Post by Danihel Laurieir on Sept 8, 2005 20:18:32 GMT -6
On behalf of Wes Erni, Ben Madison emailed this brief (see below) to the Cort--a brief about who is eligible to vote in the rapidly approaching election.
I have not yet decided whether or not to hear this case.
Because it may take me some time to sort it out, because I will be extremely busy at work on travel and will not have convenient access to a computer and an internet connection from tomorrow morning till Wednesday September 14, because the Government is just learning about this case now and because the election is rapidly approaching, I wonder if it might not be appropriate for there to be a discussion about postponing the election for a week?
If I decide not to hear the case, there will likely be no need to discuss postponement. However, if I decide to hear the case, I'd like at least a little extra margin of time to make sure I can render a careful and fair decision. In addition, I am compelled to disclose that Ben Madison and I had a conversation about this last night. I will have to offer a representative from the Government an opportunity for a similar phone conversation.
In the meantime, it might make sense for the Government to begin organizing a brief in response to the one filed by Mr. Erni.
If I hear the case, I will do so by designating a thread here on Wittenberg as a Court Room, and will free feel to issue and enforce rules of conduct there. In order to expedite a ruling (if I decide to take the case), I will likely ask for the Government to file a single brief in response to Mr. Erni's. I will then likely ask both sides to reply to a series of questions. I will definitely ask that only people who are invited to participate in the case post on the "Court Room" thread and then do so in compliance with any instructions I may issue about decorum or concision.
This thread is not the Court Room thread for this case (because, for one thing, there may not be a case). Here, I want to give the Government notice that I have received this complaint and I want people to start thinking about how to handle this case--if I decide to hear it--in such a way as to cause as little chaos and nastiness as possible.
I hope I will have the time tomorrow to announce whether I will hear this case.
What follows is the brief filed by Mr. Wes Erni. Attached exhibits are displayed in a reply to this thread (the brief was too long!)
To: Justice Dan Lorentz, Secretary of State John Woolley
From: Weston J. Erni, Leader of the Opposition
Re: Erni v. Talossa, or the Illegal Immigrants Case of 2005
Date: 8 September 2005/XXVI
Esteemed and Aged Justice Lorentz,
The plaintiff (Weston J. Erni) hereby brings charges against the
Government of Talossa. He acknowledges the kind assistance of R. Ben
Madison, Márcüs Cantaloûr and Marc Moisan in drafting this brief.
Perceived abuse of the immigration process by the Immigration Minister,
and the admission of some two-dozen unknown and undocumented “illegal
immigrants” since the Talossan election of February, 2005, has caused
immense heartache and a destruction of the public trust in the Talossan
government over the past six months, and the perception that our
political system has become irretrievably corrupt has resulted in the
withdrawal of many quality citizens.
However, many Talossans remain, and the Cort must be the defender of
their legal rights. And by “Talossans” we mean actual,
lawfully-naturalized Talossans. To have the votes of real Talossans
cancelled or overwhelmed by “votes” cast by illegal immigrants is to
deprive actual Talossans of their unique constitutional status as
electors. As the Organic Law states:
Article VII, Section 1: “The Cosâ is the national legislative assembly
and is elected by universal popular vote by all adult citizens (age 14
and over).”
It is our contention that none of the many illegal immigrants
naturalized since February of 2005 is actually a Talossan citizen under law.
This case may be designated “Erni v. Talossa” or the “Illegal Immigrants
Case of 2005.”
We would remind the Cort that the established procedure in these cases
is for the Cort to hear the arguments of the Plaintiff (the present
brief), then for the Cort to hear the arguments of the Defendant (the
government), and then for the Cort to hear one rebuttal from the
Plaintiff, and make a ruling. We understand that the procedures are
flexible and are willing to accommodate the needs of this Cort,
especially with an election scheduled to begin on 15 September 2005.
We would further remind the Cort of its solemn responsibility to wear a
wig, a napkin, or some other head covering when rendering its verdict.
(Article XVI, Section 14: “Justices and all other judges shall wear
judge’s wigs while exercising judicial power.”)
1. Legal Foundation of Talossan Citizenship Law
Talossan citizenship is granted by law according to parameters set by
the Organic Law, Article XVIII, “Citizenship and Rights.” The relevant
passages follow:
Article XVIII, Section 1: “Talossan citizenship is only acquired through
organic (legal) means. The exact procedure for naturalization shall be
determined by law.”
Article XVIII, Section 3: “Any foreigner or Cestoûr who feels in his
heart that he is Talossan may acquire Talossan citizenship by following
the procedures of the citizenship law.”
Article XVIII, Section 6: “Any person, whose citizenship is denied, may
reapply by undergoing the entire procedure (minus any successfully
completed portions) following the next general election.”
In addition, the supervisory role of the Uppermost Cort in all
immigration matters is enshrined in Article XII, Section 5: “The
Immigration Minister shall supervise the immigration of new citizens
into Talossa, in consultation with the Uppermost Cort.”
2. Legal Definition of the term “Consultation”
Current immigration law (to be discussed more fully below) requires the
Prime Minister, the Opposition Leader, the Immigration Minister, and the
Uppermost Cort to act “in consultation with” each other on all
citizenship and naturalization matters. Therefore, the phrase “in
consultation with” is key to this case.
In the parlance of government and law, “consultation” is a legal process
involving the knowing participation of all the parties involved. Black’s
Law Dictionary (2004) defines “consultation” as “The act of asking the
advice or opinion of someone (such as a lawyer); a meeting in which
parties consult or confer; the interactive methods by which [parties]
seek to prevent or resolve disputes.”
Ballentine’s Law Dictionary (1969) defines “consultation” as “The
deliberation of two or more persons in some matter: a council or
conference to consider a special case.”
When “consultation” is a prerequisite for an act being legal, this
definition is even more set in stone. In the Talossan Organic Law,
Preamble, the ratification of the Organic Law by referendum is described
as having “consulted” the people. In Article XI, Section 2, the King
“consults” party leaders before being able to select a Prime Minister.
In Article XIV, Section 2, a Living Cosâ can only be scheduled following
“consultation” with party leaders.
NOTE: We anticipate that the Immigration Minister will take the position
that “consultation” does not imply consent, but that it simply means
“keeping people informed” or “asking questions.” Even if the Cort were
to take an extremely (and, in our view, improperly) narrow definition so
as to equate “consultation” with merely “keeping people informed” or
“asking questions”, we ask the Cort to read the remainder of the case
and the three transcripts found as Exhibits A, D and E. It is clear that
even under a minimal definition, the required “consultation” with the
Prime Minister, Opposition Leader, and Cort was never provided by the
Immigration Minister using any definition of the term, leaving him in
clear violation of the law in any case.
3. “In Consultation” (prior to 15 August 2005)
According to the current immigration law (34 RZ 2, “The Talossan
Immigration Act of 2005”; Clause 6 of which repeats, verbatim,
pre-existing legislation):
“Upon completion of step #5 [step #3 in previous legislation], the
Immigration Minister, in consultation with the Government and with the
Opposition Leader, shall either grant or refuse the prospective citizen
Talossan citizenship. In the event of refusal, the prospective may
repeat the process.”
The obvious purpose behind this article is to prevent an Immigration
Minister (or any other government officer) from declaring non-citizens
to be citizens without the consent of a broad cross-section of Talossan
political life.
It is a fundamental question of ensuring a fair, open, and bipartisan
process.
The Prime Minister and Opposition Leader must both, jointly, sign on to
each and every individual as a citizen before that citizenship can be
official. Both the PM and the Opposition Leader have a say in all
immigration matters, in order to prevent any one political faction from
“packing” the country full of its own supporters, and to fulfil the
requirements of consensus and openness in a democratic society.
The present Immigration Minister did not, in any case, obey Clause 6
during the current term of office. As the Cort will see in Exhibit A
(below), then-PM Márcüs Cantaloûr has certified that he was not
consulted concerning any of the so-called naturalizations which were
unilaterally announced on Wittenberg by the Immigration Minister since
February.
In some cases, the PM did extend a “welcome” to the individuals
involved, after they had been declared citizens by the Immigration
Minister. However, informal politeness after the fact does not
constitute official consultation before the fact as the law requires.
Immigration Law is not a game. Although the PM may have handled the
situation sloppily, and allowed his ministers too much leeway, the
argument of “Well, I got away with it so it should stand” should not be
taken seriously. In order for a citizenship to be valid, it needs to be
handled in the prescribed manner and no other, since there are few
matters in Talossa more important than knowing who is a Talossan and who
is not.
4. “In Consultation” (since 15 August 2005)
Clause 6, as quoted, applies equally to any purported “naturalizations”
carried out by the Immigration Minister since 15 August 2005 and to the
present date (of which there has been several, the names of which we do
not know). While the Immigration Minister has become the Prime Minister
through lawful and constitutional means, neither the Immigration
Minister, nor the Prime Minister, can lawfully declare non-Talossans to
be citizens on their own or working together. Consultation with the
Leader of the Opposition is required.
As leader of the largest opposition party (i.e. in opposition to the
CLP, which is now the ruling party), Weston J. Erni (MN-Atatürk) is the
Opposition Leader. In Exhibit D, below, Mr Erni certifies that the
Immigration Minister has not consulted with him concerning any of the
so-called citizens named by the Immigration Minister since 15 August 2005.
If there is no Opposition Leader, no citizenships can be processed until
one is elected. If there is one, he has to be consulted and he has to
have a chance to say “yes” or “no” before any citizenship can become
official. In either case, the Immigration Minister has clearly been in
violation of the law since 15 August 2005 by naming “citizens” without
consultation with any of the designated legal authorities.
5. Mandatory Cort Oversight of the Immigration Process
A violation of the Organic Law also occurred, in addition to violations
of statutory law.
According to the Organic Law, Article XII, Section 5: “The Immigration
Minister shall supervise the immigration of new citizens into Talossa,
in consultation with the Uppermost Cort.”
At no time during 2005 did the Immigration Minister act in consultation
with the Uppermost Cort before declaring non-Talossans to be “citizens.”
Retired Cort Justice Marc Moisan has provided his sworn attestation to
this fact in Exhibit E, below.
Note: Justice Lorentz was not asked to provide an affidavit, in order to
avoid making him a party to this case. He may, of course, rely on his
own experience in verifying Justice Moisan’s claims.
6. Status of Citizens
Under the Organic Law, Article XVIII, Section 1, “Talossan citizenship
is only acquired through organic (legal) means. The exact procedure for
naturalization shall be determined by law.” And,
Article XVIII, Section 3: “Any foreigner or Cestoûr who feels in his
heart that he is Talossan may acquire Talossan citizenship by following
the procedures of the citizenship law.” This same principle is repeated
in the current immigration law, Clause 7 (Clause 5 of the 2004 law):
“If citizenship is granted under step #6, the person shall be considered
a naturalized Talossan for all purposes, legal and moral.”
None of the individuals in question were “granted citizenship”, whether
under step #6 of the immigration law, or through “organic (legal)
means,” or “by following the procedures of the immigration law.”
Instead, they were declared “citizens of Talossa” by the Immigration
Minister, acting in isolation, using his own orphic personal standards
and procedures. Therefore, by definition, persons awarded titles under
those non-lawful standards and procedures have not acquired Talossan
citizenship.
7. Petition for Specific Remedies, and Conclusion
The plaintiff prays the Cort for four specific remedies to restore
democratic order to Talossa’s immigration procedure, and to provide a
basis for national reconciliation and healing under the aegis of law, to
which all Talossans must equally submit. These remedies are specified in
paragraphs A, B, C and D, below. We ask for all four to be granted.
REMEDY A: We ask the Cort to declare each and every single
naturalization in the Kingdom of Talossa, declared between 15 February
2005 and the present date, unlawful and absolutely void.
REMEDY B: We ask the Cort to instruct the Secretary of State, for
purposes of voting in the September-October 2005 General Election, to
void and nullify any ballots signed by non-citizens.
REMEDY C: We ask the Cort to impose a special and immediate injunction
on all immigration-related matters until after the September-October
2005 General Election, to prevent immigration controversies from
interfering with the lawful and orderly conduct of business, and to
comply with the order in Article XVIII, Section 6: “Any person, whose
citizenship is denied, may reapply by undergoing the entire procedure
(minus any successfully completed portions) following the next general
election.”
REMEDY D: The Immigration Minister, Fritz von Buchholtz, is well aware
of the citizenship laws (including the Moratorium against further
immigration, dated 14 August 2005 and contained in Exhibit F, below),
but openly and flagrantly disregards them for political reasons. This
long-term, willful and eager violation of the law is without precedent
in Talossan politics or jurisprudence. In 1992, when Ben Madison was
convicted by this Cort of treason, he was prohibited from voting. In
1995, when Dave Kuenn was convicted by this Cort of forging ballots, he
was prohibited from voting. In this case, despite the repercussions and
damage flowing from the conduct having been vastly more devastating and
long-lasting, we ask only for the same punishment, to ensure
accountability. We ask the Cort to invoke Article XVI, Section 12 and to
impose a one-time sentence on Fritz von Buchholtz, prohibiting him from
voting in the September-October 2005 General Election. The Cort has
never been afraid to use this power; it should use it now. We do not
call for his expulsion from Talossa.
[Article XVI, Section 12: “The courts shall have power to enforce
penalties against violators, commensurate with the severity of the
crime. The Uppermost Cort may in certain extreme circumstances impose
the penalty of expulsion from the country, by a unanimous vote.
Sentences may only be overturned by Royal Pardon.”]
Today, the 25-year-old Kingdom of Talossa totters on the brink of
collapse because one of its servants has violated Talossan immigration
laws and declared non-Talossans to be “citizens” and thus “voters” in a
Talossan election. We face the prospect of an election in which the
votes of actual, lawful Talossan citizens will be nullified and
overwhelmed by “votes” cast by persons who are not lawful citizens of
our country, in order to elect a government over Talossa which
represents, in whole or in part, the views and interests of Cestoûrs and
which may act and legislate on their behalf instead of ours, in
violation of Organic Law, Article VII, Section 1.
Under the Organic Law, any prospective who is denied citizenship can
freely reapply after the election. Thus, their rights are fully
protected. Their applications can then be heard by the PM, the
Immigration Minister, and the Opposition Leader acting in consultation
with each other, in careful obedience to the law, and, we hope, under
the careful supervision of the Cort to prevent further irregularities
and to preserve and reinforce the rule of law in Talossa for ever.
Sincerely,
Weston J. Erni, petitioner
Talossan Citizen since 1985
**************************************
I have not yet decided whether or not to hear this case.
Because it may take me some time to sort it out, because I will be extremely busy at work on travel and will not have convenient access to a computer and an internet connection from tomorrow morning till Wednesday September 14, because the Government is just learning about this case now and because the election is rapidly approaching, I wonder if it might not be appropriate for there to be a discussion about postponing the election for a week?
If I decide not to hear the case, there will likely be no need to discuss postponement. However, if I decide to hear the case, I'd like at least a little extra margin of time to make sure I can render a careful and fair decision. In addition, I am compelled to disclose that Ben Madison and I had a conversation about this last night. I will have to offer a representative from the Government an opportunity for a similar phone conversation.
In the meantime, it might make sense for the Government to begin organizing a brief in response to the one filed by Mr. Erni.
If I hear the case, I will do so by designating a thread here on Wittenberg as a Court Room, and will free feel to issue and enforce rules of conduct there. In order to expedite a ruling (if I decide to take the case), I will likely ask for the Government to file a single brief in response to Mr. Erni's. I will then likely ask both sides to reply to a series of questions. I will definitely ask that only people who are invited to participate in the case post on the "Court Room" thread and then do so in compliance with any instructions I may issue about decorum or concision.
This thread is not the Court Room thread for this case (because, for one thing, there may not be a case). Here, I want to give the Government notice that I have received this complaint and I want people to start thinking about how to handle this case--if I decide to hear it--in such a way as to cause as little chaos and nastiness as possible.
I hope I will have the time tomorrow to announce whether I will hear this case.
What follows is the brief filed by Mr. Wes Erni. Attached exhibits are displayed in a reply to this thread (the brief was too long!)
To: Justice Dan Lorentz, Secretary of State John Woolley
From: Weston J. Erni, Leader of the Opposition
Re: Erni v. Talossa, or the Illegal Immigrants Case of 2005
Date: 8 September 2005/XXVI
Esteemed and Aged Justice Lorentz,
The plaintiff (Weston J. Erni) hereby brings charges against the
Government of Talossa. He acknowledges the kind assistance of R. Ben
Madison, Márcüs Cantaloûr and Marc Moisan in drafting this brief.
Perceived abuse of the immigration process by the Immigration Minister,
and the admission of some two-dozen unknown and undocumented “illegal
immigrants” since the Talossan election of February, 2005, has caused
immense heartache and a destruction of the public trust in the Talossan
government over the past six months, and the perception that our
political system has become irretrievably corrupt has resulted in the
withdrawal of many quality citizens.
However, many Talossans remain, and the Cort must be the defender of
their legal rights. And by “Talossans” we mean actual,
lawfully-naturalized Talossans. To have the votes of real Talossans
cancelled or overwhelmed by “votes” cast by illegal immigrants is to
deprive actual Talossans of their unique constitutional status as
electors. As the Organic Law states:
Article VII, Section 1: “The Cosâ is the national legislative assembly
and is elected by universal popular vote by all adult citizens (age 14
and over).”
It is our contention that none of the many illegal immigrants
naturalized since February of 2005 is actually a Talossan citizen under law.
This case may be designated “Erni v. Talossa” or the “Illegal Immigrants
Case of 2005.”
We would remind the Cort that the established procedure in these cases
is for the Cort to hear the arguments of the Plaintiff (the present
brief), then for the Cort to hear the arguments of the Defendant (the
government), and then for the Cort to hear one rebuttal from the
Plaintiff, and make a ruling. We understand that the procedures are
flexible and are willing to accommodate the needs of this Cort,
especially with an election scheduled to begin on 15 September 2005.
We would further remind the Cort of its solemn responsibility to wear a
wig, a napkin, or some other head covering when rendering its verdict.
(Article XVI, Section 14: “Justices and all other judges shall wear
judge’s wigs while exercising judicial power.”)
1. Legal Foundation of Talossan Citizenship Law
Talossan citizenship is granted by law according to parameters set by
the Organic Law, Article XVIII, “Citizenship and Rights.” The relevant
passages follow:
Article XVIII, Section 1: “Talossan citizenship is only acquired through
organic (legal) means. The exact procedure for naturalization shall be
determined by law.”
Article XVIII, Section 3: “Any foreigner or Cestoûr who feels in his
heart that he is Talossan may acquire Talossan citizenship by following
the procedures of the citizenship law.”
Article XVIII, Section 6: “Any person, whose citizenship is denied, may
reapply by undergoing the entire procedure (minus any successfully
completed portions) following the next general election.”
In addition, the supervisory role of the Uppermost Cort in all
immigration matters is enshrined in Article XII, Section 5: “The
Immigration Minister shall supervise the immigration of new citizens
into Talossa, in consultation with the Uppermost Cort.”
2. Legal Definition of the term “Consultation”
Current immigration law (to be discussed more fully below) requires the
Prime Minister, the Opposition Leader, the Immigration Minister, and the
Uppermost Cort to act “in consultation with” each other on all
citizenship and naturalization matters. Therefore, the phrase “in
consultation with” is key to this case.
In the parlance of government and law, “consultation” is a legal process
involving the knowing participation of all the parties involved. Black’s
Law Dictionary (2004) defines “consultation” as “The act of asking the
advice or opinion of someone (such as a lawyer); a meeting in which
parties consult or confer; the interactive methods by which [parties]
seek to prevent or resolve disputes.”
Ballentine’s Law Dictionary (1969) defines “consultation” as “The
deliberation of two or more persons in some matter: a council or
conference to consider a special case.”
When “consultation” is a prerequisite for an act being legal, this
definition is even more set in stone. In the Talossan Organic Law,
Preamble, the ratification of the Organic Law by referendum is described
as having “consulted” the people. In Article XI, Section 2, the King
“consults” party leaders before being able to select a Prime Minister.
In Article XIV, Section 2, a Living Cosâ can only be scheduled following
“consultation” with party leaders.
NOTE: We anticipate that the Immigration Minister will take the position
that “consultation” does not imply consent, but that it simply means
“keeping people informed” or “asking questions.” Even if the Cort were
to take an extremely (and, in our view, improperly) narrow definition so
as to equate “consultation” with merely “keeping people informed” or
“asking questions”, we ask the Cort to read the remainder of the case
and the three transcripts found as Exhibits A, D and E. It is clear that
even under a minimal definition, the required “consultation” with the
Prime Minister, Opposition Leader, and Cort was never provided by the
Immigration Minister using any definition of the term, leaving him in
clear violation of the law in any case.
3. “In Consultation” (prior to 15 August 2005)
According to the current immigration law (34 RZ 2, “The Talossan
Immigration Act of 2005”; Clause 6 of which repeats, verbatim,
pre-existing legislation):
“Upon completion of step #5 [step #3 in previous legislation], the
Immigration Minister, in consultation with the Government and with the
Opposition Leader, shall either grant or refuse the prospective citizen
Talossan citizenship. In the event of refusal, the prospective may
repeat the process.”
The obvious purpose behind this article is to prevent an Immigration
Minister (or any other government officer) from declaring non-citizens
to be citizens without the consent of a broad cross-section of Talossan
political life.
It is a fundamental question of ensuring a fair, open, and bipartisan
process.
The Prime Minister and Opposition Leader must both, jointly, sign on to
each and every individual as a citizen before that citizenship can be
official. Both the PM and the Opposition Leader have a say in all
immigration matters, in order to prevent any one political faction from
“packing” the country full of its own supporters, and to fulfil the
requirements of consensus and openness in a democratic society.
The present Immigration Minister did not, in any case, obey Clause 6
during the current term of office. As the Cort will see in Exhibit A
(below), then-PM Márcüs Cantaloûr has certified that he was not
consulted concerning any of the so-called naturalizations which were
unilaterally announced on Wittenberg by the Immigration Minister since
February.
In some cases, the PM did extend a “welcome” to the individuals
involved, after they had been declared citizens by the Immigration
Minister. However, informal politeness after the fact does not
constitute official consultation before the fact as the law requires.
Immigration Law is not a game. Although the PM may have handled the
situation sloppily, and allowed his ministers too much leeway, the
argument of “Well, I got away with it so it should stand” should not be
taken seriously. In order for a citizenship to be valid, it needs to be
handled in the prescribed manner and no other, since there are few
matters in Talossa more important than knowing who is a Talossan and who
is not.
4. “In Consultation” (since 15 August 2005)
Clause 6, as quoted, applies equally to any purported “naturalizations”
carried out by the Immigration Minister since 15 August 2005 and to the
present date (of which there has been several, the names of which we do
not know). While the Immigration Minister has become the Prime Minister
through lawful and constitutional means, neither the Immigration
Minister, nor the Prime Minister, can lawfully declare non-Talossans to
be citizens on their own or working together. Consultation with the
Leader of the Opposition is required.
As leader of the largest opposition party (i.e. in opposition to the
CLP, which is now the ruling party), Weston J. Erni (MN-Atatürk) is the
Opposition Leader. In Exhibit D, below, Mr Erni certifies that the
Immigration Minister has not consulted with him concerning any of the
so-called citizens named by the Immigration Minister since 15 August 2005.
If there is no Opposition Leader, no citizenships can be processed until
one is elected. If there is one, he has to be consulted and he has to
have a chance to say “yes” or “no” before any citizenship can become
official. In either case, the Immigration Minister has clearly been in
violation of the law since 15 August 2005 by naming “citizens” without
consultation with any of the designated legal authorities.
5. Mandatory Cort Oversight of the Immigration Process
A violation of the Organic Law also occurred, in addition to violations
of statutory law.
According to the Organic Law, Article XII, Section 5: “The Immigration
Minister shall supervise the immigration of new citizens into Talossa,
in consultation with the Uppermost Cort.”
At no time during 2005 did the Immigration Minister act in consultation
with the Uppermost Cort before declaring non-Talossans to be “citizens.”
Retired Cort Justice Marc Moisan has provided his sworn attestation to
this fact in Exhibit E, below.
Note: Justice Lorentz was not asked to provide an affidavit, in order to
avoid making him a party to this case. He may, of course, rely on his
own experience in verifying Justice Moisan’s claims.
6. Status of Citizens
Under the Organic Law, Article XVIII, Section 1, “Talossan citizenship
is only acquired through organic (legal) means. The exact procedure for
naturalization shall be determined by law.” And,
Article XVIII, Section 3: “Any foreigner or Cestoûr who feels in his
heart that he is Talossan may acquire Talossan citizenship by following
the procedures of the citizenship law.” This same principle is repeated
in the current immigration law, Clause 7 (Clause 5 of the 2004 law):
“If citizenship is granted under step #6, the person shall be considered
a naturalized Talossan for all purposes, legal and moral.”
None of the individuals in question were “granted citizenship”, whether
under step #6 of the immigration law, or through “organic (legal)
means,” or “by following the procedures of the immigration law.”
Instead, they were declared “citizens of Talossa” by the Immigration
Minister, acting in isolation, using his own orphic personal standards
and procedures. Therefore, by definition, persons awarded titles under
those non-lawful standards and procedures have not acquired Talossan
citizenship.
7. Petition for Specific Remedies, and Conclusion
The plaintiff prays the Cort for four specific remedies to restore
democratic order to Talossa’s immigration procedure, and to provide a
basis for national reconciliation and healing under the aegis of law, to
which all Talossans must equally submit. These remedies are specified in
paragraphs A, B, C and D, below. We ask for all four to be granted.
REMEDY A: We ask the Cort to declare each and every single
naturalization in the Kingdom of Talossa, declared between 15 February
2005 and the present date, unlawful and absolutely void.
REMEDY B: We ask the Cort to instruct the Secretary of State, for
purposes of voting in the September-October 2005 General Election, to
void and nullify any ballots signed by non-citizens.
REMEDY C: We ask the Cort to impose a special and immediate injunction
on all immigration-related matters until after the September-October
2005 General Election, to prevent immigration controversies from
interfering with the lawful and orderly conduct of business, and to
comply with the order in Article XVIII, Section 6: “Any person, whose
citizenship is denied, may reapply by undergoing the entire procedure
(minus any successfully completed portions) following the next general
election.”
REMEDY D: The Immigration Minister, Fritz von Buchholtz, is well aware
of the citizenship laws (including the Moratorium against further
immigration, dated 14 August 2005 and contained in Exhibit F, below),
but openly and flagrantly disregards them for political reasons. This
long-term, willful and eager violation of the law is without precedent
in Talossan politics or jurisprudence. In 1992, when Ben Madison was
convicted by this Cort of treason, he was prohibited from voting. In
1995, when Dave Kuenn was convicted by this Cort of forging ballots, he
was prohibited from voting. In this case, despite the repercussions and
damage flowing from the conduct having been vastly more devastating and
long-lasting, we ask only for the same punishment, to ensure
accountability. We ask the Cort to invoke Article XVI, Section 12 and to
impose a one-time sentence on Fritz von Buchholtz, prohibiting him from
voting in the September-October 2005 General Election. The Cort has
never been afraid to use this power; it should use it now. We do not
call for his expulsion from Talossa.
[Article XVI, Section 12: “The courts shall have power to enforce
penalties against violators, commensurate with the severity of the
crime. The Uppermost Cort may in certain extreme circumstances impose
the penalty of expulsion from the country, by a unanimous vote.
Sentences may only be overturned by Royal Pardon.”]
Today, the 25-year-old Kingdom of Talossa totters on the brink of
collapse because one of its servants has violated Talossan immigration
laws and declared non-Talossans to be “citizens” and thus “voters” in a
Talossan election. We face the prospect of an election in which the
votes of actual, lawful Talossan citizens will be nullified and
overwhelmed by “votes” cast by persons who are not lawful citizens of
our country, in order to elect a government over Talossa which
represents, in whole or in part, the views and interests of Cestoûrs and
which may act and legislate on their behalf instead of ours, in
violation of Organic Law, Article VII, Section 1.
Under the Organic Law, any prospective who is denied citizenship can
freely reapply after the election. Thus, their rights are fully
protected. Their applications can then be heard by the PM, the
Immigration Minister, and the Opposition Leader acting in consultation
with each other, in careful obedience to the law, and, we hope, under
the careful supervision of the Cort to prevent further irregularities
and to preserve and reinforce the rule of law in Talossa for ever.
Sincerely,
Weston J. Erni, petitioner
Talossan Citizen since 1985
**************************************
