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 11, 2016 6:45:16 GMT -6
In the interest of speeding things up, the Cort will now invite the respondent and Sir Alexandreu to separately file their briefs before 12:00 noon, Talossan Time, on the 11th February 2016. Your Honour, Petitioner makes a good point that Justice dal Nordselva has not shown any bias against Respondent in his rulings in this case (or the preceding one on 47RZ28). To the extent that his explanation of his comment on the FreeDem forum may demonstrate personal bias or antipathy against Sir Alexandreu, that is not an issue for Respondent to pursue. Sir Alexandreu does raise an issue in which Respondent is very interested, however, and that is the matter of ex parte communications. In his motion, he points out that the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (in the context of rules for proceedings before administrative law judges for the Federal Reserve Board) require that when ex parte communications regarding the substance of a case occur, the remedy is for the content of the communications to be placed on the record and for other parties to the case to have an opportunity to respond. The U.S. federal court system’s Code of Conduct for United States Judges and The American Bar Association’s Model Code of Judicial Conduct have a similar rule. The former states: It is apparent from the Attorney-General’s response to the motion that at least some communications that appear to bear on the substance of this case have been made in the Free Democrats’ forum, in the presence of two justices of the Cort and without the knowledge or ability to respond of other parties. One such communication is directly in evidence: the Attorney-General’s response to S:reu Taiwos’ post, which was made under circumstances where it was (or should have been) clear to the Attorney-General that Justice dal Nordselva would see her response (because he was already a participant in the conversation). Her comment reads (in part, and referring to Sir Alexandreu): This comment, though brief, is significant because it reveals that while the Attorney-General was stating in open court, before all the justices and Respondent, that her petition was about the status of "all Organic Law amendments which have been deemed to pass into law without Royal proclamation" ( source), she was stating in a nonpublic partisan forum (yet with the audience of two Uppermost Cort justices) that the petition is about "overrid[ing] the Royal veto on OrgLaw reforms." (Note that none of the "Organic Law amendments which have been deemed to pass into law without Royal proclamation" were the subject of a royal veto. Only the one amendment--47RZ28--deemed not to have passed into law without royal proclamation was.) In contending that any discussions on the Free Democrats forum did not reach the substance or merits of the case, the Attorney-General apparently believes that the statement quoted above, which is already on the record, does not reach the substance or merits of the case in such a way that it would constitute an ex parte communication. Respondent does not question the sincerity of that belief, but respectfully disagrees. And if, as Respondent believes, the statement quoted above is one that ought to be disclosed to other parties so they have an opportunity to respond, it follows that some of the other discussions described by the Attorney-General as "extremely general, not technical or legal" may similarly constitute ex parte communications to which other parties should have an opportunity to respond. Such discussions need not have been extensive or technical in nature to be prejudicial to Respondent. Even brief reiterations of Petitioner's theory of the case could be significant, if repeatedly presented to members of the Cort on an ex parte basis. Thus, Respondent's position is that any discussions of the case in the Free Democrats' forum should be made available to Respondent, unless clear steps were taken to prevent the members of the Cort who belong to that forum from viewing them. At a minimum, the Cort should review the discussions in camera to determine which constitute ex parte communications to which Respondent should, in fairness, have an opportunity to respond. As a final matter, Respondent objects to Petitioner’s contentions that this or any other issue in the case at bar urgently needs to be resolved prior to the start of voting in the 49th Cosa elections. Petitioner's argument that a quick resolution to this case is necessary so that voters know whether 48RZ14 constitutes a narrowing or expansion of royal powers rings hollow. Voters already know that 48RZ14 would effect a narrowing of royal powers, because they know that the King currently effectively has an absolute veto over Organic Law amendments. They know this because this Cort so held just a couple of months ago in In re: 47RZ28. The idea that a 180-degree reversal by the Cort now would provide greater clarity to the voters (by revealing that 48RZ14 would really effect an expansion of royal powers) is dubious. Voters could (if Petitioner is successful) just as reasonably conclude that the effect of 48RZ14 might become a narrowing again three months hence when the Cort takes its next position on 47RZ28. Contradictory decisions by the Uppermost Cort mere months apart would mean less clarity and predictability in the law, not more. Respondent submits that, given the importance of the issues presented in this case, it is more important to get the right answer than a quick answer.
|
|
Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN
Seneschal
the new Jim Hacker
Posts: 6,635
Talossan Since: 6-25-2004
Dame Since: 9-8-2012
Motto: Expulseascâ, reveneascâ
Baron Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
Duke Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
|
Post by Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN on Feb 11, 2016 13:26:31 GMT -6
Your Honour, we are happy to let this brief from counsel for the Respondent stand. All sides have made their positions clear now. I would request an immediate move to judgement on the recusal issue.
|
|
Ián Tamorán S.H.
Chief Justice of the Uppermost Court
Proud Philosopher of Talossa
Posts: 1,401
Talossan Since: 9-27-2010
|
Post by Ián Tamorán S.H. on Feb 13, 2016 16:08:01 GMT -6
Cort will come to order.
The cases in hand, stemming from the appeal against already decided Petition for Declarative Relief re the Application of the Amendment to 47RZ28, include both that initial appeal, and also some requests for other parties to be viewed as privy to this case. Furthermore, there is a plea that Justice Nordselva be recused from all of these cases because of an alleged impropriety of offering legal advice outside of the Cortroom. There are many points here which the complete bench of Justices have considered, in some detail. There is, however, an urgency outside of this Cortroom to make the overall decisions of this Cort public, and that is what this posting is intended to do. The full, and considered, reasoning for each of our decisions will be made public as soon as we are able, under both the time constraints and the secretarial limitations, to write a final version. The decisions, however, are final.
Note that if there is any difference in minor detail between this posting and that which contains the full reasoning, it is that later posting which will take precedence. There will not, however, be any alteration in the findings themselves.
The appeal against the decided Petition for Declarative Relief re the Application of the Amendment to 47RZ28 is dismissed.
This Cort sees no reason why it should - or even can - modify a prior decision of the Cort, itself reached after due deliberation. The Cort believes that the granting of this injunction would be inOrganic. The Cort believes that this would cross the Separation of Powers. The Cort observes that the Amendment process has started, and cannot be stopped. The Cort states that there is no injury to the Petitioner.
The requests for third parties to take part in this case have been allowed only to the extent of hearing amicus briefs presenting further information: no further party has been allowed to join the Petitioner. Moreover, no person or body can represent the Ziu unless and until the Ziu itself authorises it.
In the claim of impropriety by Justice Nordselva, the Cort finds that no such impropriety occurred, and given the small size of Talossa and the inevitable overlapping of people within public offices, it is very difficult for total secrecy to be maintained. However, this Bench of Justices find unanimously that Justice Nordselva committed no impropriety.
Note that, as a consequence, this decision of the Cort permits 48RZ14 to be placed before the electorate.
The Cort will extend this ruling, within the next 72 hours, setting out its full reasons for our decisions.
Cort is adjourned pro tem.
|
|
Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN
Seneschal
the new Jim Hacker
Posts: 6,635
Talossan Since: 6-25-2004
Dame Since: 9-8-2012
Motto: Expulseascâ, reveneascâ
Baron Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
Duke Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
|
Post by Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN on Feb 13, 2016 20:46:15 GMT -6
Thank you very kindly for your much-quicker-than-expected decision, your Honours.
|
|
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 Feb 14, 2016 11:36:52 GMT -6
(posts moved to the correct thread)
|
|
|
Post by Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun on Mar 17, 2016 9:32:53 GMT -6
When does this Cort foresee the posting of the full ruling?
|
|
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 Apr 7, 2016 11:45:17 GMT -6
The Cort apologizes for its perceived inaction on this matter. The full bench has been in deliberations for some time now and a final ruling will be released soon.
|
|
|
Post by Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun on Apr 8, 2016 0:57:43 GMT -6
Yes, I'd wager it to be difficult to phrase the wording on a ruling which is so obviously... imperfect controversial.
|
|
Ián Tamorán S.H.
Chief Justice of the Uppermost Court
Proud Philosopher of Talossa
Posts: 1,401
Talossan Since: 9-27-2010
|
Post by Ián Tamorán S.H. on Apr 9, 2016 8:02:55 GMT -6
It is germane at this time to quote from a previous case:
We are here in a Cort of Law, in which dignified and controlled behaviour is mandatory. We are very fortunate that in the Kingdom of Talossa we have freedom of speech, but there are some limits upon where that speech can be made. In particular, here in the Cort the only comments permitted are those which relate directly to the case in hand, and which must have been either invited by the Justice in charge, or be applications to present further statements or evidence, to which the Justice in charge will respond by giving (or withholding) permission. You are warned that any other discussion here in the body of the Cort runs the risk of being interpreted as Contempt of Cort, which will be dealt with severely. If any person wishes to raise any matter in this Cort, then permission must be sought in the standard and formal way. There are many other places on this board for open discussion. I also am open for any discussion, in private chambers (i.e. by PM or directly by Skype, where I am iandkkelly) insofar as permitted by my office and this case. To repeat: the body of this Cort is not a place for open discussion.
I draw all visitor's attention to this statement, which is not made lightly.
|
|
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 Apr 18, 2016 10:31:14 GMT -6
CORT WILL COME TO ORDER
In the matter before the full bench of the Cort pu Inalt, our prior preliminary ruling is now amended. As such, this Cort finds the following: Organic Law Article XV does not explicitly state what occurs during the amendment process if an amendment is not explicitly or, via tacit consent, proclaimed by the Monarch or what occurs if the Monarch refuses to proclaim an amendment. Organic Law states that in such circumstances where law is unclear, the Cort pu Inalt must interpret, according to law and established precedent. Previous precedent of this Cort states, in part: Nowhere is the Monarch forced to proclaim an amendment. However, the question at stake is not whether or not the Monarch must proclaim explicitly or even if tacit consent is sufficient. Our previous ruling allowed for the understanding that the Monarch may refuse to proclaim an amendment explicitly and He may also choose to proclaim tacitly and implicitly. The Question before this Cort extends the understanding of Our previous ruling in determining what happens to a law if the Monarch explicitly refuses to proclaim it. The ruling by a 3-justice panel did not expand that understanding. Organic Law XV Section 1 states, in part: Does the Organic Law enable veto powers, vested in the Monarch, over amendments to the Organic Law? Does the Monarch possess reserve or explicit powers to block any amendments he sees fit to? This Cort finds an affirmative answer to both questions to be undemocratic and not in keeping with the body of Law upon which the kingdom is founded. It has long been established practice that laws or Amendments duly authorized by the Ziu and the People via referendum have passed into force regardless of the failure by the king to approve such laws. Indeed, the overwhelming majority of amendments to the Organic Law have gone un-proclaimed and have been accepted without reservation by all levels of Talossan society, including all branches of the Talossan Government - Executive, Legislative, and Judicial. Amendments to the Organic Law do not therefore require the explicit proclamation by the Monarch. This Cort has previously interpreted that the Organic Law provides for a refusal to proclaim an amendment but has not ruled that such a state has any effect upon the amendment at question. Therefore, this Cort, by majority vote, rules the following: In keeping with precedent and established practice, amendments to the Organic Law, where approved by the Ziu and the People in Referendum, according to the provisions of Article XV:1, are legally enforceable and become a part of Organic Law upon certification of the relevant Referendum and the existence or absence of an explicit proclamation of the amendment does not prevent its application and enforceability.
As a supplemental and not as part of this ruling, this Cort strongly encourages the Ziu to clarify the amendment process to prevent future uncertainty. Assenting: Chief Justice Tamoran, Justices Cjantscheir, dal Nordselva, Edwards Abstaining: Justice Ardpresteir
|
|