|  Author | Topic: Courtroom: Erni v. Talossa (Read 835 times) |
Danihel Laurieir
Citizen since 7-1981; Count since 2-23-2006
member is offline
![[avatar]](http://www.KingdomOfTalossa.net/heraldry/t-laurieir.gif "[avatar]")
Videbimus Omnes
Joined: Jun 2004
Gender: Male 
Posts: 400
|  | Courtroom: Erni v. Talossa
« Thread Started on Sept 12, 2005, 12:24am » | |
This serves as notice that the Talossan Uppermost Cort will hear the charges brought by Mr. Weston J. Erni against the Government of Talossa. (Yes, he called me to tell me that his counsel accurately represented his views and intentions in the brief that was filed on his behalf). The charges are detailed in the brief reprinted (again) below. The exhibits are also reproduced again in the reply to this post.
The Cort wishes to designate this thread as a courtroom in which to hear this case—a courtroom subject to rules issued by the presiding Justice (me).
The Cort wishes to see a single brief (along with any necessary exhibits) filed by the Government as soon as possible. If a brief is not filed by Tuesday, the Cort will not be very happy. Please no posts from anyone else at the present time.
The Cort will rule before the upcoming election commences on September 15, 2005.
The Cort will not be favorably impressed by shouting from the gallery.
The Cort will likely ask one set of questions—some directed to one side, and others to the other, and some to both—and then make its decision.
I am sure that my decision in this case—no matter what it is—will bitterly disappoint some Talossans. That’s why I am not looking forward to making a ruling in this matter. I had hoped there might be a political resolution—and there still could be, I suppose—but that doesn’t seem likely to me.
So, here we go…
Let’s all try to behave.
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 theGovernment 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
| |
|
Danihel Laurieir
Citizen since 7-1981; Count since 2-23-2006
member is offline
Videbimus Omnes
Joined: Jun 2004
Gender: Male
Posts: 400
| | Re: Courtroom: Erni v. Talossa
« Reply #1 on Sept 12, 2005, 12:25am » | |
These are the exhibits referred to in Mr. Erni's brief:
EXHIBIT A: LEGAL QUESTIONS TO MARCUS CANTALOUR
1. The following questions will refer to your term of office between
February and August of 2005. Did you, in fact, serve in the office of
Prime Minister of Talossa from February to August, 2005?
Yes, I did serve the Kingdom of Talossa as Prime Minister from February
to August of 2005.
2. Mr Prime Minister, were you aware of the immigration law requiring
“the Immigration Minister” to act entirely “in consultation with the
Government and with the Opposition Leader” on questions of granting
citizenship, and did you understand that no person can be lawfully
naturalized as a Talossan citizen without this consultation?
While this is a matter that I should have been aware of, I did not
become aware of this fact until August of 2005. I decided to examine
current immigration legislation because I had serious concerns about
some of the new citizens that were brought in under the Immigration
Minister.
3. Mr Prime Minister, did the Immigration Minister ever consult with you
regarding a prospective citizen named Gold Ferrari?
No.
4. Mr Prime Minister, did the Immigration Minister ever consult with you
regarding a prospective citizen named Eric Lenz?
No.
5. Mr Prime Minister, did the Immigration Minister ever consult with you
regarding a prospective citizen named Gary Hawkins?
No.
6. Mr Prime Minister, did the Immigration Minister ever consult with you
regarding a prospective citizen named Don Deutschmann?
No.
7. Mr Prime Minister, did the Immigration Minister ever consult with you
regarding a prospective citizen named Matthew Cain?
No.
8. Mr Prime Minister, did the Immigration Minister ever consult with you
regarding a prospective citizen named John Woolley?
No.
9. Mr Prime Minister, did the Immigration Minister ever consult with you
regarding a prospective citizen named Patsy McCue?
No.
10. Mr Prime Minister, did the Immigration Minister ever consult with
you regarding a prospective citizen named Joe Clark?
No.
11. Mr Prime Minister, did the Immigration Minister ever consult with
you regarding a prospective citizen named Peter Onsgard?
No.
12. Mr Prime Minister, did the Immigration Minister ever consult with
you regarding a prospective citizen named Manus Hand?
No.
13. Mr Prime Minister, did the Immigration Minister ever consult with
you regarding a prospective citizen named Victor Idowu?
No.
14. Mr Prime Minister, did the Immigration Minister ever consult with
you regarding a prospective citizen named Kelly Reid?
No.
15. Mr Prime Minister, did the Immigration Minister ever consult with
you regarding a prospective citizen named Oliver Brainerd?
No.
16. Mr Prime Minister, can you explain why you were not consulted on the
naturalizations which you have indicated you were not consulted on?
I cannot explain why the Immigration Minister did not consult with me
regarding the above mentioned naturalizations. It is the Immigration
Minister who is directly responsible to make sure that proper procedures
are followed before citizenship can be granted. The only reason that I
can see for the Immigration Minister’s complete failure in his duties is
because he wanted to bring in as many citizens as possible to bolster
support for the CLP.
When I began to have serious concerns about the Immigration Minister’s
misconduct in the early part of August, 2005, I examined the current
immigration legislation. It is at this time that I became aware of the
requirement to consult with the government before granting Talossan
citizenship.
17. On or about 14 August 2005, did you issue the following Prime Dictate?
[See Exhibit F, below, for the text.]
I did issue this Prime Dictate due to the strong evidence suggesting
misconduct by the Immigration Minister.
18. Regarding the provisions of this moratorium, did the Immigration
Minister at that time, or at any other time, consult with you concerning
the exact names and contact information of all the individuals “who are
currently going through the process of immigration”?
Before I issued the moratorium, the Immigration Minister provided me
with a list of prospective citizens who were currently going through the
naturalization process. The Immigration Minister sent this information
in an e-mail dated August 14th, 2005. Here is the text of the e-mail:
---
Azul Mr. Prime Minister,
There are quite a few but when they ask about joinning I reply but I don't
keep those names until I hear from them again. A lot of them just never get
back to me. The names I do have are:
Maureen O'Hara Mad Dog (Chris) and Curt Stangward
Always delighted to be of assistance.
F. (Fritz) von Buchholtz
Minister of Immigration
---
18. Do you have any further statements or comments to make to the Cort
at this time?
It is my sincere wish that this controversy in Talossa will be resolved.
I hope one day that I will be able to return to the Kingdom of Talossa,
but with the country under the complete control of the CLP, a control
acquired through devious means, I simply cannot return.
God Save the King!
(Signed) Márcüs Cantaloûr
***************************
EXHIBIT B: RZ8 - THE IMMIGRATION REFORM, TAKE WHATEVER, ACT
[Note: This is the immigration law from the summer of 2004 until the
spring of 2005. The crucial passage is Article 4. This was readopted,
unchanged, as Article 6 of the 2005 Immigration Law, see Exhibit C.]
WHEREAS, a nationwide consensus exists that Talossan immigration laws
themselves are in some part responsible for the drop-off in immigration
since the year 2000, and
WHEREAS, discussions on Wittenberg and at TalossaFest 2004 have revealed
a broad consensus in favour of immigration reform, though not
necessarily on all specifics, and
WHEREAS, someone has to get the ball rolling, and it might as well be me,
THEREFORE, the Ziu hereby enacts the following legislation into law as
the official Talossan rules for immigration procedure, understanding
that all older legislation which is directly in conflict with the
principles outlined herein is thereby rendered null and void, to the
extent of the conflict.
1) Non-Talossans shall become Talossan citizens through the immigration
process outlined herein. No person who is already a Talossan citizen
shall be affected by this legislation.
2) In order to become a Talossan citizen, a non-citizen (hereafter, "the
prospective") shall notify the Immigration Minister of his intent to
acquire Talossan citizenship. He must provide proof of
identity to the satisfaction of the Immigration Minister.
3) Upon completion of step #2, the prospective shall be granted a
Wittenberg account and must explain publicly, on Wittenberg, his reasons
and motivations for seeking Talossan citizenship.
4) Upon completion of step #3, 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.
5) If citizenship is granted under step #4, the person shall be
considered a naturalized Talossan for all purposes, legal and moral.
6) Members representing one-third of the Cosâ may, by resolution, during
a period of one year following the naturalization of any prospective
under this Act, express its official protest against the naturalization.
In this event, the Ziu must itself ratify the person's citizenship, by
law, or else the citizenship lapses.
7) Any person naturalized under the provisions of this Act shall have
one year following the date of his naturalization, to complete the
Civics Exam and any other requirements for citizenship which may
hereafter be imposed by law. Failure to complete these assignments
within the one-year period shall result in the automatic termination of
said citizenship.
8) No person granted Talossan citizenship prior to 21 September 2004
shall be affected in any way by this Act.
*************************************
EXHIBIT C: 34 RZ 2: THE TALOSSAN IMMIGRATION ACT OF 2005
[Note: This is the immigration law from the summer of 2004 until the
spring of 2005. The crucial passage is Article 6. This was adopted,
unchanged, from Article 4 of the 2004 Immigration Law, see Exhibit B.]
Whereas, immigration procedures in Talossa have changed dramatically in
recent times, and
Whereas, in these reforms historic elements of naturalization were
removed, and
Whereas it has become difficult for the Immigration Minister to
determine when citizenship should be granted, and
Whereas, both the biographical essay and the What Talossa Means to Me
essay provided valuable information about prospective citizens and
showed some level of interest in the nation from the prospective,
THEREFORE, the Ziu hereby restores the biographical essay and the What
Talossa Means to Me essay as requirements of naturalization and the Ziu
hereby enacts the following legislation into law as the official
Talossan rules for immigration procedure, understanding that all older
legislation which is directly in conflict with the principles outlined
herein is thereby rendered null and void, to the extent of the conflict.
1) Non-Talossans shall become Talossan citizens through the immigration
process outlined herein. No person who is already a Talossan citizen
shall be affected by this legislation.
2) In order to become a Talossan citizen, a non-citizen (hereafter, "the
prospective") shall notify the Immigration Minister of his intent to
acquire Talossan citizenship. He must provide proof of identity to the
satisfaction of the Immigration Minister.
3) Upon completion of step #2, the prospective shall be granted a
Wittenberg account.
4) The prospective shall submit a biographical essay of a length to be
determined by the prospective, to the Immigration Minister. The
biographical essay shall be made public on Wittenberg.
5) The prospective shall submit a "What Talossa Means to Me" essay of a
length to be determined by the prospective, to the Immigration Minister.
The "What Talossa Means to Me" essay shall be made public on Wittenberg.
This essay shall answer the following questions:
* Why do you want to join Talossa?
* How do you plan to participate in Talossa?
* How did you find out about Talossa?
* Other than a place for you to express your opinions, what does Talossa
mean to you?
6) Upon completion of step #5, 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.
7) If citizenship is granted under step #6, the person shall be
considered a naturalized Talossan for all purposes, legal and moral.
8) Members representing one-third of the Cosâ may, by resolution, during
a period of one year following the naturalization of any prospective
under this Act, express its official protest against the naturalization.
In this event, the Ziu must itself ratify the person's citizenship, by
law, or else
the citizenship lapses.
9) Any person naturalized under the provisions of this Act shall have
one year following the date of his naturalization, to complete the
Civics Exam and any other requirements for citizenship which may
hereafter be imposed by law. Failure to complete these assignments
within the one-year period shall result in the automatic termination of
said citizenship.
10) No person granted Talossan citizenship prior to 13 March 2005 shall
be affected in any way by this Act.
***********************************
EXHIBIT D: LEGAL QUESTIONS TO WES ERNI (OPPOSITION LEADER)
1. The following questions will refer to your term of office as
Opposition Leader since 15 August 2005. Are you, in fact, the President
of the Black Hand Party, the largest party in the Ziu opposed to the CLP?
Yes.
2. Mr Opposition Leader, are you aware of the immigration law requiring
“the Immigration Minister” to act entirely “in consultation with the
Government and with the Opposition Leader” on questions of granting
citizenship, and do you understand that no person can be lawfully
naturalized as a Talossan citizen without this consultation?
Yes.
3. Mr Opposition Leader, since 15 August 2005, has the Prime Minister or
Immigration Minister ever consulted with you regarding one or more
prospective citizens?
No.
4. Mr Opposition Leader, do you understand that there have been several
“citizens” declared by the Immigration Minister since 15 August 2005?
Yes, second-hand, but I do not know anything about them. I was never
consulted.
5. Do you have any further statements or comments to make to the Cort at
this time?
I don’t know if I’m more pissed at the illegal, underhanded actions of
the Immigration Minister, or at the fact that we’re forced to rely on
Dan Lorentz to lead us back to safety!
(Signed) Wes Erni, Opposition Leader
************************************
EXHIBIT E: LEGAL QUESTIONS FOR MARC MOISAN
1. Mr Moisan, did you in fact serve on the Talossan Uppermost Cort
between February and August of 2005?
I did serve as Justice of the Uppermost Cort of the Kingdom of Talossa
during this period.
2. During the time of your tenure on the Cort, did the Immigration
Minister ever consult with you regarding any prospective citizenships or
other naturalization questions?
No, I was not consulted regarding any of them, even as leader of the ZPT
I haven’t been made aware of new immigrants or their credentials until a
the Immigration Minister posted them on Wittenberg. I wasn’t even given
their contact info until a complaint was made on Wittenberg.
3. Mr Moisan, do you have any other comments to make to the Cort at this
time?
No.
(Signed) Marc Moisan
*************************************
EXHIBIT F: IMMIGRATION MORATORIUM PD (14 August 2005)
I, Márcüs Cantaloûr, Seneschál del Regipäts Talossán, with the full
weight and authority of my august position do hereby and forthwith
declare the following Prime Dictate:
Whereas, certain information has come to light that casts doubt over the
whole Ministry of Immigration, and
Whereas, if the allegations that the CLP has recruited uninterested
people to become citizens in order to increase the party's level of
support are true, we will have witnessed perhaps the greatest scandal in
Talossan history, and
Whereas, it is unfair for all genuine immigrants to be painted with the
brush of scandal and controversy,
Therefore a moratorium on all immigration shall be hereby imposed until
the end of the next general election. Any prospective citizens who are
currently going through the process of immigration are excluded from
this moratorium. With the close of the polls, immigration shall resume
as normal.
God Save The King!
Done under my hand this fourteenth day of August, two thousand and five.
******************************
| |
|
King John
Talossan since 5-7-2005; Knight since 11-30-2005; King since 3-14-2007
member is offline
![[avatar]](http://www.KingdomOfTalossa.net/heraldry/t-KingsArms.gif "[avatar]")
COR UNUM
![[aim]](http://images.proboards.com/aim.gif "[aim]")
![[homepage]](http://images.proboards.com/buttons/www_sm.gif "[homepage]")
Joined: May 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,939
Location: Centennial, CO (Florencia)
| | Motions for the Defense in re: Erni v. Talossa
« Reply #2 on Sept 12, 2005, 11:52am » | |
The Defense notes that Erni v. Talossa, although it contains some of the elements of a civil suit, in fact alleges that Prime Minister von Buchholtz has “openly and flagrantly disregard[ed]” the laws, that he “is in clear violation of the law”, that he has engaged in “long-term, willful and eager violation of the law”, invokes Article XVI Section 12 (“The courts shall have power to enforce penalties against violators, commensurate with the severity of the crime.”), and asks the Uppermost Cort to impose criminal penalties on Prime Minister von Buchholtz (“We ask the Cort to invoke Article XVI, Section 12 and to impose a one-time sentence on Fritz von Buchholtz”). It is therefore not merely a civil suit, but a criminal case — Mr. Erni being not so much a plaintiff as the Prosecutor —, and the defendant’s rights to be confronted by the witnesses against him, to subpoena witnesses in his favour, and so on, must therefore be fully protected. The Defense is certainly willing — nay, eager! — to cöoperate in assisting this honourable Cort in reaching a swift conclusion to this case, but is less than sanguine as to the prospects of doing so within two days. The Prosecution — by its own representation, anyway — had from February (when the alleged crimes began) until September 8 (when the case was filed) to prepare its case; or at the very least, from “early August” (when Mr. Cantaloûr says he finally became aware of the contents of the law which he himself had written in February) until September 8. The Defense, on the other hand, has had only since the evening of September 8, when it first heard that these allegations were being made. It would seem grossly inequitable to require Prime Minister von Buchholtz to issue subpoenas, examine witnesses, gather evidence, and present an entire finished defense, in only five days, when the Prosecution took at least five weeks. But if the Cort so wishes, the Defense will certainly try to do so.
Before submitting an opening statement, or proceeding to the examination of defense witnesses, the Defense humbly moves that this honourable Cort rule on the following essential points of law (#1 through #8 below), without which the preparation of a defense is clearly impossible. In requesting rulings on these points, Prime Minister von Buchholtz relies explicitly on his right under Article XIX 7th Covenant (“Any person charged with an offence [...] has the right to request information on his legal rights."), as well as on other rights as noted below.
1. Is the Prosecution’s “EXHIBIT A: LEGAL QUESTIONS TO MARCUS CANTALOUR” to be considered sworn testimony in this case, and as such admissible as evidence in a Talossan trial, given Mr. Cantaloûr’s status as a non-citizen? We note that Exhibit A is nowhere referred to in the Prosecution’s brief as sworn testimony, nor is it anywhere alleged to be such.
2. If the answer to #1 is “yes”, is Mr. Cantaloûr subject to prosecution for perjury?
3. Is the Prosecution’s “EXHIBIT D: LEGAL QUESTIONS TO WES ERNI (OPPOSITION LEADER)” to be considered sworn testimony in this case? We note that Exhibit D is nowhere referred to in the Prosecution’s brief as sworn testimony, nor is it anywhere alleged to be such.
4. Is the Prosecution’s “EXHIBIT E: LEGAL QUESTIONS FOR MARC MOISAN” to be considered sworn testimony in this case, and as such admissible as evidence in a Talossan trial, given Mr. Moisan’s status as a non-citizen? We note that Exhibit E is referred to in the Prosecution’s brief as a “sworn affidavit”; but the brief contains no actual evidence, or even an assertion, that it was in fact sworn to.
5. If, arguendo, the Immigration Minister of Talossa were to issue a statement granting citizenship to a prospective citizen, but without sufficiently consulting the Government and the Opposition Leader (whatever sufficient consultation might be held to be), is the prospective citizen thereby actually admitted to citizenship?
6. If the answer to #5 is “no”, what criminal statute is the Immigration Minister charged with violating by unsuccessfully attempting to admit a prospective citizen? (We ask this with an eye to Article XIX 9th Covenant, which states: “The accused shall have the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation” and Article XIX 8th Covenant, which states: “No person shall be found guilty on account of any act or omission, unless, at the time of the act or omission, it constituted an offence under Talossan or international law ...”) To put the question another way, what law in force in Talossa criminalizes the unsuccessful attempt to admit a prospective citizen?
7. If the answer to #2 is “yes”, would the Cort perhaps prefer to hear arguments and testimony, and to reach a sentence in Mr. Cantaloûr’s inevitable perjury trial before or after continuing with the current case? The Defense respectfully suggests that if Mr. Cantaloûr’s perjury is proven — of which eventuality the Defense feels confident —, any sentence issued in the current case, and resting to any extent on his perjured testimony, will be flawed; and the current case will have to be reopened. (But this is, of course, a matter for the Cort to decide.)
8. Has Mr. Erni, since August 15 as the Prosecution’s brief alleges (or even, which would seem more rational, since August 20, when Prime Minister von Buchholtz became Prime Minister), actually been “Opposition Leader” within the meaning of the Law? 24RZ47 (The Opposition Leader Appointment Act) is not entirely clear, but it certainly provides for a two-week nomination period for nominations to the position, a poll of Opposition Members of the Cosâ during a two-week polling period, and the subsequent appointment of the “Opposition Leader” by the King. The Defense can find no documentary evidence whatsoever that the Council of Regency made such an appointment, and can calculate no way that the two statutory two-week periods could have elapsed between August 20 (or August 15) and September 8; and the Prosecution’s brief makes no reference to any such nominations, polling, or appointment having been made.
9. Is it the intention of this honourable Cort to consider the Prosecution's brief as constituting an opening argument, before the Prosecution proceeds to examine its witnesses (if any)?
Furthermore, if the answer to #1 is “yes”, in pursuit of the defendant’s rights under Article XIX 9th Covenant (“The accused shall have the right [...] to confront the witnesses against him, and to have subpoena power to obtain witnesses in his favour."), the Defense humbly moves that this honourable Cort arrange (or suggest how the Defense should arrange, for the Cort’s best convenience) for Prime Minister von Buchholtz's representatives to examine Mr. Cantaloûr. We suggest that the examination need not be face-to-face, but certainly must be made under oath; should be more-or-less real time, allowing for give and take of answers and questions (or else the examination will take roughly forever); should be made in the presence of the Cort so that possible objections can be ruled on promptly; should provide for Mr. Cantaloûr to have an attorney present and to receive legal advice; and should provide a chance for the Prosecution to cross-examine Mr. Cantaloûr when the Defense’s examination is complete.
On the other hand, if the answer to #1 is “no”, the Defense humbly moves that this honourable Cort exclude the Prosecution’s “EXHIBIT A: LEGAL QUESTIONS TO MARCUS CANTALOUR” as mere hearsay, and entirely irrelevant to this case.
Furthermore, if the answer to #3 is “yes”, the Defense humbly moves that this honourable Cort arrange (or suggest how the Defense should arrange, for the Cort’s best convenience) for Prime Minister von Buchholtz’s representatives to examine Mr. Erni.
On the other hand, if the answer to #3 is “no”, the Defense humbly moves that this honourable Cort exclude the Prosecution’s “EXHIBIT D: LEGAL QUESTIONS TO WES ERNI (OPPOSITION LEADER)” as mere hearsay, and entirely irrelevant to this case.
Furthermore, if the answer to #4 is “yes”, the Defense humbly moves that this honourable Cort arrange (or suggest how the Defense should arrange, for the Cort’s best convenience) for Prime Minister von Buchholtz’s representatives to cross-examine Mr. Moisan.
On the other hand, if the answer to #4 is “no”, the Defense humbly moves that this honourable Cort exclude the Prosecution’s “EXHIBIT E: LEGAL QUESTIONS FOR MARC MOISAN” as mere hearsay, and entirely irrelevant to this case.
Furthermore — since the Prosecution's brief alleges that the defendant insufficiently consulted "the Government" regarding the naturalizations in question (citing 34RZ22, The Talossan Immigration Act of 2005: "Upon completion of step #5, the Immigration Minister, in consultation with the Government and with the Opposition Leader, shall either grant or refuse the prospective citizen Talossan citizenship."), and since "the Government" is exactly defined in Article XII Section 1 ("The Government consists of the Seneschál, the Distáin, the Foreign Minister, Defence Minister, Immigration Minister, and Minister of Stuff.") — the Defense requests that this honourable Cort issue, serve, and enforce subpoenas (or advise the Defense as to how the Cort would have the Defense issue, serve, and enforce subpoenas, for the Cort’s best convenience) to the following persons who served as members of the Government during the period in question, as defense witnesses: former Distáin Xhorxh Asmoûr, former Foreign Minister (and now Cestoûr) Amy Durnford, Foreign Minister Sam Tyler, former Defense Minister Pete Hottelet, former Defence Minister Joe Clark, former Minister of Stuff (and now Cestoûr) Ben Madison, and Minister of Stuff Don Deutschmann.
Furthermore, the Defense moves that this honourable Cort arrange (or suggest how the Defense should arrange, for the Cort’s best convenience) for Prime Minister von Buchholtz’s representatives to examine Mr. Asmoûr, Ms. Durnford, Mr. Tyler, Mr. Hottlet, Mr. Clark, Mr. Madison, and Mr. Deutschmann.
Furthermore — since the Prosecution alleges that testimony from Justices of the Uppermost Cort is germane to the Prosecution's case, and indeed provides (in “EXHIBIT E: LEGAL QUESTIONS FOR MARC MOISAN”) what appears to be testimony from one such Justice — the Defense requests that this honourable Cort issue, serve, and enforce subpoenas (or advise the Defense as to how the Cort would have the Defense issue, serve, and enforce subpoenas, for the Cort’s best convenience) to the other two Justices who served during the time in question, as witnesses for the Defense. (The other Justices are, of course, Mr. Ken Opplinger, now regrettably a Cestoûr, and Senior Justice Dan Lorentz, a Talossan.)
Furthermore, the Defense moves that this honourable Cort arrange (or suggest how the Defense should arrange, for the Cort’s best convenience) for Prime Minister von Buchholtz’s representatives to examine Mr. Opplinger and Senior Justice Lorentz. We note, further, that Senior Justice Lorentz’s personal knowledge is explicitly invoked as evidentiary in the Prosecution’s brief: “[Senior Justice Lorentz] may, of course, rely on his own experience in verifying Justice Moisan’s claims.” On the Prosecution’s own representation, therefore, Senior Justice Lorentz’s testimony in response to questions from the Defense (whether that testimony should be regarded as direct or cross-examination), is relevant; and indeed, the Defense regards it as a necessary component of the defense.
God save Talossa! God save King Louis! God save this honourable Cort!
Respectfully submitted,
Quedéir Castiglhâ, Attorney General, for Prime Minister Fritz von Buchholtz, Defendant (John Woolley acting merely of Mr. Castiglhâ's and Mr. von Buchholtz's request to post this on Wittenberg, having no official capacity in this case whatsoever)
|
|
|
kri
Guest
| | Re: Courtroom: Erni v. Talossa
« Reply #3 on Sept 12, 2005, 9:26pm » | |
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, Response
Date: 12 September 2005/XXVI
Esteemed and Aged Justice Lorentz,
Defence presents a number of complex, wordy arguments in un-numbered paragraphs making response thereto very difficult on such short notice. Plaintiff suspects this is deliberate, and believes the entire Defence presentation to be abusive. We will number the paragraphs for them and proceed from there:
[1] Defence raises procedural problems regarding the lack of time to hear the case. However, the Cort has ruled that the decision will be made before the election, therefore, paragraph 1 is irrelevant. The issue in this case is, did the Immigration Minister act legally?
[2] Paragraph 2 (under which we include the eight numbered questions) raises several extraneous points. Defence questions the value of evidence (1), asks an irrelevant jurisdictional question (2), questions the value of evidence (3), questions the value of evidence (4), switches to considering the entire case at hand (5; more about this below in [13]), asks whether violation of the law in this case is criminal (6; more about this below in [14]), threatens an “inevitable perjury trial” against a witness (7), raises an extraneous issue about whether Wes Erni is the Opposition Leader (8, which we will discuss below), and asks a procedural question (9).
[3] Paragraph 3 (“Furthermore, if the answer to #1 is ‘yes’”) is a request for a “more or less real time” debate between Defendant’s counsel and Plaintiff’s witnesses. As the Cort has already decided that this case will be heard before Thursday, this paragraph is irrelevant to its outcome. If Defendant had evidence countering Plaintiff’s witnesses, Defendant should simply have produced the evidence. Defendant has not done so.
In the four days since Plaintiff filed his brief, Defendant could have been asking the questions and assembling the testimony he needs. To Plaintiff’s best knowledge, he has not. To give but one example, Mr Metáiriâ, a representative of the CLP Government and a CLP candidate for Senate, had dinner with Mr Erni, the Plaintiff, tonight. This would have been an ideal moment to ask questions of Mr Erni for purposes of this case. No such questions were asked. It is evident that Defendant has no real intention of asking any questions for his defence. We respectfully submit to the Cort that these are all nothing more than delaying tactics.
[4] Paragraph 4 (“On the other hand, if the answer to #1 is ‘no’”) is a request to the Cort to throw out Márcüs Cantaloûr’s testimony “as mere hearsay” (evidently not being aware of the definition of the term “hearsay”). Defendant attempts to divert the Cort’s attention from the issue at hand. The issue in this case is, did the Immigration Minister act legally?
[5] Paragraph 5 (“Furthermore, if the answer to #3 is ‘yes’”) is a request for more “examinations” of the witnesses. While this would be preferable in any other context, the Cort has already given its order that the case be decided quickly. If the Defence has any evidence countering Mr Erni’s testimony, it should simply produce it.
[6] Paragraph 6 (“On the other hand, if the answer to #3 is ‘no’”) is identical in form to paragraph 4, above, and is a diversion. The issue in this case is, did the Immigration Minister act legally?
[7] Paragraph 7 (“Furthermore, if the answer to #4 is ‘yes’”) is identical in form to paragraph 5, above, and is a diversion. The issue in this case is, did the Immigration Minister act legally?
[8] Paragraph 8 (“On the other hand, if the answer to #4 is ‘no’”) is identical in form to paragraph 4, above, and is a diversion. The issue in this case is, did the Immigration Minister act legally?
[9] Paragraph 9 (“Furthermore — since the Prosecution’s brief”) is obfuscatory niggling over definitions of the term “Government.” In a parliamentary system, the Prime Minister is the head of the government (OrgLaw, Art. XI, Sec. 1), his official actions are the actions of the Government (OrgLaw, Art. XI, Sec. 5), the Cabinet is defined technically as the Government (OrgLaw, Art. XII, Sec. 1), and the Government is responsible to the Prime Minister (OrgLaw, Art. XII, Sec. 2). Arguing that the Prime Minister is somehow not responsible for the Government of Talossa is another diversion, and is completely irrelevant to this case. The issue in this case is, did the Immigration Minister act legally?
[10] Paragraph 10 (“Furthermore, the Defense moves”) is identical in form to paragraph 5, above, and the arguments given there need not be repeated.
[11] Paragraph 11 (“Furthermore — since the Prosecution alleges”) is yet another request for more subpoenas and more cross-examination. It is identical in argumentation to paragraph 5, above, and the arguments given there need not be repeated.
[12] Paragraph 12 (“Furthermore, the Defense moves”) is identical in form to paragraph 11, above, and the arguments given there need not be repeated.
[13] In Defendant’s paragraph 2, clause 5 (“If, arguendo”), Defence asks whether a person might be granted citizenship “without sufficiently consulting the Government and the Opposition Leader (whatever sufficient consultation might be held to be).” This paragraph is, of course, simply the case itself. Defence offers no argumentation, and merely asks the Cort to rule. The point of paragraph 2, clause 5 is unclear, as it does not seem to “defend” Defendant’s conduct.
The absence of argumentation or a counter-definition from the Defence is decisive, especially at this late stage. The Cort will note that in Organic Law, Article XVI, Section 5, the Cort’s scope to interpret laws is somewhat restricted by the power of the authors of said laws to offer crucial interpretations thereof: “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).” (Full text quoted below under [14].)
As the authors of Talossan immigration law (as quoted in Plaintiff’s original brief) are R. Ben Madison and Márcüs Cantaloûr, both of whom are active participants in Plaintiff’s case, their interpretations of these immigration laws, as expressed in Plaintiff’s original brief, should carry decisive weight, especially in absence of any contrary interpretation being presented at all by Defendant. We believe the time for them to do so has come and gone.
[14] In Defendant’s paragraph 2, clause 6 (“If the answer to #5 is ‘no’”), Defence asks what criminal statute has been violated by the Immigration Minister’s charged misconduct. It is a long-standing Talossan principle not to be crusted over with statute, and the consequent freedom given to the Cort is enshrined in Article XVI, Section 5:
[Article XVI, Section 5: “Where there is an exact precedent, a court shall rule according to law. 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, consistent with the Covenants of Rights and Freedoms. 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 the event of a difference in interpretation as to the meaning of a law, the court shall render an official interpretation with full respect to the Covenants of Rights and Freedoms. If one of the judges wrote the law, he does not have to step down and designate a temporary replacement.”]
The Cort will notice that Defendant, in his paragraph 2, clause 6, has failed to quote the entirety of Article XIX, 8th Covenant, the text omitted (deliberately?) appearing in CAPS:
“No person shall be found guilty on account of any act or omission, unless, at the time of the act or omission, it constituted an offence under Talossan or international law, OR WAS CRIMINAL ACCORDING TO THE GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF LAW RECOGNIZED BY THE COMMUNITY OF CIVILIZED NATIONS, AS INTERPRETED BY TALOSSAN COURTS IN LINE WITH TALOSSAN TRADITIONS AND NEEDS.”
In the absence of statute, it is the responsibility and authority of this Cort to make such decisions. In any case, the issue of criminal conduct is germane to only a small part of this case, the central issue of which remains: Did the Immigration Minister act legally, and, therefore, are his actions legally binding?
CONCLUSION:
The issue in this case is, did the Immigration Minister act legally, and, therefore, are his actions legally binding?
In Plaintiff’s original brief dated 8 September 2005, several specific charges were made regarding the Immigration Minister’s lack of compliance with immigration law.
Defendant’s brief, dated 12 September 2005, simply does not address a single one of those charges. Instead, Defendant’s brief raises procedural issues, timing issues, jurisdictional issues, and other issues beyond the scope of this case. The issue in this case is, and is only, did the Immigration Minister act legally, and, therefore, are his actions legally binding?
At no point in Defendant’s brief does Defendant claim to have been acting legally.
In the absence of Defendant having defended himself, we ask for a default judgement from the Cort on behalf of Mr Erni, and the timely granting of all four “Remedies” specified at the end of Plaintiff’s original brief.
Sincerely,
Weston J. Erni, petitioner
Talossan Citizen since 1985
P.S. Note to Justice Lorentz: A communication was received today from Márcüs Cantaloûr regarding an e-mail received from Fritz von Buchholtz dated 4 April 2005. In this e-mail, Mr von Buchholtz states to Mr Cantaloûr, “I am going to announce Gary Hawkins on Wittenberg if you have no objections.” Mr Cantaloûr graciously forwarded a copy of this to Plaintiff, with the understanding that it might require him to clarify his testimony regarding this one particular prospective citizen (out of the two or three dozen in question). Mr Cantaloûr has completed a thorough search of all his past e-mails to find any instances of “consultation” with the Immigration Minister and this is all he can find. A copy of the e-mail can be furnished at the request of the Cort. We apologize to the Cort for any misunderstanding, and publish this in the interest of full disclosure and transparency.
| |
|
Baron Fritz
Citizen since 12-7-2004; Knight since 11-30-2005
member is offline
![[avatar]](http://www.KingdomOfTalossa.net/heraldry/t-fritz.gif "[avatar]")
Joined: Mar 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 575
Location: Greater Talossan Area
| | Re: Courtroom: Erni v. Talossa
« Reply #4 on Sept 13, 2005, 6:26am » | |
Each candidate was announced on Wittenberg thus informing the Prime Minister and the rest of the Kingdom. I believed this was the proper thing to do and that was confirmed by a variety of supporting posts from the King (see welcome Eric Lenz) on Wittenberg. There are no posts or e-mails from either the KIng, the Prime Minister or the Cort objecting to or questioning any of the new immigrants. In fact, Ben would call from time to time to get all their address's, phone numbers, etc.
Look into your hearts and answer these simple questions. If these new immigrants had joined Bens party, the MN, would we be having this discussion now? And one more. Why would the former King of Talossa be working so hard to throw twenty people out of Talossa? We all know the answer to these questions.
| |
|
King John
Talossan since 5-7-2005; Knight since 11-30-2005; King since 3-14-2007
member is offline
COR UNUM
Joined: May 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,939
Location: Centennial, CO (Florencia)
| | Re: Courtroom: Erni v. Talossa
« Reply #5 on Sept 13, 2005, 6:49am » | |
Your Honour, if I may?
The Defense (with which I have been asked to assist the Attorney General) cannot imagine why Mr. Madison (or Mr. Erni) would think our preliminary questions and motions to the Cort constituted a "brief"; nor are we entirely happy with Mr. Madison's springing to provide answers to our questions and to deny our motions on behalf of the Cort.
We apologize if this procedure is becoming less formal and orderly than Your Honour intended, and reiterate our commitment to proceed as swiftly as possible to a resolution — given the need to protect Prime Minister von Buchholtz's rights.
If Your Honour thinks it might do any good, I would be happy to make myself available for a phone call to discuss some of the procedural issues in this trial.
I thank Your Honour.
— John Woolley, assistant to Attorney General Castiglhâ
|
|
|
Duke Ian von Metairia
Citizen 1-1983; Knight 7-1992; Count 2-23-2006; Duke 10-23-2006; struck out willingly 
member is offline
![[avatar]](http://www.KingdomOfTalossa.net/passport.gif "[avatar]")
Joined: May 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 475
Location: Milwaukee
| | Re: Courtroom: Erni v. Talossa
« Reply #6 on Sept 13, 2005, 7:55am » | |
"In the four days since Plaintiff filed his brief, Defendant could have been asking the questions and assembling the testimony he needs. To Plaintiff’s best knowledge, he has not. To give but one example, Mr Metáiriâ, a representative of the CLP Government and a CLP candidate for Senate, had dinner with Mr Erni, the Plaintiff, tonight. This would have been an ideal moment to ask questions of Mr Erni for purposes of this case. No such questions were asked. It is evident that Defendant has no real intention of asking any questions for his defence. We respectfully submit to the Cort that these are all nothing more than delaying tactics."
OK, so howcome YOU or Wes didn't bring any of this stuff up to me, either??
The fact of the matetr is that I am not participating in this case. I haven't even read your lawsuit or the gov't's defense against same. Therfore, you cannot say that my non-discussion of this matter means anything whatsoever.
This remark of yours was brought to my attention, however, and that is the only reason I'm saying anything about the matter now (else I would likely have never seen it)!
The reason I don't like to discuss Talossa with you and/or Wes is because I want to have a peaceful, enjoyable dinner with old friends. PERIOD. If Talossan stuff is brought up, it's not going to be that because we find ourselves on different sides of so many issues, and I'd rather not let Talossa-stuff get in the way of those meetings.
If you want to talk Talossa, fine, I'll talk Talossa. But don't look for me to be the one to initiate it.
|
Duke von Metairia |
|
King John
Talossan since 5-7-2005; Knight since 11-30-2005; King since 3-14-2007
member is offline
COR UNUM
Joined: May 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,939
Location: Centennial, CO (Florencia)
| | Observations on the Prosecution's recent posting
« Reply #7 on Sept 13, 2005, 11:35am » | |
May it please this Honourable Court:
The Defense observes that in a posting made overnight, Mr. Erni, as well as taking upon himself to answer questions and motions which we had addressed to this Honourable Cort, raises several new legal arguments and introduces quite a number of new pieces of evidence. We find ourselves puzzled, challenged!, as to how best to respond to a brief that changes and expands day by day.
Simply to point out what we're talking about, we note that Mr. Erni:
1. States that "the Cort has ruled that the decision will be made before the election", that "the Cort has already decided that this case will be heard before Thursday", that "the Cort has already given its order that the case be decided quickly", and so on. The Defense has been informed of no such ruling or decision or order, and doubts very much whether Mr. Erni's statements are accurate. If, however, there is any truth in them, if rulings or decisions or orders are being issued but the Defense is not being notified, the Prosecution has certainly (and perhaps inadvertently) raised dire issues of due process.
2. Argues that because the Defense has not acted according to the Prosecution's ideas of how the Defense should be acting, that the "Defendant has no real intention of asking any questions for his defence", and that therefore the Defendant's motions for subpoenas should be refused. We certainly thank the learned Mr. Erni for his assistance in the Defense, but suggest that he might not be entirely unbiassed in the help he offers us.
3. Argues that an informal conversation between Mr. Erni and his dinner companion (who has no standing, or as far as we know any particular interest, in this case) should have, or could have, constituted an actual cross-examination.
4. Argues (strangely) that examination of the precise definition of "Government" found in the Organic Law constitutes "obfuscatory niggling", and is entirely irrelevant to the meaning of "Government" in the statute on which the Prosecution's entire case depends.
5. Introduces as (new) evidence the assertion that "the authors of Talossan immigration law" — the statute in question — "are R. Ben Madison and Márcüs Cantaloûr". (This would seem to contradict evidence introduced in the Prosecution's original brief, that Márcüs Cantaloûr was unaware of the content of that statute.)
6. Introduces the new evidence that "their interpretations [R. Ben Madison's and Márcüs Cantaloûr's] of these immigration laws" were those "expressed in Plaintiff’s original brief". (Again, this seems to contradict Márcüs Cantaloûr's original testimony.)
7. Argues for the first time from that new evidence that the Prosecution's interpretation of the law "should carry decisive weight".
8. Asserts that "R. Ben Madison and Márcüs Cantaloûr [...] are active participants in Plaintiff’s case", clearly raising the new issue of the legal status of an action in the Talossan courts some of whose "active participants" are not Talossan citizens. What standing do Cestoûrs have to prosecute or complain in the Talossan courts?
9. Expresses ("the time for them [the Defense] to do so [offer counter-arguments] has come and gone") the interesting argument that the Defense had a time limit of yesterday in which to argue this case.
10. Makes a novel legal argument that "in the absence of statute" criminal defendants may still be found guilty of violating the law, and that this is somehow consistent with Article XIX, 8th Covenant. (The Cort will note that we do not here argue this point, but merely point out that the Prosecution has argued it now for the first time.)
11. Doesn't exactly argue, but asserts over and over, that the Defense questions and motions of yesterday morning constituted a "brief".
12. Seems to cast aside, as "germane to only a small part of this case", the Prosecution's repeated assertions of criminal guilt on the part of the Defendant, but reasserts his [Mr. Erni's] contention that nevertheless the Defendant should be criminally punished.
13. Implies that the Defendant's rights under the Covenant of Rights and Freedoms "to request information on his legal rights", "to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation", "to confront the witnesses against him", and "to have subpoena power to obtain witnesses in his favour" should all be set aside in this case — apparently all trumped by the Prosecution's desire for a fast decision.
14. Seems to argue ("At no point in Defendant’s brief does Defendant claim to have been acting legally.") that what he considers the Defendant's failure to defend himself constitutes some degree of admission, or evidence, of the Defendant's guilt; evidently rejecting the Defendant's right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, and his right not to be compelled to testify against himself.
15. Modifies Márcüs Cantaloûr's earlier testimony (or at least introduces a sort of hearsay evidence that Mr. Cantaloûr has modified his own testimony) that he was not consulted about Gary Hawkins' naturalization; but does not modify the Prosecution's demand that Mr. Hawkins be stripped of his citizenship. (This raises the question of whether the Prosecution now considers consultation with the Prime Minister to be irrelevant to the statutory process being examined.)
16. Introduces new evidence (at second- or third-hand) about how Mr. Cantaloûr searched his past emails without finding anything (else) to change his testimony.
So today, Tuesday morning, the Defense finds itself with no fewer than sixteen new Prosecution points about which we must think, do research, gather evidence, consult, and respond. We are happy to do so; we exult in the ever-expanding opportunity to run rings around Mr. Erni's legal team; but it is frankly impossible to do so in a matter of a few hours.
— John Woolley, for the Defense
|
|
|
King John
Talossan since 5-7-2005; Knight since 11-30-2005; King since 3-14-2007
member is offline
COR UNUM
Joined: May 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,939
Location: Centennial, CO (Florencia)
| | Re: Courtroom: Erni v. Talossa
« Reply #8 on Sept 13, 2005, 6:32pm » | |
May it please this Honourable Cort:
[1] It would have been extraordinarily difficult to prepare anything even vaguely like an adequate brief in this case, given 1) the length and complexity of the arguments asserted by the Prosecution both in their initial brief ("Brief") and in their response to the Defense's questions and motions to the Cort ("Answer"), 2) the very short period of time (five days since Brief, half of one day since Answer) between the Prosecution's arguments and the Defense's "deadline" for answering (if it was a deadline), 3) the non-response of the Cort to the defendant's questions, in spite of his right under Article XIX 7th Covenant "to request information on his legal rights", 4) the defendant's inability to summon defense witnesses before the Cort, in spite of his rights under Article XIX 9th Covenant "to confront the witnesses against him, and to have subpoena power to obtain witnesses in his favour", 5) the unique difficulty faced by the defendant of being required to defend himself against a criminal charge, when no statute was ever cited making his alleged act criminal, in spite of his right under Article XIX 8th Covenant not to be held criminally guilty for acts not defined in law as criminal — it would, I say, have been extraordinarily difficult under such handicaps to prepare anything like an adequate defense, were it not for the entire failure of the Prosecution to present anything even approaching proof of guilt, malfeasance, or even administrative error.
[2] Prosecution (Answer 13) asserts that "R. Ben Madison and Márcüs Cantaloûr ... are active participants in Plaintiff’s case". But neither of them is a citizen of Talossa, and neither of them has any standing to be actively participating in a case in the Talossan courts. In fact, as presumably we are all aware, R. Ben Madison is not merely an active participant, but the driving force and genius behind the entire Prosecution. On this ground, the Defense moves that the entire case be summarily dismissed.
[3] Prosecution has mingled civil/administrative with criminal complaints. They allege that Prime Minister von Buchholtz has “openly and flagrantly disregard[ed]” the laws (Brief 7), that he “is in clear violation of the law” (Brief 2), and that he has engaged in “long-term, willful and eager violation of the law” (Brief 7); the Prosecution invokes Article XVI Section 12 (“The courts shall have power to enforce penalties against violators, commensurate with the severity of the crime.”), and asks the Uppermost Cort to impose criminal penalties on Prime Minister von Buchholtz, writing “We ask the Cort to invoke Article XVI, Section 12 and to impose a one-time sentence on Fritz von Buchholtz” (Brief 7). At the same time, and somewhat confusingly, Prosecution asserts that "the issue of criminal conduct is germane to only a small part of this case" (Answer 14). The Defense disagrees, and asserts that in our opinion, the issue of criminal conduct and the Prosecution’s repeated plea to the Cort to punish the defendant with criminal sanctions is the main point of the case, and not a little side-water to be glossed over quickly.
Civil and criminal cases follow different rules of court procedure, of admissibility of evidence, of degree of proof required, and so on. For this reason, Defense asserts that it is impossible, with justice, to mingle a civil with a criminal case; and moves that this Cort dismiss Erni v. Talossa immediately, inviting the Prosecution, if they so desire, to refile as two separate cases, one of which would follow civil procedure and seek civil relief, the other of which would lead to a criminal trial and seek punishment of the guilty.
[4] That failing, the Defense moves that the Cort immediately rule that the defendant is innocent of all criminal charges, since whatever criminal charges may or may not be implied by the Prosecution, defense against criminal charges is impossible under the rules of civil proceedings.
[5] Prosecution's Exhibit A and Exhibit E are inadmissible. There is no indication that either of them is actual sworn testimony; all we have, it would seem, is Mr. Erni's assertion that Mr. Moisan and Mr. Cantaloûr said (or wrote) these things. Or perhaps, Mr. Erni's assertion that Mr. Madison asserted that Mr. Moisan and Mr. Cantaloûr said or wrote these things. They are undated, unwitnessed, of unrevealed provenance. Nor is either Mr. Moisan (of whose veracity we feel certain) or Mr. Cantaloûr subject to the jurisdiction of the Talossan courts. Nor has the defendant's right "to confront” these “witnesses against him" been respected in this case. On these grounds, the Defense requests that the Cort entirely exclude Exhibit A and Exhibit E from evidence.
[6] Exhibit A contains patent falsehood; if it is to be held as sworn testimony, the falsehood is criminal perjury:2. [Q.] Mr Prime Minister, were you aware of the immigration law requiring “the Immigration Minister” to act entirely “in consultation with the Government and with the Opposition Leader” on questions of granting citizenship, and did you understand that no person can be lawfully naturalized as a Talossan citizen without this consultation?
[A.] While this is a matter that I should have been aware of, I did not become aware of this fact until August of 2005.
But Mr. Cantaloûr was the author of the law in question! The last line of the law itself reads "Uréu q'estadra så: Márcüs Cantaloûr (MN-Atatürk)". He discusses the law on Wittenberg (at http://talossa.proboards32.com/index.cgi....8935542&page=1) on 21 February 2005, introducing it with the words "I have revised my bill making changes to the immigration procedure to include the text of the current law with my additions.
Here is the revised text of my bill:". He submitted the bill to the March 2005 Clark. He voted in its favour both in the Senate and in the Cosâ. Prosecution tells us (Answer 13) that it was Mr. Cantaloûr's interpretation of the Immigration law that was contained in Brief, and that he was its author, and that therefore his interpretation of it "should carry decisive weight". All this goes to show that Mr. Cantaloûr's assertion that he “did not become aware of this fact until August of 2005” can be nothing but a deliberate falsehood.
For these reasons, Defense requests that the Cort immediately dismiss Mr. Cantaloûr's so-called testimony as that of a perjurer (or at least a liar).
[7] Because there remains no evidence whatsoever that the defendant, as Immigration Minister, failed in any way to meet the statutory requirements of 34RZ2, the Defense requests that the Cort immediately dismiss Erni v. Talossa in its entirety.
[8] Prosecution's entire case rests on one clause of 34RZ2:[T]he Immigration Minister, in consultation with the Government and with the Opposition Leader, shall either grant or refuse the prospective citizen Talossan citizenship.
The Prosecution asserts 1) that in some of the naturalizations in question, those before he became Prime Minister, the Immigration Minister failed to consult with the Government, and 2) that in some of the naturalizations in question, those after he became Prime Minister, the Immigration Minister failed to consult with the Opposition Leader. We deny both these assertions.
[9] The word "Government" is exactly defined in Talossan law, in Article XII Section 1 of the Organic Law: "The Government consists of the Seneschál, the Distáin, the Foreign Minister, Defence Minister, Immigration Minister, and Minister of Stuff." 34RZ2, in using the word “Government”, cannot be held to have meant “Prime Minister”; Mr. Madison and Mr. Cantaloûr could have written “Prime Minister” if that’s what they had meant. They wrote “Government”, the Ziu passed the law saying “Government”, and “Government” it is.
[10] The question then arises whether the defendant, as Immigration Minister, consulted the Government. He says he did (Exhibit G), and no evidence contradicts his assertion. (Indeed, defendant’s Exhibit G is the only sworn testimony introduced anywhere in this entire case.) He consulted the Prime Minister directly on at least a few occasions, the Minister of Stuff constantly, the Immigration Minister (himself) unavoidably — all three members of the Government. One of Prime Minister Cantaloûr's two Defence Ministers is one of the very immigrants whose immigration the Prosecution says was not discussed with the Government! The first assertion fails.
[11] The second assertion does no better. We argue 1) that Talossa has not had an Opposition Leader (within the meaning of the law) during the entire period in question, and 2) that the lack of an Opposition Leader does not of itself make immigration impossible.
[12] As to the first point, the law is clear. 24RZ47 (“The Opposition Leader Appointment Act”) establishes the mechanism by which elections to the position of Opposition Leader are to be held, and requires that the King appoint the Opposition Leader so elected. (Features of the election process include a two-week period after the general election for nominations, and a two-week election period, followed by appointment of the elected Opposition Leader.) The next Cosâ, fearing that 24RZ47 might be held Inorganic, passed 25RZ36, “The Opposition Leader OrgLaw Amendment Act”, calling for a referendum, which was held and which amended the Organic Law to include the “Opposition Leader” section, Article XII Section 10, providing that “The exact procedure of appointment [of the Opposition Leader] shall be determined by law.” The law in question is of course 24RZ47, affirmed by 25RZ36. But no elections or appointments of an Opposition Leader have been held since 2003, when Chris Gruber was elected to the post.
In defiance, or more likely in ignorance, of all this, Prosecution states that “Opposition Leader” means simply the “leader of the largest opposition party” (Brief 4), and that Mr. Erni is therefore now Opposition Leader. This is obviously wrong. Mr. Erni was never nominated, never elected, never appointed. The ZPT and OTP are just as much opposition parties as the MN, and, according to the law, are permitted to participate in the selection of an Opposition Leader, but none of them ever voted for Mr. Erni for the job. Some confusion may arise from the dual use of the word “leader” as “leader of a political party” and “Opposition Leader”; that this is a confusion becomes obvious when one notes that the leader of a political party doesn’t have to be in the Cosâ at all, whereas Opposition Leader must of necessity be an MC.
[13] One last possible argument remains, and the Prosecution makes it. “If there is no Opposition Leader, no citizenships can be processed until one is elected.” (Brief 4) The reasoning is so: The statute requires that the Opposition Leader, among others, be consulted in order for immigration to occur; but there is at the moment no Opposition Leader; therefore, immigration cannot occur.
But this Cort, very recently, has ruled that an exactly similar argument in the “Dandelions” case did not hold. In that case, Secretary of State Woolley, with clever futility, argued: The Organic Law requires that all three Justices be consulted in order for delegation of a Cort decision to a single Justice to occur; but there are not at the moment three Justices; therefore, delegation cannot occur.
The Cort must follow precedent — and an awfully recent precedent at that! — and dismiss the Prosecution’s argument.
Furthermore, if the non-existence of an Opposition Leader prevents immigration from occurring, then no immigration has happened since some time in 2003, and such luminaries as former Justice Marc Moisan, MC Al Keller, Burgermeister Greg Rajala, and Prime Minister Fritz von Buchholtz himself would have to be ruled to have been “illegal immigrants”. This whole line of reasoning is patently absurd.
[14] In short, the defendant as Immigration Minister did in fact consult the Government in every case of immigration; he did not consult the Opposition Leader for the simple reason that there wasn’t one; the lack of an Opposition Leader cannot be held to prevent any immigration from happening; and therefore, no law was broken, and all the immigrations occurred exactly as they were believed at the time to have occurred. For these reasons, the Defense requests that the Cort dismiss Erni v. Talossa in its entirety.
[15] Article XI Section 5 of the Organic Laws says that Prime Dictates “take effect upon their countersignature by the King”. This seemingly strict requirement has always been held, as former Justice Moisan explained recently (in reference to the very PD introduced by the Prosecution in Exhibit F), to have been met if the King knew about the PD, and didn’t object:There are plenty of precedent for this (ironically I fought another PD in the past under the same argument and lost).
A PD is consider valid as long as the King (or Regent) does not veto it. Ben was obviously aware of this PD and didn't veto it, that make it "signed" as far as the intend of the law goes. Prime Minister Cantaloûr declared on Wittenberg (at http://talossa.proboards32.com/index.cgi....993853&page=1), speaking of this very PD: John, you have stated the The King should be ashamed of himself for this PD. I authored and issued the PD, The King was not involved in the process.
[16] 34RZ2 requires that the Immigration Minister act “in consultation” with various people. “Consultation” is a less stringent requirement than insisting that those people “consent” or “approve” or “give permission” for the action; and consent or approval or permission in turn would be a less stringent requirement than one insisting that someone “countersign” the Immigration Minister’s act. And yet Talossa does have one very important law explicitly requiring that an act be “countersigned”; and yet it is considered sufficient “countersigning” if the countersigner was aware of the act and did not object to it. Much more, then, is “permission” or “consent” to be assumed if the consenting party is aware of some act and does not object; and much more even than that, when the law requires only “consultation”. Neither R. Ben Madison (King, Secretary of State, Deputy Immigration Minister, Minister of Stuff, part author of 34RZ2, and expert on Talossan law) nor Marcús Cantaloûr (Prime Minister, Senator, MC, and principle author of 34RZ2) nor Marc Moisan (Justice of the Uppermost Cort, MC, and expert on Talossan law), nor indeed anyone else in any office whatsoever, at any time objected to the way the defendant was fulfilling his legal obligation to consult them and others on immigration matters — until the filing of Erni v. Talossa on 8 September 2005.
For these reasons, the Defense asks that the Cort immediately dismiss Erni v. Talossa in its entirety.
[17] The defendant reasonably expected, and relied upon, R. Ben Madison and Marcús Cantaloûr to correct any missteps he might make in his application of the law. Madison, after all, was his Deputy as well as the King; Cantaloûr was his superior officer in the Government, charged with the oversight of the whole Cabinet; and they both were the authors of the law in question. They repeatedly, by action and by word, assured the defendant that his execution of the Immigration Ministry was to their satisfaction. (See Prime Minister von Buchholtz’s sworn testimony in Exhibit G.)
[18] Joe Clark, a friend of Mr. Madison’s, immigrated in June 2005 and was very promptly named by Mr. Cantaloûr to the Government post of Defence Minister. Mr. Clark also was given 20 seats in the Cosâ. Clearly, there was no doubt in the Prime Minister’s mind, or anyone else’s, that Mr. Clark was a legal immigrant, a citizen of Talossa. And yet now Mr. Madison and Mr. Cantaloûr ask the Cort to rule that Mr. Clark (and 19 others with him) were never citizens at all. They contradict themselves at every turn.
[19] For all these reasons, each one sufficient in itself, and together absolutely and indisputably conclusive, the Defense requests this Honourable Cort immediately to dismiss Erni v. Talossa in its entirety, and to affirm the entire innocence of Prime Minster Buchholtz of any criminal wrongdoing.
The Defense thanks Your Honour for his nearly infinite patience.
God save Talossa! God save King Louis! God save this Honourable Cort!
John Woolley (for the Defense)
Quedéir Castiglhâ, Attorney General (for the Defense)
Fritz von Buchholtz, Prime Minister (Defendant)
EXHIBIT F: SWORN TESTIMONY OF FRITZ VON BUCHHOLTZ (transcribed by John Woolley, 13 September 2005)
Q. Do you swear that the testimony you are about to give shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
A. I do.
Q. Were you, from February 2005 to the present, the Immigration Minister of Talossa?
A. Yes, Prime Minister Cantaloûr appointed me Immigration Minister in February, just after he became Prime Minister.
Q. Were you aware of the provisions of the Talossan Immigration Act of 2005?
A. Yes. I’m not really a lawyer or anything, but I knew what the law said. It wasn’t passed until March I think.
Q. One clause of the law reads, “The Immigration Minister, in consultation with the Government and with the Opposition Leader, shall either grant or refuse the prospective citizen Talossan citizenship.” Were you specifically aware of this clause?
A. Yes.
Q. In the course of your duties, did you always obey this law?
A. Yes.
Q. In the case of every immigrant?
A. Yes, in every case.
Q. How many cases would that be?
A. I don’t recall exactly. Secretary of State John Woolley told me that from February until now, there were 21, and I think he was right.
Q. And in every case, you fulfilled the law?
A. Yes. I understand that some people think what I did wasn’t enough consultation, but I thought it was. I do think it was.
Q. You thought you were obeying the law. Did you have any specific reason for thinking so?
A. Well, I was in constant touch with Ben, almost every day, either in person or on the phone or by email, and he always knew everything I was doing as Immigration Minister. He was the King, and Secretary of State, and Deputy Immigration Minister, and Minister of Stuff, and about eight other things.
Q. So you thought that consulting with Ben satisfied the statutory requirement to consult with the Government and with the Opposition Leader?
A. Well, with the government anyway. I thought Ben kind of was the Government. He had all these jobs in the government, including Minister of Stuff which I guess is officially part of the “Government”. And I knew Ben was talking to Mark all the time. None of this stuff was done in secret.
Ben was very happy with the job I was doing. We talked constantly on the phone about it. Dan didn't even know Mark had appointed Dr. Ferrari as Ambassador to Peru, or Mark had appointed Joe Clark to his Cabinet. Odd acts when you don't think they are citizens or know about them.
Q. Did you do anything else to consult besides communicate with Ben?
A. Yes. Every single immigrant that came through the system, I posted their essays and information, on Wittenberg, where everyone could see it. And nobody ever said I should be doing different.
Q. Let me be clear about this. In the entire time you’ve been Immigration Minister, nobody ever told you that you weren’t consulting with them enough?
A. No, not until Wes and Ben’s lawsuit last week. That was the first time. And there were lots of times when Ben told me in person or wrote on Wittenberg that I was doing a great job, that he liked how I was handling the Immigration Ministry, that he had no complaints to make about my performance, and so on.
Q. Did you ever consult directly with Prime Minister Cantaloûr about immigration issues?
A. I think I emailed him once or twice, I don’t really remember. I’m pretty sure I did. I know he was reading Wittenberg, so he knew all the people who were coming through immigration.
Q. And did he ever tell you that he wanted to be more thoroughly consulted? Or that you weren’t doing what he wanted you to do as Immigration Minister?
A. No. Nobody ever said that, until last week.
Q. Did Prime Minister Cantaloûr ever express direct approval of the job you were doing, as Ben had done?
A. I think he did say something on Wittenberg one time about how all the Ministers were doing a great job, but not about me specifically. Of course, if he hadn’t liked what I was doing, he could have said so any time, and he didn’t. There were a lot of personal e-mails going back and forth between Mark and I. We talked about too many things to remember them all. He said (and it's on Wittenberg) that he knew I was an honest person, stuff like that. He thought I was doing an ezxcellent job as Immigration Minister. He never said I should change anything or do anything differently. Heck, he could have fired me and made somebody else Immigration Minister.
Q. But he didn’t fire you?
A. No – I’m still the Immigration Minister!
Q. What does that tell you, that he didn’t fire you?
A. I guess that he didn’t think I was breaking any laws, since I was in his cabinet and he was responsible for making sure I did my job right.
Q. Do you recall any other occasions on which you consulted with the Government on immigration matters?
A. Here are some of my recollections:
I e-mailed Mark Hamilton several times per Dr. Ferrari's request to be Ambassador to Peru. He finally responded and the appointment is posted on Wittenberg. He is our ambassador to Peru.
I called Ben and told him about each new immigrant. We discussed where they were from, their essay if it was interesting, and then he would get each name, address, phone number and e-mail address. He had too, otherwise how would he know how to contact and verify them, as he stated on Wittenberg that he did.
He was amazed that Victor Idowu joined because he was from Nigeria.
He gave me the "Official Talossan Citizenship List" at Talossa Fest. It includes myself, Jason Buchholtz, Matthew Cain, Don Duetschmann, Gary Hawkins, Patsy McCue, Peter Onsgard, Greg Rajala, and John Woolley. I still have that document and it is from Ben acting as the Secretary of State.
Just a week before he quit he invited me to have dinner with himself and Joe Clark. On Wittenberg both Joe and Patsy were brought in as friends of his and he vouched for them. Mark appointed Joe his Defense Minister where he remains today. I called Joe yesterday and he said he would remain in the cabinet.
Mark and I e-mailed each other periodically but he never questioned anything I was doing as Immigration Minister, never e-mailed to change this procedure or do anything differently. That only started on Wittenberg the week before they all quit.
Q. In all this so far, we’ve been talking about your consulting the Government before you were Prime Minister. Did you ever, during that time or after you became Prime Minister, consult the Opposition Leader?
A. I didn’t even know there was an Opposition Leader! I thought you had to be elected to be Opposition Leader. I was the head of the CLP, but the ZPT and OTP were opposition parties, too, and I’m not sure they would have wanted me for their Opposition Leader. Then, when I got to be Prime Minister, there wasn’t an Opposition Leader then either. There were a lot of empty jobs right then.
Q. How did you reconcile that in your mind with the law that required you to consult the Opposition Leader about immigration matters?
A. Well, if there isn’t one, I can’t consult him can I? I guess I just figured that if Ben or Marc Moisan or Mark Hamilton thought there was a problem, they’d tell me to do it different. They were the legal beagles, I was just the guy trying to bring new people into the Kingdom. And Ben kept telling me I was doing it just right, and nobody said different.
Q. Did you know who the authors of the Immigration Law were?
A. I don’t remember. Now I know it was Ben and Mark who wrote it, but I don’t remember if I knew it back then.
Q. So when you were depending on Ben and Prime Minister Cantaloûr to warn you if you did something illegal, you were depending on the same people who now are accusing you of illegal acts?
A. You got it. And these were the guys who should have known, if anyone knew, just what the law meant. Because they wrote it, right?
Q. Do you have any explanation of why they might have changed their mind about the legality of what you were doing?
A. Just that they started getting worried they might lose the election, so they had to find some way to try to win it. Politics, nothing else.
Q. Thank you, Mr. Prime Minister.
A. Sure.
|
|
|
Danihel Laurieir
Citizen since 7-1981; Count since 2-23-2006
member is offline
Videbimus Omnes
Joined: Jun 2004
Gender: Male
Posts: 400
| | Re: Courtroom: Erni v. Talossa
« Reply #9 on Sept 13, 2005, 9:41pm » | |
Everyone:
I'm sorry that I was unable to monitor conduct in this courtroom for the past day. I was travelling.
I would hope all Talossans--and even those concerned non-Talossans--could please indulge me and resist from posting on this thread unless I (the Cort) invite to do so.
So, please no further posts from anyone, with one exception for now. If the Government feels it will be well-served by one further summary post, I will allow that. The Government has indeed had little time to respond to the charges made against it.
While loads of interesting questions--from the procedural to the sublime--have been raised during the discussion that...um, erupted...during my absence, I want to let everyone involved know that I will not be deciding those kinds of questions.
My decision will be aimed at determining whether certain "citizens" were properly--where proper is understood in the generous sense afforded by Talossan law and tradition--added to the Kingdom's citizenship rolls.
Mr. Erni's lawyer is instructed not to post further unless invited to do so.
Mr. Prime Minister, I would ask that you pick either yourself or Mr. Woolley as the Government's voice in this case. One or the other: not both.
And, bailiff, would you be so kind as to either gag or eject Mr. Ian Metairia (or however you spell that last name)?
Thank you.
| |
|
King John
Talossan since 5-7-2005; Knight since 11-30-2005; King since 3-14-2007
member is offline
COR UNUM
Joined: May 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,939
Location: Centennial, CO (Florencia)
| | Re: Courtroom: Erni v. Talossa
« Reply #10 on Sept 14, 2005, 1:09pm » | |
If it please the Cort:
The Defense once again thanks this Honourable Cort for the chance to speak; and once again rises on weary feet — in cold fact, it’s my eyes and fingers that are weary today — to take some small part in nourishing and protecting the Kingdom of Talossa.
I find, in reading over my brief (to call it that!), that a trio of legal arguments I had intended to make seem to have gotten short shrift; so I will begin with those.
I. THE PROSECUTION HAS NOT CITED ANY LAW WHICH CRIMINALIZES THE IMMIGRATION MINISTER’S ALLEGED FAILURES
[1] The Defense would call attention to an exchange in this Courtroom on Monday. The Defense wrote, in our 6th numbered question to the Cort:[W]hat criminal statute is the Immigration Minister charged with violating by unsuccessfully attempting to admit a prospective citizen? (We ask this with an eye to Article XIX 9th Covenant, which states: “The accused shall have the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation” and Article XIX 8th Covenant, which states: “No person shall be found guilty on account of any act or omission, unless, at the time of the act or omission, it constituted an offence under Talossan or international law ...”) To put the question another way, what law in force in Talossa criminalizes the unsuccessful attempt to admit a prospective citizen?
The Prosecution responded (Answer 14) at some length:Defence asks what criminal statute has been violated by the Immigration Minister’s charged misconduct. It is a long-standing Talossan principle not to be crusted over with statute, and the consequent freedom given to the Cort is enshrined in Article XVI, Section 5: [quotes Organic Law]
The Cort will notice that Defendant, in his paragraph 2, clause 6, has failed to quote the entirety of Article XIX, 8th Covenant, the text omitted (deliberately?) appearing in CAPS:
“No person shall be found guilty on account of any act or omission, unless, at the time of the act or omission, it constituted an offence under Talossan or international law, OR WAS CRIMINAL ACCORDING TO THE GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF LAW RECOGNIZED BY THE COMMUNITY OF CIVILIZED NATIONS, AS INTERPRETED BY TALOSSAN COURTS IN LINE WITH TALOSSAN TRADITIONS AND NEEDS.”
In the absence of statute, it is the responsibility and authority of this Cort to make such decisions.
[2] Note the Prosecution’s words “In the absence of statute”. In plain English, the Prosecution is saying here that even though no law exists criminalizing the actions with which they charge the Immigration Minister, still they want the Cort to find him guilty of a crime and punish him, on the theory that “the general principles of law recognized by the community of civilized nations” demand that an Immigration Minister who fails adequately to consult the Government be treated as a criminal.
[3] Let us test this contention with a hypothetical case. Suppose that in some civilized nation — say, the United States — a statute is in force authorizing the Director of the Immigration and Naturalization Service “in consultation with the Congress, to naturalize” new citizens. A new Director of the INS is appointed in February. In September of that year a political opponent brings suit against him, charging him with failure adequately to consult Congress, and asking the Court to impose criminal sanctions. Can anyone suppose for the slightest moment that the Director would be found guilty of a crime, and then fined or imprisoned or subjected to any other criminal penalty? Does anyone suppose that any Court, even if the Court agreed with the Plaintiff that the Director had failed to consult Congress as the law would have him do, would rule that all the citizens naturalized in the last seven months were now “illegal aliens”? Of course not! The Court would most likely simply order him to comply with the law more carefully in the future.
[4] While the Defense has argued, and entirely believes, that the Immigration Minister’s consultation with various authorities was in fact perfectly sufficient to meet the requirements of the law, we would not consider it inappropriate, or even unwelcome, for this Honourable Cort to caution or to order him to take greater care in consulting everybody about immigration matters — and he would of course comply. But criminal sanctions? Stripping citizens of their citizenship? That would be absurd.
II. THE SILENCE AND INACTION OF RESPONSIBLE AND POWERFUL PEOPLE PROVES THAT NO LAW WAS BEING VIOLATED
[5] Any one of the Prosecution team, or indeed any Talossan citizen, could at any time have asked Immigration Minister von Buchholtz for a greater degree of consultation on immigration matters; the Immigration Minister would, of course, have complied with the request. (This is the normal thing to do in Talossa, or in any civilized society, when you want someone to do something different.) Nobody at any time made any such request.
[6] Mr. Cantaloûr, as Prime Minister, and responsible under Article XII Section 2 for directing his Cabinet’s exercise of “state power”, could have ordered Immigration Minister von Buchholtz to consult more frequently or more fervently with anyone or everyone; the Immigration Minister would, of course, have obeyed the order. The Prime Minister did no such thing.
[7] Mr. Madison, as King or as Deputy Immigration Minister (or simply as the defendant’s friend who had recruited him to be Immigration Minister), in the course of their very frequent consultations on immigration matters, could have suggested — and we all know how strongly Mr. Madison can suggest things — that the Immigration Minister consult more with various people. But Mr. Madison did not. Indeed, he heaped praise on the defendant’s conduct of his office. (See Exhibit H below.)
[8] Mr. Cantaloûr, as Prime Minister, could at any time have dismissed Mr. von Buchholtz from his post as Immigration Minister. Indeed, his Oath of Office and Article XII Section 2 would seem to require the Prime Minister — if he actually believed the defendant to have been breaking the law — to dismiss, or at least to correct him. He did neither.
[9] Mr. Erni, as leader of what since the election of 14 February 2005 has been the largest (indeed the majority) party in the Cosâ, could no doubt have mustered the votes of 67 Cosâ seats to have the citizenship of any new immigrant (or all the new immigrants) reviewed and made subject to the approval of the Ziu according to the provisions of 34RZ2. As leader of the party that held 108 of the 200 seats in the Cosâ and 5 of the 7 seats in the Senäts, he could almost certainly have arranged to block any or all of the recent immigrations. He never attempted to do so. Indeed, Mr. Erni and Mr. Cantaloûr each held 20 Cosâ seats; the Defense feels certain they could have mustered 27 more votes. But they never even suggested it.
[10] Any of the Prosecution team, or any Talossan citizen, could have requested from any of the three Justices of the Uppermost Cort an order requiring the Immigration Minister, in the words of Article XVI Section 13, “to perform his legal duty”. No citizen ever did so.
[11] This utter silence and prolonged inaction, on the part of so many people whose duty it was to uphold the law, and who had the power to uphold the law, can mean only one thing — that none of them seriously believed that any law was being broken.
In which belief the Defense whole-heartedly concurs.
III. TALOSSAN LAW NEVER GETS ALL ANAL ABOUT THINGS LIKE THIS
[12] One of the great principles of all Talossan jurisprudence is that laws requiring particular actions to be performed in particular ways are loosely applied, unless and until someone objects.
[13] The King is required to countersign every Prime Dictate before it can take effect (Organic Law, Article XI Section 5). But in fact — even when people do object — the King never countersigns them; and they are nevertheless held to be valid.
[14] The King is required, during the last month of each Cosâ, to issue a Writ of Dissolution (Organic Law, Article XIII Section 1). But in fact he never does so, and nobody ever charges him with a crime for not issuing the Writ; and the Cosâ is nevertheless held to have been Organically dissolved.
[15] Every Member of the Cosâ is required to resign when the Cosâ is dissolved (Organic Law, Article XIII Section 1). But in fact they never do so, and nobody ever suggests they should be subject to criminal sanctions for the failure.
[16] The King is required after each general election to appoint an Opposition Leader (24RZ47). But in fact this rarely happens, and nobody suggests he’s a criminal for failing to do so.
[17] Every new Talossan citizen is required, within one month of immigrating, publicly to decide what name he wants to be called by (33RZ16). But in fact this rarely happens, and nobody suggests that they’re criminals for letting it slide.
[18] The Distáin is to be appointed by the King (Organic Law, Article 12 Section 8). But in fact he is generally appointed by the Prime Minister (as Mr. Cantaloûr appointed Distáin Xhorxh Asmoûr by Prime Dictate on 16 February 2005). And yet nobody charges the offending Prime Minister with flagrant disregard for the law, or considers that the Distáin incorrectly appointed isn’t really the Distáin at all.
[19] And so on, and so on. The kind of failure which the Prosecution alleges in this case is the kind of thing that among polite and civilized people — and in Talossan law and tradition — is handled by pointing out the mistake and suggesting that it be corrected. Only after such a suggestion is made and rejected do reasonable people start filing lawsuits; and the whole tradition of Talossan law is for such unnecessary and unreasonable lawsuits to meet with abject failure in the Uppermost Cort.
CONCLUSION
[20] For years, Talossa has advertised itself to the world with these familiar words, for many of us the very first words we heard or saw when we approached the Kingdom:Talossa is not a computer game or a role-playing world. It is an ongoing political adventure, and all persons worldwide are invited to become Talossan citizens and participate. If you are in Talossa, you are a major figure in Talossan politics. There are no "winners" or "losers" except from election to election, and from bill to bill in the legislature. Talossa is real-life politics, only smaller and more accessible. This home page is your invitation to come and participate!
Many of us responded to those words. We thought “ongoing political adventure” sounded fun; we believed the Kingdom when it said we were welcomed and invited to participate. We were intrigued, thrilled at the prospect of becoming “major figures in Talossan politics”, and of a “world-wide” political community. We believed the spirit of forgiveness and civility and excitement expressed here so well.
[21] Today, the Uppermost Cort of the Kingdom of Talossa is called to rule on a narrow legal point. But in a larger sense, the Cort’s ruling will determine, probably for the entire future, whether Talossa will in fact ever become an outgoing, expanding, welcoming, adventurous, civil, inviting place; or whether, on the other hand, our beloved Kingdom will reject a great number of her own children, and descend into a dark morass of revenge, vituperation, legal trickery, bullying, paranoia, exclusion, and stagnation.
The whole spirit of Talossa hangs on the Cort’s decision today. We pray this Honourable Cort to do the right thing, and we pray God to give the Cort wisdom and grace to do so.
God save Talossa! God save King Louis! And God save this Honourable Cort!
— John Woolley, for the Defense
EXHIBIT H: EXCERPTS FROM A WITTENBERG THREAD
The following passages are taken from the Wittenberg thread “Welcome our newest citizen, Eric Lenz!” (at http://talossa.proboards32.com/index.cgi....ad=1114606133). All these excerpts were written by King Robert I, aka R. Ben Madison, while he was King, Secretary of State, Deputy Immigration Minister, and Minister of Stuff in the Government. They verify Prime Minister Buchholtz’s statements that he was in regular consultation with the Government regarding immigration matters, that the King (an author, remember, of the Immigration Act) believed that the new immigrants were true citizens, and that the King explicitly and publicly approved of how he was handling immigration.
On 28 April, the King wrote: I trust Fritz implicitly, and I know the less active newbies are real, verifiable people. I just hope they will get more active on Wittenberg. [...]
I can't stress this enough: I don't see ANYTHING wrong with the way Fritz is doing his job as Immigration Minister and I am not complaining about it at all -- I'm excited that the voter rolls are being expanded and I hope to see as many of these people as possible getting Cosâ seats and taking their rightful place as citizens of Talossa in every sense of the word.
I truly hope that this widespread public acceptance is a real sign that paranoia in Talossa has dissipated, and is not just a question of "well, it benefits our party so I don't see the problem." Remember we've gone through a phase where there was vast, enraged paranoia because a few less-active Talossans were my friends.
There is NOTHING wrong with people's friends joining Talossa, as long as they vote, put into Talossa what they expect to get out of Talossa, and are loyal to Talossa.
If the days of politically polarized paranoia are truly behind us, then thank God, we've learned and grown.
Ben
On 30 April: I think this influx is terrific, and I think Fritz is doing a great job as immigration minister. [...]
Fritz (as I'm sure you are well aware) is sort of put off by how so many of the newbies haven't been active on Wittenberg. But for Fritz and me together, it isn't a big deal, we just wish they'd be more active. It's no big problem for anybody, they're just missing out on the real cameraderie of day-to-day Talossa. But obviously, not being on Wittenberg means being less active than those on Wittenberg. [...]
The solution to the problem [of perceived “pocket votes”] is to do whatever we can to get people active, whether they joined in 1998 or 2005. It is not to start dividing Talossans into different castes. Fritz is taking the right approach. [...]
If you're a Talossan, if you've written your essay and been accepted as a citizen by law, you have the right to participate as much or as little as you want to, whether you vote PC, MN, or CLP or for anybody else. [...]
So far I haven't heard a peep from the MN or ZPT expressing any kind of worry about "CLP pocket votes" or anything of the sort. As I said above, if those days are well and truly gone, bravo! Hallelujah! Talossa has an electorate. We have voters and politicians and they aren't always going to be the same people. [...]
I think this next election is going to be incredibly exciting given all the new unpredictable voters. I don't know if the CLP is right with its optimistic predictions or not, although hardly a week goes by without Fritz giving me a call and saying "The CLP has 18 voters!" or whatever number it's up to this week. Are all Fritz's friends going to vote CLP? I have no idea, and I don't particularly care, as long as they are here and they vote! [...]
Ben
|
|
|
King John
Talossan since 5-7-2005; Knight since 11-30-2005; King since 3-14-2007
member is offline
COR UNUM
Joined: May 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,939
Location: Centennial, CO (Florencia)
| | Re: Courtroom: Erni v. Talossa
« Reply #11 on Sept 14, 2005, 2:25pm » | |
Your Honour, a friend has pointed out a misstatement in my brief of yesterday, and I'd like to correct it. Contrary to what I wrote, the immigration law in effect at the date of the naturalization of Marc Moisan and Al Keller did not require consultation with the Opposition Leader.
I regret the mistake, and apologize to the Cort.
— John Woolley, for the Defense
|
|
|
Duke Ian von Metairia
Citizen 1-1983; Knight 7-1992; Count 2-23-2006; Duke 10-23-2006; struck out willingly
member is offline
Joined: May 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 475
Location: Milwaukee
| | Re: Courtroom: Erni v. Talossa
« Reply #12 on Sept 14, 2005, 2:31pm » | |
MY name was brought into this by the plaintiff, so I responded.
OK, I'll put my gag back on. 
|
Duke von Metairia |
| |
|
![[Home]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/home.gif "[Home]")
![[New Topics]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/topics.png "[New Topics]")
![[Help]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/help.gif "[Help]")
![[Search]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/search.gif "[Search]")
![[Login]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/login.gif "[Login]")
![[Register]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/register.gif "[Register]")
![[Search This Thread]](http://images.proboards.com/search2.gif "[Search This Thread]")
![[Share Topic]](http://images.proboards.com/new/buttons/share.png "[Share Topic]")
![[Print]](http://images.proboards.com/buttons/print.gif "[Print]")
Logged