Lüc da Schir
Senator for Benito
If Italy wins a Six Nations match I will join the Zouaves
Posts: 4,125
Talossan Since: 3-21-2012
|
Post by Lüc da Schir on Feb 22, 2016 13:59:54 GMT -6
Fellow Senators, I'd like to take advantage of the fact that the Senate is still technically in session to propose the draft of a recommendation by this Senate regarding what should be done following the unearthing of Iustì Canun's extra-Talossan crimes. Such a motion would ideally contain our recommendations on 1) Whether or not he should be stripped of his titles, 2) Whether or not (and how) he should be banished from Talossa and 3) How to deal in the future with a similar situation where a Talossan is found guilty of a heinous crime outside Talossa.
Do you have any thoughts on the possibility of issuing such a recommendation, and on any or all of the three points?
Could I hear in particular my fellow Senators' opinion on point three, as most of us will probably be voting on such a measure very shortly?
|
|
Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN
Seneschal
the new Jim Hacker
Posts: 6,635
Talossan Since: 6-25-2004
Dame Since: 9-8-2012
Motto: Expulseascâ, reveneascâ
Baron Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
Duke Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
|
Post by Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN on Feb 22, 2016 14:14:43 GMT -6
Well, I'm still formally a Senator for the next week, and this seems as good a point as any to make my valedictory on.
1) I think the fact that the King has not already stripped Justin C. of all his titles is a scandal and more proof that he is no longer fit to wield any political power in Talossa.
2) As Attorney-General, I simply don't know if it's legally possible. I'm seeking advice.
3) I have proposed in the Hopper a simple bill which would make it an offence punishable by banishment to "bring Talossa into disrepute by being convicted of a heinous crime in another jurisdiction". That seems simple enough.
|
|
|
Post by Eðo Grischun on Feb 22, 2016 14:30:29 GMT -6
1. Yes, I think his titles of honour should be stripped. He has lost office in the Bar and as Cunstaval. I think the King should strip his knighthood and the College of Arms to remove/revoke his Coat of Arms.
2. No. This comes down to a fundamental question on Talossa's existential state. Are we a country or an internet club? If we have rules that allow the ejection of someone for wrongdoings outside of our realm then we are just a club. If we are a real country then we need to follow the law of our country, even when it seems difficult. Talossa has no jurisdiction on Iusti's crimes. The USA has dealt with him. Whether we like it or not, he is still a Talossan citizen and we cant just suspend our laws. There is no current legal mechanism (as far as I can see) to simply remove someone from the rolls. His crime was not heard in our courts. Our courts cant issue sentencing. He will strike out eventually.
3. Need to think more on this. The argument all boils down to jurisdiction. If we try to write a law like this then we need to find a way for foreign jurisdiction to be recognised as Talossan. I don't know right what would be the best way to do this, or if we even should.
|
|
|
Post by Eðo Grischun on Feb 22, 2016 14:39:21 GMT -6
3) I have proposed in the Hopper a simple bill which would make it an offence punishable by banishment to "bring Talossa into disrepute by being convicted of a heinous crime in another jurisdiction". That seems simple enough. Its not as simple as that. That Bill would be inOrganic. Talossan courts cant issue a sentence without trial. A trial cant take place without all the process that comes first. We need some serious amendments to the legal system (ie: Mechanism to suspend habeus corpus, etc) for your simple bill to be legal.
|
|
Owen Edwards
Puisne Justice
Posts: 1,400
Talossan Since: 12-8-2007
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Feb 22, 2016 14:42:58 GMT -6
I think there are multiple ways for the matter to be dealt with by our Corts, including what Dame Miestra has suggested - creating a new crime.
|
|
Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN
Seneschal
the new Jim Hacker
Posts: 6,635
Talossan Since: 6-25-2004
Dame Since: 9-8-2012
Motto: Expulseascâ, reveneascâ
Baron Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
Duke Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
|
Post by Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN on Feb 22, 2016 14:49:47 GMT -6
3) I have proposed in the Hopper a simple bill which would make it an offence punishable by banishment to "bring Talossa into disrepute by being convicted of a heinous crime in another jurisdiction". That seems simple enough. Its not as simple as that. That Bill would be inOrganic. Talossan courts cant issue a sentence without trial. A trial cant take place without all the process that comes first. We need some serious amendments to the legal system (ie: Mechanism to suspend habeus corpus, etc) for your simple bill to be legal. Well, of course it would require an OrgLaw amendment. But a simple one. The principle is, I think, unimpeachable: the A-X receives words that Citizen X is doing 10 years for defrauding pension funds. He brings a case to the Cort. If the Cort agrees that (1) yes, Citizen X is doing hard time in a foreign slammer; (2) the crime he's convicted of brings Talossa into disrepute; then he can be banished. If we all agree that this is a good procedure, then let's make any OrgLaw amendments necessary. Which OrgLaw sections in particular do you think it conflicts with, Eðo?
|
|
|
Post by Eðo Grischun on Feb 22, 2016 15:06:46 GMT -6
Its not as simple as that. That Bill would be inOrganic. Talossan courts cant issue a sentence without trial. A trial cant take place without all the process that comes first. We need some serious amendments to the legal system (ie: Mechanism to suspend habeus corpus, etc) for your simple bill to be legal. Well, of course it would require an OrgLaw amendment. But a simple one. The principle is, I think, unimpeachable: the A-X receives words that Citizen X is doing 10 years for defrauding pension funds. He brings a case to the Cort. If the Cort agrees that (1) yes, Citizen X is doing hard time in a foreign slammer; (2) the crime he's convicted of brings Talossa into disrepute; then he can be banished. If we all agree that this is a good procedure, then let's make any OrgLaw amendments necessary. Which OrgLaw sections in particular do you think it conflicts with, Eðo? I've not got exact articles to cite and,like you, don't have energy tonight to trawl the Orglaw...but, off the top of my head... We need to look at the bit that says every Talossan will have a fair trial before being sentenced. The bit about 90 days and notification of charges brought. Basically, the entire habeys corpus section needs looked at. See, the problem is this. Our system is built on the assumption that the accused will be present for trial. See ESB. We had to reinstate his citizenship before we could take him to court. We cant take legal action when the accused is not present, been notified, yadda yaddy ya.. Simply creating a new crime as Owen says is not enough. Sure, someone may be guilty of this new crime, but our legal system, at present, would not allow the courts to hear the case. I agree with the principle of your proposal by the way, but our laws are not compatible with it just now.
|
|
Ián Tamorán S.H.
Chief Justice of the Uppermost Court
Proud Philosopher of Talossa
Posts: 1,401
Talossan Since: 9-27-2010
|
Post by Ián Tamorán S.H. on Feb 22, 2016 15:12:44 GMT -6
3) I have proposed in the Hopper a simple bill which would make it an offence punishable by banishment to "bring Talossa into disrepute by being convicted of a heinous crime in another jurisdiction". That seems simple enough. Its not as simple as that. That Bill would be inOrganic. Talossan courts cant issue a sentence without trial. A trial cant take place without all the process that comes first. We need some serious amendments to the legal system (ie: Mechanism to suspend habeus corpus, etc) for your simple bill to be legal. Cannot the Cort issue an ex parte order with immediate effect, whilst the finer legal details are considered on a longer timescale? Then we would have acted quickly and firmly, but not irrevocably.
|
|
Owen Edwards
Puisne Justice
Posts: 1,400
Talossan Since: 12-8-2007
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Feb 22, 2016 15:14:44 GMT -6
We can notify Sir Iusti via his Twitter account. I have a passing suspicion that he'll never see the Internet again, but that's not our fault - our laws do not bar the Corts from hearing a case because the defendant, having been notified, has failed to turn up or appoint a representative.
They especially do not bar the Corts from doing so when the defendant cannot turn up or appoint a representative because they are a convicted nonce.
|
|
|
Post by Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun on Feb 22, 2016 15:21:55 GMT -6
We can notify Sir Iusti via his Twitter account. I have a passing suspicion that he'll never see the Internet again, but that's not our fault - our laws do not bar the Corts from hearing a case because the defendant, having been notified, has failed to turn up or appoint a representative. They especially do not bar the Corts from doing so when the defendant cannot turn up or appoint a representative because they are a convicted nonce. Notification cannot be considered duly delivered, if there is a high probability that such notification will not reach the intended recipient. The Cort would be acting illegally.
|
|
|
Post by Eðo Grischun on Feb 22, 2016 15:23:58 GMT -6
Its not as simple as that. That Bill would be inOrganic. Talossan courts cant issue a sentence without trial. A trial cant take place without all the process that comes first. We need some serious amendments to the legal system (ie: Mechanism to suspend habeus corpus, etc) for your simple bill to be legal. Cannot the Cort issue an ex parte order with immediate effect, whilst the finer legal details are considered on a longer timescale? Then we would have acted quickly and firmly, but not irrevocably.Yes and no. I don't think the court can pass final judgement and sentence by ex parte order. Under Anglo-American law, ex parte orders are seen as temporary relief measures. You could issue an ex parte order to suspend a Wittenberg account, say, but, you couldn't banish a person via ex parte order. Or, could you? You tell me. I'm not sure.
|
|
Owen Edwards
Puisne Justice
Posts: 1,400
Talossan Since: 12-8-2007
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Feb 22, 2016 15:25:59 GMT -6
Good faith in reaching him is the issue. We can always send him a letter in prison.
|
|
Ián Tamorán S.H.
Chief Justice of the Uppermost Court
Proud Philosopher of Talossa
Posts: 1,401
Talossan Since: 9-27-2010
|
Post by Ián Tamorán S.H. on Feb 22, 2016 15:31:38 GMT -6
Cannot the Cort issue an ex parte order with immediate effect, whilst the finer legal details are considered on a longer timescale? Then we would have acted quickly and firmly, but not irrevocably. Yes and no. I don't think the court can pass final judgement and sentence by ex parte order. Under Anglo-American law, ex parte orders are seen as temporary relief measures. You could issue an ex parte order to suspend a Wittenberg account, say, but, you couldn't banish a person via ex parte order. Or, could you? You tell me. I'm not sure. The order could be to suspend the Wittenberg account and all Kingdom access, with clear reasons stated, and the "temporary" aspect of the order could be long enough to take the slower, full legal actions. Banishment under the order is not required - just being locked out whilst the kingdom sets the full wheels in motion.
|
|
|
Post by Munditenens Tresplet on Feb 22, 2016 15:38:11 GMT -6
Assuming I'm still a Senator for at least the next week as well (hopefully longer!) here are my thoughts:
First, I agree that he should be stripped of his titles. That being said, there doesn't need to be any formal mechanism or precedent set by this happening. King John is competent enough to grant honors, and he's competent enough to see when circumstances warrant the removal of those same honors; this ball is in King John's court, and I'm confident he'll come to the right conclusion.
Second, I don't believe he can be banished from Talossa under current law. I believe the three strikes rule will come into effect eventually, and his citizenship will expire. That being said, we need to look into amending current law which requires the Chancery to mail an individual his or her PSC and ballot if the Chancery knows that the citizen does not have a valid email address. (As in, technically, Canun should be mailed his ballot to prison unless we amend this particular law--Lex.B.6.2; I'll introduce a bill to amend it after the General, unless someone beats me to the punch.)
Should there be any Cort case lodged against Canun, I agree with others who have noted that he would not be properly notified if someone emailed him or tweeted him; in these cases, the only proper notification would be to mail him a notice.
Third, I think that anything which unilaterally revokes citizenship would violate OrgLaw. Perhaps there should be a mechanism that allows a UC justice to require that the offending citizen's information be purged from all government websites, his Witt account be suspended indefinitely, etc., along with a mechanism for appealing the decision to the full court. Still technically a citizen (until they strike out, assuming they are in prison), but unable to participate on any government sponsored or affiliated board. We should also make it a requirement for prospective citizens to be checked against sex offender databases, if such a database exists in their country of origin.
|
|
Lüc da Schir
Senator for Benito
If Italy wins a Six Nations match I will join the Zouaves
Posts: 4,125
Talossan Since: 3-21-2012
|
Post by Lüc da Schir on Feb 22, 2016 15:47:46 GMT -6
Third, I think that anything which unilaterally revokes citizenship would violate OrgLaw. Perhaps there should be a mechanism that allows a UC justice to require that the offending citizen's information be purged from all government websites, his Witt account be suspended indefinitely, etc., along with a mechanism for appealing the decision to the full court. Still technically a citizen (until they strike out, assuming they are in prison), but unable to participate on any government sponsored or affiliated board. We should also make it a requirement for prospective citizens to be checked against sex offender databases, if such a database exists in their country of origin. Agreed on the first section, but I think that, regarding the latter part of your post, prospective citizens should always receive some kind of background check, not only against sex related crimes. I do believe that right now there are certain "triggers" which can prompt immigration officials to block an application. Which by the way happened not too long ago. I am all for civil liberties, but preventing is better than curing. Hence, a rapid background check (even simply Googling one's full name) should always be desirable.
|
|