52nd Cosa, 6th Clark - February 2019 - Results

[Viteu Marcianüs]

Feb 25, 2019 9:26:34 GMT -6 Sir Alexandreu Davinescu said:

I'm going to abide by what I said and continue to stay out of this, but just wanted to note that I was not implying V would be violent. I was referring to legal threats, where he said that I should hire an attorney in my home state (which he named, even though I have moved and didn't tell anyone here!) because speaking about him was defamation. The idea that I was saying he was physically dangerous is wrong, although I can see how it could be misinterpreted that way and I apologize.

I'll return to noncommentary as over the past couple of days (so as not to make things even more worse inadvertently), with the hope that some actual solution to this state of affairs is found by wiser people than I (eg virtually anyone!)

AD literally cannot make a single post about me without some type of libel, whether that be libel per se or libel by innuendo. 

As I alluded to above, AD posted about purchasing a new house, including the state in which he purchased it and pictures of the house, himself, and, presumably, his significant other, in the Chatroom. One need only enter the words "bought a house" in the search feature for the post to show up.

Below I provide screenshots of the alleged legal threat. I concededly got the wrong state (but it was a neighboring one, and one that really isn't that different from the one I mentioned).  Inasmuch as that mistake is actually where he currently lives, that's pure coincidence. 

In any event, the screenshots were not a legal threat. AD reached out to me to ask me questions for his hit piece. I told him I would do it by phone, provided that we enter an agreement by which I will possess the exclusive right to record the conversation and to disburse it in whole and in part, and that any such agreement would be governed under the laws of the State of New York.  

AD continued to twist what I said, so I informed him that I consider his misrepresentation to ill-founded and publicly posting about it would constitute defamation. I also provided AD with all of my contact information so that he can retain counsel to contact me.  Literally, AD has my full name, home address, and personal phone number. 

I was upfront from the beginning that I considered what AD to be doing is defamation. He likes to twist everything around in his gaslighting attempt to make himself seem like the victim. You will all excuse me for trying to protect myself. 

But seriously, it's becoming more and more obvious to me that many of you countenance AD's action and would prefer I leave Talossa entirely. You'll have to affirmatively start saying so because I'm tired of your continued willful ignorance of AD's attacks, overt or covert, against me, while you hold me entirely liable for defending myself. 

[Viteu Marcianüs]

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

Feb 25, 2019 10:45:22 GMT -6 Viteu Marcianüs said:

Yes. You never posted pics of the house you bought or the state in which you bought it in the Chatroom. 

Not that I want to interrupt you while you're on a roll, but the Chatroom is not visible to non-Talossans. I don't know whether the things AD is complaining about happened in a forum visible to non-Talossans or not.

[Viteu Marcianüs]

Feb 25, 2019 13:24:39 GMT -6 Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN said:

Feb 25, 2019 10:45:22 GMT -6 Viteu Marcianüs said:

Yes. You never posted pics of the house you bought or the state in which you bought it in the Chatroom. 

Not that I want to interrupt you while you're on a roll, but the Chatroom is not visible to non-Talossans. I don't know whether the things AD is complaining about happened in a forum visible to non-Talossans or not.

Right. I never posted info from the Chatroom publicly. The screenshots above, in which I redact personal information, is from the private conversation we had. 

[King John]

With regard to 52RZ15, The Ex Parte Corruption Act,

El Regeu en volt.

— John R


With regard to 52RZ17, The Judiciary Reformation Amendment,

Ça el Regeu non piaça. I think there's no doubt at all that Article XVI is badly written and difficult to construe. It is ripe for several Amendments. But this entire replacement, including as I believe it does some serious flaws, should not take effect. In particular, the scheme whereby a nomination that fails to pass the Ziu will succeed with a *smaller* affirmative vote on a reconsideration, seems perverse. Why should a nomination be easier to pass, after it's failed once? (The same objection holds to the lower threshold for approving a Justice when the King objects to his nomination, than if the King had approved.) Again, there is no mention of the royal Pardon in the Amendment; but (although as far as I know it's never been used in Talossa) the Pardoning power consitutes a last chance to achieve justice in the case of judicial error, and should be preserved. Again, the clear Organic instruction that "Neither a reigning King nor his Consort, nor a Regent during his regency, nor the Secretary of State, nor the Seneschal, nor any public prosecutor, nor any Senator shall be a Justice of the Cort pü Inalt." is replaced by an open-ended provision that the Ziu may make laws limiting who can sit on the Cort — which strikes me as unwise, and too likely to be used for partisan purposes. And so on. We need a good deal of thinking and Amendment done in this area, but this is an unwise way to accomplish it.

— John R


With regard to 52RZ18, The (No Need To) Fight For Your Right (To Party) Act.

El Regeu en volt. El Regeu would also call attention to the possible conflict between this law's "write-in ballot" provision, and the provincial "no-write-in ballot" law in Vuode. Does this law, as written, affect the way Vuode may manage its Senate election?

— John R


In regard to 52RZ20, a proposed Amendment entitled "The Covenants of Rights and Freedoms",

Ça el Regeu non piaça. This one depends, for effect, on the passage of 52RZ19, which failed. In *everyone's* interests, let's drop RZ20.

— John R

[Glüc da Dhi]

Gödafrïeu Válcadác’h

[Glüc da Dhi]

Feb 28, 2019 14:03:02 GMT -6 King John said:

With regard to 52RZ18, The (No Need To) Fight For Your Right (To Party) Act.

El Regeu en volt. El Regeu would also call attention to the possible conflict between this law's "write-in ballot" provision, and the provincial "no-write-in ballot" law in Vuode. Does this law, as written, affect the way Vuode may manage its Senate election?

This was not the intention, which is only to deal with elections conducted by the chancery. I don't think the law should be interpreted that way, first of all because this would likely violate the Organic Law, which give provinces the responsibility to conduct their own senatorial elections unless they specifically request the chancery to do so, which the province of Vuode has not done, and secondly, because the language is inserted into a title dealing with general elections conducted by the chancery, which only includes those senatorial elections conducted by the chancery. However, I do think now that the language should have been more explicit about this to avoid confusion

[Gödafrïeu Válcadác’h]

I understand, John, you have always been concerned about being 'apolitical'. This why, I think, you almost never post on Witt save for stuff like this.

I do not mind you having an opinion. I respect your opinion, and for that and many other reasons I have you as one of the Royal Archives Think-Tank.

What I do mind is you not speaking out sooner on all this so as to avoid a veto on 52RZ17. To my knowledge, you have never vetoed any act because it was so obvious that letting same pass would be a danger to the country, but you have vetoed one or two things here or there that would lead most people to think you are being political in your actions when the expectation of a modern Talossan monarch is to be anything but.

Consider yourself invited by this particular citizen to voice your concerns far earlier than you do. You have one of the brightest minds in Talossa, and your views being aired far earlier in the Hopper could have been of great help.

Instead, you chose to use your torpedo powers once again, though your reasoning is compelling. In future, you have my permission to do otherwise, and I hope other people will by various methods do likewise.

GV, Senator - Fiôvâ

[Eðo Grischun]

King John said:

El Regeu would also call attention to the possible conflict between this law's "write-in ballot" provision, and the provincial "no-write-in ballot" law in Vuode. Does this law, as written, affect the way Vuode may manage its Senate election?

I've debated this point before. I'm of the opinion that it's completely fine for national law to contradict provincial law; the provincial law simply trumps the national law within the province and the national law only applies elsewhere. The province basically ignores the national law in favour of its own.

It's the opposite of how federal law works in the US (I think), where a federal law is superior.

This is more like devolution. In the UK, for example, Westminster can pass a law that contradicts a Scottish law and Scotland simply ignores it if it falls under the scope of a devolved issue.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

To the extent that a national law within the bounds of the ennumerated powers of the Ziu contradicts a provincial law, though, the provincial law is rendered null. "Org.XVII.7: Where any law of a Province, concerning an area of power outlined in 17.6, is inconsistent with a law of the Kingdom, the Provincial law shall be invalid to the extent of the inconsistency."

[Eðo Grischun]

Mar 1, 2019 5:37:54 GMT -6 Sir Alexandreu Davinescu said:

To the extent that a national law within the bounds of the ennumerated powers of the Ziu contradicts a provincial law, though, the provincial law is rendered null. "Org.XVII.7: Where any law of a Province, concerning an area of power outlined in 17.6, is inconsistent with a law of the Kingdom, the Provincial law shall be invalid to the extent of the inconsistency."

Yep, like I said, it only applies on devolved issues. The OrgLaw says "All powers not vested in the Kingdom by this Organic Law shall be vested exclusively in the Provinces" (ie. Devolution). So, whenever the Ziu passes a law not reserved in 17.6 and a province has a law on same issue that contradicts, then both laws are active but the national law won't take effect in that province.

Nothing in 17.6 covers the Bill in question here. Arguably, point 16, maybe, perhaps. However, that same point then states "without prejudice to the inherent sovereignty of the Provinces".

[Glüc da Dhi]

I don't think XVII.8 necessarily only applies to XVII.6. It could apply to powers granted to the Kingdom elsewhere in the Organic Law. For example when the chancery was still organically responsible for the conduct of all Senate elections the Ziu could obviously make laws about that, but that's not the case anymore. I would also argue that point 16 does apply here as Senators are essentially national officers elected by the provinces rather than provincial officers. (Not that this matters here as the law would still contradict IV.7)

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

Mar 1, 2019 6:52:21 GMT -6 Eðo Grischun said:

Mar 1, 2019 5:37:54 GMT -6 Sir Alexandreu Davinescu said:

To the extent that a national law within the bounds of the ennumerated powers of the Ziu contradicts a provincial law, though, the provincial law is rendered null. "Org.XVII.7: Where any law of a Province, concerning an area of power outlined in 17.6, is inconsistent with a law of the Kingdom, the Provincial law shall be invalid to the extent of the inconsistency."

Yep, like I said, it only applies on devolved issues. The OrgLaw says "All powers not vested in the Kingdom by this Organic Law shall be vested exclusively in the Provinces" (ie. Devolution). So, whenever the Ziu passes a law not reserved in 17.6 and a province has a law on same issue that contradicts, then both laws are active but the national law won't take effect in that province.

Nothing in 17.6 covers the Bill in question here. Arguably, point 16, maybe, perhaps. However, that same point then states "without prejudice to the inherent sovereignty of the Provinces".

I guess I don't understand what you mean. The Ziu can't pass a law on anything that doesn't concern those issues. To the extent that a law passed by the Ziu is about something else, then that law is inorganic.

[Viteu Marcianüs]

Mar 1, 2019 5:28:06 GMT -6 Eðo Grischun said:

King John said:

El Regeu would also call attention to the possible conflict between this law's "write-in ballot" provision, and the provincial "no-write-in ballot" law in Vuode. Does this law, as written, affect the way Vuode may manage its Senate election?

I've debated this point before. I'm of the opinion that it's completely fine for national law to contradict provincial law; the provincial law simply trumps the national law within the province and the national law only applies elsewhere. The province basically ignores the national law in favour of its own.

It's the opposite of how federal law works in the US (I think), where a federal law is superior.

This is more like devolution. In the UK, for example, Westminster can pass a law that contradicts a Scottish law and Scotland simply ignores it if it falls under the scope of a devolved issue.

That's not entirely accurate. In the US, some areas of law are exclusively reserved for the Federal Government; some areas of law are exclusively reserved for the States; and some kinda fall between the two. 

Electing Federal Senators, for instance, is a grey area but is largely governed by State law. The nomination process for each party is strictly governed by State law. Who can vote in a primary/participate in a caucus is strictly governed by a State law.  For instance, in New York, only a party member can vote in a party primary, and they must be registered with the party six months (give or take) in advance of the primary. While in another state, you can registered with the party that day. New York provides no ability for a write-in candidate, except if that candidate previously registered as a write-in. Alaska, however, allows them on election day (see e.g. Sen. Murkowski in 2010).  The only thing governed by Federal law here is if a person moves into a State in excess of 30 days of a Federal election, they must be allowed to vote in the Federal election. The Federal Government cannot impose on the States here. 

On the other hand, in the UK, Parliament has devolved certain matters, but it can always retract that authority.  Not to say it wouldn't be controversial, but it's easier than in the US. 

[Viteu Marcianüs]

That is a long-winded way of saying I tend to agree (shocking) with AD's general point, but also agree with Glüc - inasmuch as the law would contradict Vuode's law, its invalid. But a province that delegates their senate elections to the Chancery cannot set limitation on it, so the Ziu's act would void the provincial law. It's a "take it or leave it" approach.