|
|
Post by seahobbit on Aug 30, 2005 12:44:51 GMT -6
Azul Talossans,
First, let me announced that I just had word from Senior Justice Lorentz and he gives me his official blessing to act as the entire Cort in accordance with Art. XVI:Sec. 8 of the 1997 Organic Law.
I contacted former King Robert I, and he is unsure himself as to the extent of his mass pardon last year. Having been unable to actually locate the text of it, I have decided to use my authority as Regent to issue a new mass pardon. I hereby declare that any strike Talossan citizens may have received during the May/June 2004 election is hereby pardoned. If the former pardon actually included those, this is therefore a confirmation of it. SoS Wooley, please adjust each citizen's strikes accordingly.
A great deal of debate has occurred concerning the status of certain dandelions. I have studied the law and the situations of a number of those cases and I hereby issue the Cort's decision:
Concerning the cases of Koralia Furxheir, Danielle Elizabeth Pope, Geoffrey Leonard Pope, Noah James Griffin and Cami Rose Griffin; the Cort is satisfied that by having their names on the list of citizens of the so-called Republic of Talossa, the above dandelions have either themselves or by proxy (their parents) effectively renounced their citizenship in the Kingdom of Talossa. The Cort hereby confirm that citizenship in another micronation is incompatible with citizenship in the Kingdom of Talossa in accordance with 24 RZ11 - The No Dual Citizenships in Fake Countries Act and 23 RZ35 - The Dual Citizenships Act.
With regards to other dandelions whose parents have renounced their citizenship, the Cort is not yet prepared to issue a ruling and ask any interested party to submit legal opinions to the Cort for consideration.
However, concerning the cases of Alexander Freeman, Jacqueline Freeman and Guillaume Jacob. Assuming that the Cort will later rule that they were effectively dandelions (not yet decided). The 1997 Organic Law clearly states in Art. XVIII:Sec. 7 that upon their 14th birthday they should register themselves with the Minister of Immigration by writing a What Talossa Means to Me essay. Once again assuming that the future ruling of the Cort would effectively determined that they were dandelions all along, their 14th birthday would have occurred in the latest part of 2003, more than 20 months ago. While the 1997 Organic Law does not implicitly tells how long the Kingdom should wait after their 14th birthday for such notification, it is clear that the intent of the law was not to keep them on the nominal citizenship roll forever. The Cort hereby rule that sufficient time has elapsed and that regardless of the future decision these three individuals are not to be considered citizens. The Cort also urge the Ziu to prepare and submit at its earliest convenience an amendment of the 1997 Organic Law that will clearly state how long a dandelion has to produce his/her essay and register.
The remaining decision of the Cort is a very delicate one, which will dictate further study. Do dandelions whose parents renounce their citizenship automatically renounces theirs? As the Cort stated above, any interested party is invited to submit briefs, which the Cort will consider when making its ruling. This is an urgent matter as it will affect the seats distribution in the election. The Cort urge everyone concerned to reflect on the situation and submit briefs of their opinion. Do not assume that someone else will submit a brief for your own point of view. Briefs must be received no later than 3 September 2005.
Long Live Talossa!
|
|
King John
King of Talossa
Posts: 2,415
Talossan Since: 5-7-2005
Knight Since: 11-30-2005
Motto: COR UNUM
King Since: 3-14-2007
|
Post by King John on Aug 30, 2005 14:57:50 GMT -6
I thank the Council of Regency for the information about the pardon in June 2004. I will update the records accordingly.
I am concerned about some aspects of the Uppermost Cort's "decision"; perhaps Mr. Justice Moisan could fill in some gaps in my understanding?
Knowing that the Uppermost Cort only issues, can only issue, decisions in actual cases that have been brought before it, I was surprised to see this "decision". I was unaware that anyone had brought suit requiring the Uppermost Cort to rule on these points, and yet I'm the government officer most nearly affected by the ruling, and I should have been the first one notified when the suit was filed. When and by whom was this suit brought, and why wasn't it publicized? Where can we read the briefs? Why was the Secretary of State (who even if not himself a party to the suit, certainly has a constitutional interest in it) permitted to participate, or even notified that suit had been brought? The Organic Law gives me (and not the Uppermost Cort or the King or anyone else) the legal responsibility to certify the list of citizens; if someone challenged my list, I should certainly have been informed of the challenge and given the opportunity to be heard.
The Organic Law says that dandelions need to register "on or after their 14th birthday", and says nothing about a time limit. But now the Uppermost Cort says that there is a time limit, and it's less than 20 months. Is the Cort perhaps legislating, rather than simply interpreting the existing law? I'd be interested to have the Cort's opinion as to the meaning of Article X Section 1, which says: "The Ziu is the only body authorized to consider and enact legislation binding upon the entire nation." This "decision" admits that the Organic Law does not impose a time limit; that so, why should Mr. Moisan's opinion (about whether there should be a limit, and what the limit should be) be considered any more authoritative than anyone else's? The Law gives him no right to make up new laws, does it?
The Organic Law says that citizenship can only be lost as punishment for a crime, by renunciation in form, or by "intentional deliberate voluntary nonparticipation", which the Organic Law goes on to define as "deliberate refusal to vote in three consecutive elections for the Cosâ." This "decision" seems to invent, out of whole cloth, another way to lose your citizenship — to fail to register within a "reasonable time" after your 14th birthday.
Finally, the Cort seems to be mistaken on a matter of fact, which I — if I had been notified about this lawsuit — would have been happy to provide. Jacqueline Freeman was born to a Talossan citizen mother on 2 July 1991. (I gave Mr. Justice Moisan this information in private email yesterday morning, but it was presumably not entered into evidence in the lawsuit just ruled on.) It has been less than 2 months since she turned 14.
— John Woolley, Secretár d'Estat
|
|
King John
King of Talossa
Posts: 2,415
Talossan Since: 5-7-2005
Knight Since: 11-30-2005
Motto: COR UNUM
King Since: 3-14-2007
|
Post by King John on Aug 30, 2005 15:00:40 GMT -6
The remaining decision of the Cort is a very delicate one, which will dictate further study. Do dandelions whose parents renounce their citizenship automatically renounces theirs? As the Cort stated above, any interested party is invited to submit briefs, which the Cort will consider when making its ruling. This is an urgent matter as it will affect the seats distribution in the election. The Cort urge everyone concerned to reflect on the situation and submit briefs of their opinion. Do not assume that someone else will submit a brief for your own point of view. Briefs must be received no later than 3 September 2005. Who brought this suit, against whom, and what does the plaintiff allege? Where is the text of the complaint? It's hard to write a brief responding to arguments you haven't seen. — John Woolley, Secretár d'Estat |
|
|
|
Post by seahobbit on Aug 30, 2005 16:07:07 GMT -6
Knowing that the Uppermost Cort only issues, can only issue, decisions in actual cases that have been brought before it, I was surprised to see this "decision". I was unaware that anyone had brought suit requiring the Uppermost Cort to rule on these points, and yet I'm the government officer most nearly affected by the ruling, and I should have been the first one notified when the suit was filed. When and by whom was this suit brought, and why wasn't it publicized? Where can we read the briefs? Why was the Secretary of State (who even if not himself a party to the suit, certainly has a constitutional interest in it) permitted to participate, or even notified that suit had been brought? The Organic Law gives me (and not the Uppermost Cort or the King or anyone else) the legal responsibility to certify the list of citizens; if someone challenged my list, I should certainly have been informed of the challenge and given the opportunity to be heard. No law suits was brought up, thus no charge have been laid. The Cort rendered a decision on a divisive situation as it did in the past. This needed to be solve before the election and to ensure a fair and equitable election the Cort, both as Justices and as Regents decided to issue direction regarding the status of dandelions. This is not unusual, it has been done in past, the last time such a decision was issued was when the Cort decided that ZPT seats did belong to Gary Cone. There was no suit brought up, nor briefs. Careful.  In accordance with Art. XVI:Sec. 5, the courts shall render their decisions with due regard to the original intent of any law being clarified, as defined by the law's author(s). In this case, the intent of the law was clearly not to keep dandelions on the rolls forever. Art. XVI:Sec. 9 states that "until such confusion is resolved, the court shall rule according to the most just and equitable understanding of the law". Also, Art. XVI:Sec. 5 states that "where there is no exact precedent, a court will make a rule to fit the case, either by reinterpreting an old rule (statutory or otherwise) or by applying what it considers principles of justice". Based on this the Cort decided that 20 months was equitable and reasonable time for someone that would be interested in the Kingdom to register. Should you prove they they are still intending on joining us, I'll reconsider. The Cort clearly stated that the Ziu ought to decided what limit should be imposed. No, Art. XVIII:Sec. 7 states that dandelions shall automatically have full voting rights when they register themselves with the Minister of Immigration on or after their 14th birthday. The three strikes law does not apply to dandelions because unless they register they cannot vote. Without this ruling, you could possibly keep dandelions on the rolls for centuries. First, the Cort was never informed of Jacqueline Freeman birthdate. Second, if indeed Jacqueline Freeman only had her 14th birthday this July, then the Cort apologise and she should not be included in the ruling, but rather belong with the case yet to be decided. |
|
King John
King of Talossa
Posts: 2,415
Talossan Since: 5-7-2005
Knight Since: 11-30-2005
Motto: COR UNUM
King Since: 3-14-2007
|
Post by King John on Aug 30, 2005 16:22:18 GMT -6
Asking for information again ... Mr. Justice Moisan writes: In accordance with Art. XVI:Sec. 5, the courts shall render their decisions with due regard to the original intent of any law being clarified, as defined by the law's author(s). In this case, the intent of the law was clearly not to keep dandelions on the rolls forever. I'm glad to know that the Cort consulted the original authors of the Organic Law on this point; that relieves my concerns a bit, since I couldn't see anything at all in the text of the Law to support the Cort's interpretation of it. The law's authors would of course be the committee who wrote the Organic Law in 1997, and who are listed at the top of the Law, correct? Three of the ten — John Jahn, Dan Lorentz, and Geoff Toumayan — are still citizens of Talossa. I'd be very grateful to know what they, "the law's author(s)", said when the Cort questioned them about the "original intent of the law being clarified". — John Woolley |
|
|
|
Post by seahobbit on Aug 30, 2005 16:56:15 GMT -6
Asking for information again ... Mr. Justice Moisan writes: In accordance with Art. XVI:Sec. 5, the courts shall render their decisions with due regard to the original intent of any law being clarified, as defined by the law's author(s). In this case, the intent of the law was clearly not to keep dandelions on the rolls forever. I'm glad to know that the Cort consulted the original authors of the Organic Law on this point; that relieves my concerns a bit, since I couldn't see anything at all in the text of the Law to support the Cort's interpretation of it. The law's authors would of course be the committee who wrote the Organic Law in 1997, and who are listed at the top of the Law, correct? Three of the ten — John Jahn, Dan Lorentz, and Geoff Toumayan — are still citizens of Talossa. I'd be very grateful to know what they, "the law's author(s)", said when the Cort questioned them about the "original intent of the law being clarified". So you know, there is no requirements to questions only authors that are Talossans or any specific number of authors. Dan Lorentz was indeed one of the original drafters. He is in agreement that the law never intended to keep dandelions on the rolls forever. In any case the Cort does not have to defend its rulings to the SoS. The final arbiter of the organicity of decision is the Uppermost Cort of Talossa. |
|
Lord Q
Citizen since 5-21-1998; Baron since 2-23-2006
The beatings will continue until morale improves
Posts: 1,263
|
Post by Lord Q on Aug 30, 2005 17:41:03 GMT -6
Did you just say that you don't have to explain your decisions?!  |
|
|
|
Post by seahobbit on Aug 30, 2005 20:09:06 GMT -6
Did you just say that you don't have to explain your decisions?! That is NOT what I said! I said: "In any case the Cort does not have to defend its rulings to the SoS. The final arbiter of the organicity of decision is the Uppermost Cort of Talossa."The decision WAS already explained. |
|
King John
King of Talossa
Posts: 2,415
Talossan Since: 5-7-2005
Knight Since: 11-30-2005
Motto: COR UNUM
King Since: 3-14-2007
|
Post by King John on Aug 30, 2005 22:21:03 GMT -6
I believe Marc when he says that Dan said what Marc says Dan said about what Marc can say for Dan.
But the whole Organicity of Marc's being a one-man Cort and one-man Regency and sole one-man arbiter of the Organicity of what Marc the one-man Cort and Marc the one-man Regency do, and absolute decision-maker and so on, all depends (according to the letter of the Organic Law) on the "unanimous vote of the entire three-person Cort".
But wait! We don't have a three-person Cort, do we? So the two-person Cort we do have has apparently decided that we don't actually need a three-person Cort in order to have a "unanimous vote of the entire three-person Cort", that a unanimous vote of a two-person Cort is in fact the "unanimous vote of the entire three-person Cort" required by the OrgLaw so that the one-person Cort will be Organic. Fine, that's cool. I'm all about this. I think it's neat.
But wait again! We don't seem to actually have a two-person Cort, either. We have a one-person Cort plus a phantom second Justice, who can't or won't post on Wittenberg or answer emails, but is in occasional touch by phone with the one-person Cort, and gives the one-person Cort permission to be a three-person Cort. So I guess the one-person Cort we can see rules that the two-person Cort we can't see is actually a three-person Cort that nobody can see, and so (because the one-person Cort by that ruling has ruled that the one-person Cort is infallible and absolute), everything is all aboveboard and unquestionably perfectly Organic.
We call this "the rule of law", and it's a truly beautiful thing to see. I wouldn't have had the brass to do it myself; I would have limited myself to doing what the Law actually said I could do — which is probably why I'll never amount to much of a legal thinker.
Admiringly,
— John Woolley
|
|
