervising attorney is liable when the subordinate attorney acts under their direction. This is not out-of-line with what your point or what I have said. Rather, the idea behind this clause was to ensure that student attorneys put the same work that an admitted attorney would put in. All of this aside, if it is undesirable to include a clause that tells potential clients that a supervising attorney will supervise, and that they can expect the same quality of work, is ultimately problematic, it can be taken out. Finally, I'm not an MC and i have no desire to be an MC. So the final wording of any changes would fall on the shoulders of a legislature who decides to introduce the bill.
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Sept 27, 2016 14:17:17 GMT -6
Any further thoughts from anyone? I don't want to see this issue get lost.
|
|