Jump to content
  • Sky
  • Blueberry
  • Slate
  • Blackcurrant
  • Watermelon
  • Strawberry
  • Orange
  • Banana
  • Apple
  • Emerald
  • Chocolate
  • Charcoal

Midsummer Night's Dream

Platinum Donator
  • Content Count

    503
  • Joined

Community Reputation

130 100 Reputation

3 Followers

About Midsummer Night's Dream

Custom Song

Personal Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Canada

Character Information

  • Character Name
    Juno Midsomer

Recent Profile Visitors

3,172 profile views
  1. INTRODUCING: COMBATTING ABUSE OF PUBLIC OFFICE AND CORRUPTION In our manifesto, we promised government reform. As part of our reform package, we will address and aim to prevent abuse of public office. We believe public office should be an opportunity to serve the public, to do good for the public by furthering the public interest. Public office is not an opportunity enrich oneself. It is not a treasure trove, but a weighty responsibility. Our proposal will reflect this aim by prohibiting abusive uses of public office and the authority given to public officials. Introducing the Misconduct in Public Office Act (MPOA) 2020. This is only a proposal. It may be revised after it is presented to Council for consideration. For more questions regarding this reform, feel more than free to write to [email protected] (( drop a PM. )) (( Please keep in mind that while some of these reforms may typically be beyond the a city council's control, LFM has allowed us to propose changes to state law which we can then "transmit" to the state legislature (LFM). They will then decide, in turn, whether to adopt the proposal as we have drafted it or refuse it with some reason and to send it back. ))
  2. INTRODUCING: MANDATORY APPEALS FOR CAPITAL PUNISHMENT In our LSNN interview (which can be read in this very helpful election guide), we promised we would introduce a proposal to make appeals mandatory whenever capital punishment is to be used. We fully intend to keep that promise, and so, towards this, we drafted and will propose the Mandatory Appeals in Sentencing for Capital Offences Act (MASCOA) 2020. MASCOA establishes a three-judge panel for reviewing all sentencing orders containing capital punishment. As the provisions provide, there are two types of appeals: contested and uncontested. Contested appeals are where the convicted person objects to the sentence, and uncontested is where they don't. Where the appeal is contested, the appellant must be fully heard; and where it is uncontested, the panel must review the entire history and record, examining all of the evidence and the submissions, to make sure there has not been a "palpable error." Under MASCOA, no person who is convicted and sentenced to death will suffer this fate without the approval of at least three judges (the trial judge who made the sentence order, and at least two of the three-judge panel reviewing it under MASCOA). The intent is to guard against miscarriages of justice and wrongful uses of this irreversible punishment. This is only a proposal. It may be revised after it is presented to Council for consideration. For more questions regarding this reform, feel more than free to write to [email protected]om (( drop a PM. )) (( Please keep in mind that while some of these reforms may typically be beyond the a city council's control, LFM has allowed us to propose changes to state law which we can then "transmit" to the state legislature (LFM). They will then decide, in turn, whether to adopt the proposal as we have drafted it or refuse it with some reason and to send it back. ))
  3. INTRODUCING: FAIR DEBT ENFORCEMENT AND COLLECTION In our manifesto, we promised government reform. As part of our reform package, we are introducing legislation to implement: protections for tenants, consumer rights, freedom of information, regulating financial advice and providing protection to those who give money for investment purposes -- among other things. We have also adopted the practice of creating legislative advisory notes as one way to improve transparency. (Details regarding this practice can be found at https://www.ls-democrats.com/featured-content/legislative-notes) In this blog post, we introduce to you the Court Awards and Fair Enforcement Act (CAFEA) 2020. What does CAFEA aim to do? CAFEA's provisions will protect debtors from being subjected to oppressive or unreasonable and endless litigation to collect a debt where the creditor (the person to whom the debtor owes money) acts unreasonably. For instance, let's suppose a debtor owes the creditor $200,000. The creditor applies to the court to obtain two vehicles which the debtor owns. For our example, one vehicle is valued at $120,000 and the other at $80,000. Let's suppose the creditor manages to sell and get proceeds of $72,000 on the second vehicle, but sells the first for only $20,000. Under CAFEA, the creditor could return to court to obtain the remaining $8,000 from the proceeds of the first sale. However, if the creditor acted unreasonably in respect of the second sale, CAFEA prevents him or her from returning to court to obtain the $100,000. Whether or not they acted unreasonably would depend on the facts, but generally if the creditor intentionally lowballs when selling, then CAFEA does not allow them to recover the difference. This prevents unnecessary and endless litigation by requiring the creditor to be reasonable. It would not be difficult to imagine a situation where the creditor lowballs the first sale, then return to court to obtain an order for another property of the debtor, and then proceeding to lowball on that sale too, causing them again to return to court for a third time. Doesn't CAFEA hurt creditors? Not in that sense that it only requires them to be reasonable. If a creditor behaves reasonably but, still somehow, is not able to generate proceeds to satisfy the judgment debt, they still have the option to seek what's called a "deficiency judgment." CAFEA is aimed at oppressive, predatory or intentionally unreasonable conduct. This is only a proposal. It may be revised after it is presented to Council for consideration. For more questions regarding this reform, feel more than free to write to [email protected] (( drop a PM. )) (( Please keep in mind that while some of these reforms may typically be beyond the a city council's control, LFM has allowed us to propose changes to state law which we can then "transmit" to the state legislature (LFM). They will then decide, in turn, whether to adopt the proposal as we have drafted it or refuse it with some reason and to send it back. ))
  4. User: Orwellian Comment: You mean the one called “The Halford Agenda” where the “Open Doors Policy” contains extremely vague statements of principle; where “Oversight” in the same section also contains a very vague statement of principle and vague promise to implement legislation; where “Wage Laws” and “Support Business” contain some proposals but no details on how to achieve or implement them; where the “Crime and Safety” and “Community Outreach” sections contain vague statements of principle and no details on how to achieve those goals? A manifesto can be a statement of principles. That’s fine. But, again, where are the details? They weren’t in the LSNN interview either.
  5. User: Orwellian Comment: The problem here is that I have not seen much discussion about policy. The LSGOP's statements in the LSNN's Election Guide are extremely vague — almost as vague as "positive change for the future." The only concrete proposals I've seen are in Alex Flynn's manifesto, which contains some details about small business loans and public-private funding to improve housing, among other things. The concern with his proposals, however, is that they leave out details. He does not explain how he intends to execute any of those proposals. This is very concerning. What happens if the money he earmarks for "real estate agencies" does not go where it's intended? What if those agencies misuse the funds? There is no discussion of auditing controls to minimize waste or prevent fraud; there is no discussion of how agencies might qualify; there is not much discussion other than to say that any private agency promising to improve housing will have access to public funds. Flynn comes the closest to something concrete, but that's concerning because he still leaves too much in the dark.
  6. User: Juno Comment: That's true, but also true is that the issuance of marriage certificates, and, among other things, permits to officiate marriages, is typically governed locally. While local officials can't criminalize or restrict same-sex marriage, those officials can be crafty with their control over licensing, permits and certificates to achieve what they intend.
  7. User: Juno Comment: @LegalBeagle992: My comment doesn't say anything about the wrongness of domestic violence. Of course it's wrong. So I don't understand why you're talking about the morality surrounding domestic violence. My comment was about the expectation, out of decency if not anything else, to presume Mr. Orosco's innocence. That is all. This presumption is afforded to everyone, regardless of the accusation against them—regardless of how atrocious it is. This itself is a moral position we've generally and long accepted; in fact, it is so important it remains in our highest law. If you want to talk about morality, look at the morality of convicting someone in the media without rigorously testing the allegations.
  8. User: Juno Comment: For anyone who is confused and only wants to do good, let’s remember that in this country we don’t have trial-by-media. The newsroom or printing press is not the defendant’s dock. The defendant’s dock is inside a courtroom. That is where we scrutinize the accused, test the accuser’s account, convict them where they’re found to be have done wrong, and condemn them to a penalty. That’s the fairest approach; it’s the best approach we have so far. The media might seem like a better fact-finder, and in some situations their investigations reveal more than what police investigators can muster on their own, but the media is never objective enough to convict and condemn an accused. That is truer of this report than of any other. All we see here are one-sided accounts; the journalist seems to have deliberately and selectively followed up only with Ms. Pierce’s contacts. Mr. Orosco was never brought before a judge. To convict and ruin him in the media is to deprive of an objective assessment——something which we afford to every person who is accused of wrongdoing. That objective assessment is not at the hands of LSNN journalists in their newsroom or before their editorial board. It is properly in a courtroom and before a judge. If we still believe in the presumption of innocence, it would be indecent to ruin him and deprive him of an opportunity to serve as a result of the untested allegations of a former intimate liaison. You and I benefit from the presumption of innocence; it protects us from false allegations of any kind, particularly those which carry serious implications. We expect this presumption for ourselves, and so we should also expect the same for Mr. Orosco.
  9. Username: Juno Comment: I get that this is the internet, but the child-like personal insults don't help anyone; insults force us to move past this without gaining anything constructive — and while that may be what the trolls want, it's not what the LS or Veterans' community needs. Instead of an opportunity to insult, this should be taken as an opportunity to remember our long-accepted way of life, and our understanding of the constitutional guarantee to speak one's mind and share one's ideas. Keep in mind that the account of the incident which I have is slightly more thorough than what's been reported. From my understanding, Collins and friend made some comments about veterans, their participation in war, and how the veterans were prepared and trained to become "murderers" (or something of the sort; I don't have the exact phrase). It would be wrong — even in the circumstances of an unjustified war — to say that an individual veteran is a murderer merely because they participated in war. I suppose the exception is if the person to whom the comment was directed was court-martialed and convicted of unlawfully killing a civilian or non-combatant, and then dishonorably discharged and jailed. But this leads to another point: while we should value the service and sacrifice of individual and honorably-discharged veterans, anyone is still free to criticize a government's basis for participating in armed conflict, justified or unjustified; anyone is free to criticize the conduct of specific military operations, including any impact on civilians in those operations. It must be stressed that our First-Amendment understanding is that political speech — regardless of which camp it originates from, or how unpopular it might be — is protected speech, and that this protection is quite broad. Our understanding of the First Amendment, including its limitations, is that it does not permit speech which defames another, advocates for and is likely to incite imminent lawless action. The advocacy of lawless conduct is a well-known exception; but it is not evident in these circumstances. Similarly, a person is free to believe that unjustified wars are wrong, immoral and worthy of criticism as much as street-level violence; regardless of how mistaken one may be to equate the concept of any war with the concept of murder, their sharing of this belief is, nevertheless, protected speech. That protected speech includes advocacy aimed at the government for forcing participation in even justified wars, particularly where the proposed justification is itself a matter of debate. A war does not occur in a void, much like violence on the street; there are factors at play which often attract varying beliefs and varying value judgments. To stifle those comparisons, and to treat these as issues happening in a void, would be to dampen the rigor of our free-speech regime; ultimately, we would be doing a disservice to suppress debates surrounding war. While we cannot condone defaming individual veterans, we also cannot condone insulating the idea of war and participation in war from criticism. Most importantly, we cannot use or condone the use of penalties — be they criminal penalties or only professional penalties affecting one's livelihood — to stifle that criticism, just as we cannot allow the same to stifle other forms of political speech. It is easy for us, especially if we are not careful, to abuse the sacrifices that are often passionately invoked; it is easy to shade them a particular way and use those sacrifices to otherize those with whom we disagree. It is easy, but it would be wrong to do and allow any of that. These sacrifices we passionately speak of were not in the service of any particular camp; they were not aimed at allowing one camp to control the ideas of the day, and subjugate the other with the suppression of their speech by force or penalties; they were not made so that only Democrats' or Republicans' speech is the only protected speech. We enjoy our guarantees, courtesy of those sacrifices, so that anyone can contribute their own ideas or shares the ideas of others.
  10. Username: Juno Comment: @VV1389: The context is that LSNN reported on something newsworthy. If you can’t show us a specific example of LSNN declining the opportunity to report about something equally newsworthy, and if you can’t show that the reason they declined it was because it implicated someone “they like,” then it’s not fair for you to make that accusation about their independence being compromised. As far as I’m aware, they haven’t declined the opportunity to report on something because of who or what it implicates. As to your comment replying to Ink: Some of the record from that court proceeding is public; I invite you to refer to it. Closed proceedings are unconstitutional; while they were upheld in the 1979 decision in Gannett v. DePasquale, that holding there was law for only a year as it was overturned in Richmond Newspapers Inc. v. Virginia. Unless there is an ”overriding” Sixth Amendment need (specifically, fair trial and jury impartiality), a court cannot close proceedings to the public or the press. I very much doubt the narrow exception would condone closing the proceedings here, but time will reveal all.
  11. User: Juno Comment: Does anyone know if Adriaan is single? Woof! Woof!
×
×
  • Create New...