|
Post by Béneditsch Ardpresteir, O.SPM. on Jan 19, 2015 8:14:19 GMT -6
S:r Munditenens Txec Patritz da Biondeu is accordingly granted time till Friday 23rd January, 2015 to file the revised Complaint with applications, if any.
By Order Magistrate Ardpresteir
|
|
|
Post by M.T. Patritz da Biondeu on Jan 19, 2015 15:04:34 GMT -6
The Plaintiff requests to review the complaint as to include S:r Asmourescu between the Defendants. Answering your second question, your Honour, the only other Defendant is S:r Timoþi Txec Max Asmourescu.
|
|
Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă
Puisne (Associate) Justice of the Uppermost Court
Fraichetz dels punts, es non dels mürs
Posts: 4,063
Talossan Since: 9-23-2012
|
Post by Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă on Jan 19, 2015 17:32:25 GMT -6
Your Honor,
As per El Lex. G.3.8, the Ministry of Justice makes a motion for a waiver of the requirements so that our representative, S:reu da Biondeu, be accepted to practice before this Cort and in this matter. The Ministry has obtained consent from the Royal Talossan Bar as to this application.
|
|
Sir C. M. Siervicül
Posts: 9,636
Talossan Since: 8-13-2005
Knight Since: 7-28-2007
Motto: Nonnisi Deo serviendum
|
Post by Sir C. M. Siervicül on Jan 19, 2015 22:22:54 GMT -6
Your Honour,
The Court's order of 10 January, establishing a deadline of 17 January for the Crown to file an amended complaint, further stated: "Should another Attorney General be appointed in the meanwhile, the timeline would not change for the presentment of the amended Complaint." For that reason, I respectfully request that the Court reconsider its decision to grant the Crown yet another, and unrequested, extension of the deadline to file an amended complaint.
In addition, it appears from the Crown's latest motion that its designated representative in this case, S:reu da Biondeu, is not a member of the Royal Talossan Bar. I object to the motion to waive the requirement of Bar membership in this case. Lexhatx G.3.8 states that requests for such waivers may be brought by "Individuals who are party to an action brought before a Court of the realm". The only individuals who are prospective parties to this action are the putative defendants. The prosecution is brought in the name of "the People of the Kingdom of Talossa", not an individual. The Attorney-General is an individual, to be sure, but he appears in this case in a representative capacity (as the legal representative of "the people's government") rather than as a real party in interest. Therefore, Lexhatx G.3.8 is inapplicable and there appears to be no basis for waiving the statutory requirement that the prosecution be represented by a member of the Royal Talossan Bar.
|
|
|
Post by Béneditsch Ardpresteir, O.SPM. on Jan 20, 2015 6:48:04 GMT -6
The Court sits to decide and review its Order dated 18.01.2015 & 19.01.2015 With regard to the deadline, the State had earlier clarified as to the extent it wishes to amend the Complaint. Thus any amendment after 17.01.2015 though irregular needs not be gone into as the representative of the State has not preferred to alter it any further. Thus the extended deadline is withdrawn herefrom. The court applies the tenets of statutory interpretation/ interpretation of statutes along with the concept of 'juristic personality' and takes judicial notice "that until and unless there is a statutory remark to the contrary, the word 'individual' would mean 'persona iuris' i.e. 'Legal Persons' and therefore include natural persons as well as juridical persons. The requirement of a detailed petition of waiver is disposed of with in view of the Court's Order dated 11.01.2015 wherein the Court had specifically directed the State to appoint some other person to represent it. It is apparent that there is a dearth of active Talossan lawyers and the Ministry of Justice was recently vacated, and thereafter filled. Accordingly, the Seneschal's request is granted. The Royal Talossan Bar should take active steps to deal with the problem so that new faces are seen in the Courts. In my Court, the Attorney General would always have the pre-eminence and would be permitted to raise any point of order. However, this Court took strong objections to the remark of the AG designate as he was not entitled to represent any of the parties in the matter. Be as it may, this Court hereby issues notice to Adm. T.M. Asmourescu, O. Ben. and Count la Mha ( Hooligan). Service of the same would be through the Complainant as well. It is noted that Sir C. M. Siervicül has already been appointed as the Attorney by Count la Mha, but since he is a 'Senior Counsel' which is generally believed to be akin to the 'Queen's Counsel' in the UK, he is advised (though not mandated) to be assisted by another Counsel for filing purposes etc. (after all, there has to be some risk in wearing the silk). The defendants are given a timeline of 10 days from today i.e. till 30.01.2015 to file their response. Since the State has not preferred to move any application for recusal by the sitting Magistrate, the remark of the then AG designate is dispensed with as non-est. By Order Magistrate Ardpresteir
|
|
|
Post by M.T. Patritz da Biondeu on Jan 20, 2015 11:16:10 GMT -6
Your Honor, in a posting in another part of WIttenberg, you stated this: "When I am in the Courthouse on the Bench, I'm totally apolitical, but elsewhere I do the RUMP dance." His Majesty's Government is concerned over the impartiality of this Cort in that it has openly stated it does the RUMP dance implying that it does what the RUMP party wants. It is no secret that the RUMP party wants this case tossed owing to the fact that the named defendant in this case, Count Thord, is a former party leader and one of it's most well known members.
Therefore your Honor, I motion that you recuse yourself from hearing this case.
|
|
|
Post by Béneditsch Ardpresteir, O.SPM. on Jan 20, 2015 13:36:19 GMT -6
The wrongful allegations was put forth before the Court by the then AG designate - however without considering the same as having been made by one who wasn't authorised to speak in Court, this Court had granted the Complainant was given their chance to put in all sorts of applications within the due date so ascribed. Accordingly the same has already been disposed off as non est. Further the State should not indulge in shadow boxing by using the services of M.T. Patritz da Biondeu only as a vocal attorney while internally preparing his brief. The same is not warranted nor desired. If there are other competent lawyers in support of the Government's stand, then the State should go forth and appoint such a lawyer. Just because the present AG has been asked not to present himself in this particular matter in this Court does not mean that he'll use a mouthpiece to speak his words. If that is not the case, then the Court warns S:r da Biondeu not to indulge in plagiarism for his words are exactly the same as those of then AG designate - "Your Honor, in a posting in another part of WIttenberg, you stated this: "When I am in the Courthouse on the Bench, I'm totally apolitical, but elsewhere I do the RUMP dance." His Majesty's Government is concerned over the impartiality of this Cort in that it has openly stated it does the RUMP dance implying that it does what the RUMP party wants. It is no secret that the RUMP party wants this case tossed owing to the fact that the named defendant in this case, Count Thord, is a former party leader and one of it's most well known members." The request is rejected for being false, malafide and aimed at maligning the Judiciary. In fact, the alleged post clearly gives the sitting Magistrate's mindset that when he is in the Courthouse, on the Bench, he is 'apolitical'... i.e. one who is not interested or involved in politics. The same was brought forth to the knowledge of the public after someone else sitting on the Bench admitted to have actively discussing Politics with others so as to have a political mind-change. While Talossan laws in itself allow the Magistracy to have political affiliations, the discussion or professing the same in the Courtroom or in the chambers is not desired especially by the Bench. The same was thus an advice to have certain distance and separation of powers especially when we are supposed to wear many a hats. Further, the Magistrate in full knowledge that the statement of his or that of his fellow mates on the Bench would one day be used in the wrong way, had asked the forum keepers to move it to the chat-board; but as laymen do not normally see the nuances, failed/ refused to comply with the same. Motion for review heard and dismissed. By Order Magistrate Ardpresteir
|
|
Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă
Puisne (Associate) Justice of the Uppermost Court
Fraichetz dels punts, es non dels mürs
Posts: 4,063
Talossan Since: 9-23-2012
|
Post by Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă on Jan 20, 2015 14:39:42 GMT -6
Your Honor,
It is entirely my fault that S:reu da Biondeu used my words precisely. While it is true that I am not appearing in this matter due to conflicting ethics, I am providing leadership over the Ministry of Justice which could be construed as legal briefs but is entirely advisory. I would ask Your Honor to not hold this against our prosecutor in this case.
Humbly, Dr. Nordselva / Minister of Justice
|
|
|
Post by M.T. Patritz da Biondeu on Jan 20, 2015 20:15:03 GMT -6
Regardless of whose words they originally were, they are still valid. There is a strong connection between the Honorable Béneditsch Ardpresteir and the defendant. I will never be as eloquent as Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă. The Honorable Béneditsch Ardpresteir has a vested interest in this case - his own political parties' reputation. I, nor the Government, feel that he will be able to make an unbiased decision in this court case. We respectfully ask for him to recuse himself from the case so that a party that is not so vested in the outcome be able to hear the case.
|
|
|
Post by Béneditsch Ardpresteir, O.SPM. on Jan 21, 2015 9:38:53 GMT -6
The motion has been dismissed as non-est in the first instance. Thereafter it has been reviewed and rejected. As explained in detail to the then fellow Magistrate and now Attorney General, lawyers and judges usually share and have a very cordial relationship in and out of courtrooms. Once a friend who is a third generation judicial officer of the largest democracy gave me wonderful test to determine when he chooses to recuse or not - the dining test. According to him, whensoever there is a so called friend or acquaintance with whom he has had meals, then he recuses otherwise he hears. I choose to apply the same test, and therefore at present I cannot hear only matters wherein Sir Alexandreu Davinescu and/or Txosuè Éiric Rôibeardescù is a party/ attorney/ pleader. If we apply the test of party affiliation to a Talossan Court, then there cannot be any effective judicial pronouncement, for herein there would be either allegations of proximity or bias. Each and everyone in the Magistracy is politically active (and there is no statutory bar to the same). In the case of the CpI, the Judges are required to be politically inactive although in some cases the vote for a particular party may in itself be shown as political affiliation. This Court takes judicial notice of the fact that Talossa is a vibrant and politically active nation and most of its active citizens participate in the political process and progress of the country in one way or the other. However it is the advice of this Court to others in the Magistracy is that though there is no specific bar, we should honour the primacy of the law and uphold the doctrine of separation of power and thereby refrain from discussing politics in and around the courtroom. Lawyers are equally advised not to rake in political bias in case such political parties are not reflected in the array of parties. The Attorney General's statement is noted and accepted although it appears that the pleader does not subscribe to the same. The pleader appearing for the State is advised not to interfere any further with the proceeding of the Court on this point of order as this Court has given its final decision on the same. The Court need not point out that there cannot be a re-review of its Order. Put up for further proceedings as and when the response from the Defendants are received on or before the due date. By Order Magistrate Ardpresteir
|
|
Sir C. M. Siervicül
Posts: 9,636
Talossan Since: 8-13-2005
Knight Since: 7-28-2007
Motto: Nonnisi Deo serviendum
|
Post by Sir C. M. Siervicül on Jan 22, 2015 4:19:58 GMT -6
The defendants are given a timeline of 10 days from today i.e. till 30.01.2015 to file their response. Your Honour, So the record is clear, could the Cort confirm whether this means that it has already conducted its own review of the complaint under OrgLaw Article XVI, Section 6, has determined that the complaint contains evidence proving to the Cort that a reasonable chance of obtaining a conviction on each charge exists, and has accepted the charges for trial?
|
|
Sir C. M. Siervicül
Posts: 9,636
Talossan Since: 8-13-2005
Knight Since: 7-28-2007
Motto: Nonnisi Deo serviendum
|
Post by Sir C. M. Siervicül on Jan 28, 2015 4:29:54 GMT -6
The defendants are given a timeline of 10 days from today i.e. till 30.01.2015 to file their response. Your Honour, The defence respectfully requests an extension of the deadline for filing a response, for good cause shown as follows: I was ill on the 25th and 26th, and therefore was not able to devote the expected time to working on this case. Moreover, on the 27th I was scheduled to be on leave from my extra-Talossan job, and had expected to be able to spend several hours on this case, but instead was required by my extra-Talossan supervisor to spend several hours working on some urgent issues that had arisen on Monday while I was out sick. And for the rest of this week I expect to have little time available to devote to working on this case as I will be preparing for a previously-scheduled conference on the 30th. Additionally, the defence has not yet received a response from the Cort to its procedural questions of the 2nd and 22nd, without which it is impossible to determine how to respond to the complaint. There are some pretrial motions that traditionally must be filed prior to or at the time of entering a plea, and the defendant cannot know what motions may lie in this case without clarification as to the procedural standing of the case. For these reasons, the defence respectfully requests that the deadline for responding to the complaint be extended to Saturday, 7 February. The defence further respectfully requests that the Cort confirm that by its order of the 20th establishing the current deadline of the 30th, it thereby accepted all of the charges stated in the complaint for trial as required by Lexhatx G.1.1, after having completed its review of the charges for a reasonable chance of obtaining a conviction as required by Article XVI, Section 6 of the Organic Law.
|
|
Sir C. M. Siervicül
Posts: 9,636
Talossan Since: 8-13-2005
Knight Since: 7-28-2007
Motto: Nonnisi Deo serviendum
|
Post by Sir C. M. Siervicül on Jan 30, 2015 23:58:54 GMT -6
Your Honour,
Given that the Cort has not yet responded to the defence's request for an extension, and only a few minutes (of Talossan time) remaining of the 30th, the defence at this time raises a general objection to being required to enter a plea unless and until the procedural requirements of Organic Law Article XVI, Section 6 and Lexhatx G.1.1 have been fulfilled. Until these statutory and organic requirements have been strictly complied with, there is no case.
The defence intends to file a motion to dismiss the charges contained in the Crown's complaint at its earliest opportunity. I will do my best to get it filed by the end of this weekend if possible, but at the latest I will be prepared to file by the deadline of 7 February previously requested.
|
|
Sir C. M. Siervicül
Posts: 9,636
Talossan Since: 8-13-2005
Knight Since: 7-28-2007
Motto: Nonnisi Deo serviendum
|
Post by Sir C. M. Siervicül on Feb 7, 2015 23:13:59 GMT -6
Your Honour,
I have drafted a motion to dismiss but have not yet been able to clear it with my client, who has been inaccessible today and yesterday. I don't feel that I can in good conscience file the motion without clearing some matters of litigation strategy with him. I expect to file the motion by Monday, but will do so sooner if I am able.
|
|
Sir C. M. Siervicül
Posts: 9,636
Talossan Since: 8-13-2005
Knight Since: 7-28-2007
Motto: Nonnisi Deo serviendum
|
Post by Sir C. M. Siervicül on Feb 10, 2015 5:29:19 GMT -6
Your Honour, The Defence respectfully moves that the complaint be dismissed, because it does not provide adequate notice to the defendant of the nature of the charges against him as required by the Organic Law, because it does not contain evidence sufficient to establish a reasonable chance of obtaining a conviction as required by the Organic Law, and because it does not establish personal and territorial jurisdiction over defendant la Mha or the alleged offences, as more fully set forth in the attached memorandum. 14-06 dismissal request 10 feb.pdf (193.96 KB) (Tagging: Béneditsch Ardpresteir, O.SPM., M.T. Patritz da Biondeu)
|
|