|
Post by Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun on Feb 10, 2016 13:28:44 GMT -6
As Senator and Junior Member of the Royal Talossan Bar, I feel it time that I say something about the blatant injustice that is right now happening in the Uppermost Court of our Kingdom:
Currently, the Attorney-General Doamnă Miestrâ Schivâ is doing her very best in Cort to rectify that which I believe was a wrong decision by the Uppermost Cort in in re: 47RZ28. The current battle she is fighting is His Majesty's Government v. His Majesty King John I..
As I said, the Attorney-General is representing the petitioner, i.e. His Majesty's Government. The respondent, His Majesty, is represented by Domnul Cresti Mataiwos Siervicül.
Comes then before the Cort one Domnul Alexandreu Davinescu, Member of the Royal Talossan Bar, and Party Leader of the RUMP, without having been granted standing in Cort, and accuses the presiding Justice of partiality, more accurately, he accuses Justice D:r dal Nordselvă of giving legal advice to petitioner's representative; the Attorney-General. (Full disclosure: I currently work for the Attorney-General in a consultative capacity on this very case.)
After a lot of back-and-forth, the Cort decides that it is now irreversibly damaged by Domnul Davinescu's allegations, and needs to have this resolved, and effectively grants Domnul Davinescu “standing” to produce his evidence under penalty of perjury.
AND THEREIN LIES THE UPPERMOST CORT'S GRAVE ERROR. Notwithstanding the fact that Domnul Davinescu's accusations have proven to be unfounded by virtue of one glance onto his evidence, Domnul Davinescu barging in and demanding standing to accuse the presiding Justice of foulplay was unbecoming of a Member of the Royal Talossan Bar! It furthermore creates dangerous precedent, in that it practically enables any person to barge in, and scream “J'ACCUSE !”, thereby obstructing Justice, taking away citizens' right to a proper trial, and completely halting the whole legal procedure.
Proper procedure for him, if he were interested that justice be done, would have been to approach respondent's counsel, and deliver the evidence to him, so that he could act accordingly.
What is more, is that, if I were the Justice being accused of such a thing, I would sue Domnul Davinescu for defamation and libel, because he stated and accused the Justice with a falsehood so blatant, that I felt overwhelmed by boredom as I saw the alleged “proof” he had.
If there is any such possibility, then I hereby demand that the President of the Royal Talossan Bar initiate an investigation into the possible misconduct of Domnul Alexandreu Davinescu in connection with this Court case, and that the President reprimand him for his unethical conduct as Talossan lawyer, and thus representative of the Royal Talossan Bar.
/s/ Magniloqueu Épiqeu Ac'hlerglünä da Lhiun Mîmbreu Xhugnhör da l'Avocatür Rexhital
|
|
Glüc da Dhi
Secretary of State
Posts: 6,112
Talossan Since: 5-14-2009
|
Post by Glüc da Dhi on Feb 10, 2016 13:43:27 GMT -6
WHY ARE YOU SHOUTING!!!
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Feb 10, 2016 13:43:28 GMT -6
Obviously I can't comment much on this, since we're literally right in the middle of these proceedings (and since you're working with the Avocat-Xheneral). I'd just suggest that people look into what is meant by "standing," "appearance of bias," and "ex parte discussions," which are important legal concepts in the case. Then read the briefs.
Trying to start a publicity campaign to punish opposing counsel for a motion is not a very professional or ethical thing to do, by the way.
|
|
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 10, 2016 14:05:35 GMT -6
Who is the President of the Bar, btw?
Seriously, though: this whole drama points out a real problem in Talossa of the impossibility of separating the legal system from politics, and therefore the possibilities of politicised misuse of the legal system. Note that Epic clearly states that he is speaking as incumbent Senator from M-M to his opponent in that race, not as one lawyer in a Cort case to another, while AD responds as if it were the opposite. In future, we've got to sort out the way that politics and law are used interchangeably around here.
|
|
|
Post by Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun on Feb 10, 2016 14:30:08 GMT -6
WHY ARE YOU SHOUTING!!! I was not. The bigger the font, the greater my indignation. Nice colours!
|
|
|
Post by Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun on Feb 10, 2016 14:32:56 GMT -6
Obviously I can't comment much on this, since we're literally right in the middle of these proceedings (and since you're working with the Avocat-Xheneral). I'd just suggest that people look into what is meant by "standing," "appearance of bias," and "ex parte discussions," which are important legal concepts in the case. Then read the briefs. Trying to start a publicity campaign to punish opposing counsel for a motion is not a very professional or ethical thing to do, by the way. This is not a publicity campaign. This is my trying to raise awareness of what is going on, and me trying to reach the President of the RTB. I actually do not know WHO the President of the Royal Talossan Bar is. AFAIK, Erschéveþ Cjantscheir relinquished that position. That is all I know: she held the position. Now she kind of doesn't? Or maybe she doesn't preside the Bar Exams? I don't know. *shrug*
|
|
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 10, 2016 14:33:56 GMT -6
Dame Litz is the current Chancellor of the Royal Talossan Bar.
|
|
|
Post by Adm. T.M. Asmourescu, O. Ben. on Feb 10, 2016 14:42:25 GMT -6
It appears quite clearly in the case before the Uppermost Cort that Sir Davinescu has perjured himself. Why the court has not censured him in any fashion is truly shocking.
Sir Davinescu interrupted proceedings to which he was not party and accused a seated Justice of improper communications with the Attorney General (and others). He then stated that he had evidence. When compelled to present evidence under penalty of perjury, he presented a four word comment from Justice Nordselva to a Talossan citizen (who is decidedly not the Attorney General). From this, Davinescu now alleges that this provides some sort of "probable cause" to allow the court to dredge up every private communication of the FreeDems and their leadership.
The problem is that he stated, in open court, that he already had evidence not that he needed to go find it with the court's consent.
So, Sir Davinescu lied. And it was a whopper of a lie. And the court should be holding him in contempt at this moment rather than entertaining him.
I will be filing a complaint with the Chancellor of the Royal Talossan Bar to this effect.
Having read the briefs, I can only say that I am embarrassed for him. This incredibly weak attempt to politicize a case that does not impact him and to which he is not party is outweighed in disappointment only by the fact that the Uppermost Cort not swiftly and decisively ending his charade.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Feb 10, 2016 14:46:53 GMT -6
Epic, in a cort of law, if someone believes a motion is improper, then the appropriate thing to do is to raise an objection and state the grounds. You and Admiral Asmourescu are advising the Avocat-Xheneral: advise her on the form of an objection. It's definitely not appropriate to instead create a campaign arguing the case outside of the courtroom before a ruling has even been reached. What if the Cort rules that we cannot request recusal before we are recognized as possessing standing, and sets recusal aside until after standing is resolved? What if the Cort rules our motion is appropriate and should be upheld? What if the Cort rules our motion is contempt of cort?
If you were just trying to find out who the Chancellor is, this was kind of the worst way to do it. As an example, you openly state that you're trying to have a recent ruling directly overturned. That's one of the worst things you could admit in a case that will probably revolve around stare decisis. This is why it's not professional and not smart to do this kind of thing while proceedings are ongoing. You're not going to help yourself -- unless your goal is just to politicize things -- and you could badly hurt your own case.
|
|
Dame Litz Cjantscheir, UrN
Puisne Justice; Chancellor of the Royal Talossan Bar; Cunstaval to Florencia
Dame & Former Seneschal
Posts: 1,157
Talossan Since: 4-5-2010
Dame Since: 9-8-2012
|
Post by Dame Litz Cjantscheir, UrN on Feb 10, 2016 14:52:51 GMT -6
It would be inappropriate at this time for the Bar to comment on or investigate the matters mentioned above whilst they are sub judice.
Furthermore, matters of contempt in/ex facie curiae are for the Corts themselves to determine.
|
|
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 10, 2016 14:55:11 GMT -6
I am not touching the comments made by my legal advisers here. But I will touch this, for the public record: As I did. Since Sir Alexandreu went on to speak as if he had not seen that, it is possible he never saw it - especially as it was at the bottom of a page in the thread. (I've often missed posts that way myself.)
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Feb 10, 2016 14:56:35 GMT -6
CADE I thank you, good people: there shall be no money; all shall eat and drink on my score; and I will apparel them all in one livery, that they may agree like brothers and worship me their lord.
DICK The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.
CADE Nay, that I mean to do. Is not this a lamentable thing, that of the skin of an innocent lamb should be made parchment? that parchment, being scribbled o'er, should undo a man? Some say the bee stings: but I say, 'tis the bee's wax; for I did but seal once to a thing, and I was never mine own man since.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Feb 10, 2016 14:58:38 GMT -6
I saw it, Dama Miestra. But the presiding justice didn't mention it. My brief is almost done (I'm trying to hurry and get everything in early, as possible), but maybe you want to draw it to her attention again, and get an explicit ruling about whether my request for recusal can go forward? It's entirely possible, for example, for Txec to just recuse himself from the question of standing, settle that, and then have the rest of the inquiry on the issue of recusal. I wouldn't want this to go through just because someone missed a post, so I would be totally fine with you bringing it up again.
|
|
|
Post by Adm. T.M. Asmourescu, O. Ben. on Feb 10, 2016 15:02:17 GMT -6
Furthermore, matters of contempt in/ex facie curiae are for the Corts themselves to determine. Well, if the court has determined that blatant perjury is not contemptible behavior then perhaps the next government ought reconsider its composition to restore dignity to the bench.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Feb 10, 2016 15:05:19 GMT -6
Furthermore, matters of contempt in/ex facie curiae are for the Corts themselves to determine. Well, if the court has determined that blatant perjury is not contemptible behavior then perhaps the next government ought reconsider its composition to restore dignity to the bench. Wow.
|
|