Post by Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun on Nov 4, 2017 6:47:11 GMT -6
This is a most urgent call to all Senators of the Realm to immediately and without delay appear in this Emergency Session of the Senäts.
Senators, it has been brought to my attention by our colleague, the Túischac'h Munditenens Tresplet, that a so-called suo moto action was issued by one Justice Béneditsch Ardpresteir. (It has recently been quashed by His Honour, the Justice Tamorán.) Senators, I know not even where to begin! I ask first and foremost that the esteemed members of this House forgive this my emotional response. Receive herein a copy of the injunction first:
Should I first ridicule the preposterous Justice on his wrong Latin? The word motus is, after all, a u-stem word, thus it should read correctly suo motu.
Should I admonish him for the fact that motions sua sponte have, to my knowledge, never ever been issued in Talossa, and that only seldom in Anglo-American jurisprudence have they been used to such magnitude? Granted, sua sponte decisions are ubiquitous in certain aspects of jurisprudence. The assignment of a trial judge, or the determination of a trial date, a dismissal due to lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, or even a question posed by a sitting judge or Justice, directed to the defence or the prosecution/plaintiff, can be regarded as mini-sua sponte decisions.
However, the Uppermost Cort must not interject into the orderly proceedings of the Ziu with such blatant disregard for the law, and the trust which the people of Talossa place in it. It is highly improper, if not even criminally illegal, for a Justice to dismiss the doctrine of ne ultra petita in such an important matter, and to intervene in the Clark sua sponte.
It cannot be illegal for the legislative body of the Kingdom of Talossa to do its job, namely legislating, passing laws. Notwithstanding the fact that the law in question has not even been passed yet, a law that is not inOrganic cannot be subject to a request of injunction by any Court of Law, because Courts of Law are, themselves, bound to the law. If an Organic bill cannot be enjoined against by petition of an interested party, it cannot possibly be enjoined against by the Uppermost Cort sua sponte. That would be like the Uppermost Cort issuing an injunction against a bill that changes sections in the Organic Law for which changes are permitted.
The Justice Ardpresteir seems also to be confused as to what constitutes sovereignty, and wants Talossa to adhere to the Laws of Wisconsin, and the United States of America. He has furthermore voiced his opinion that on this thread. It is troubling to see a Justice of the Realm placing outside laws above Talossan laws. This leads me to question this citizen’s regard for the Kingdom of Talossa, and his fitness to serve as a Justice of the Uppermost Cort.
You will also notice that the person enjoined, Béneditsch Ardpresteir, is the same person as the Justice who issues the injunction. I understand there is the doctrine of Multiple Hats in Talossa, but the doctrine of conflict of interest, and judicial impartiality, is paramount and is supreme to that of the Multiple Hats. It borders on insanity that a person thinks it possible to ISSUE AN INJUNCTION AGAINST ONESELF.
Senators, I ask that we discuss this matter, and I ask that we consider moving to issue a Sense of the Senäts, admonishing the Justice in question, and urging the Ziu to dismiss Béneditsch Ardpresteir from the Uppermost Cort for cause. I would furthermore like to inform you that the Túischac'h has requested that we join efforts in issuing a statement against the Justice in question.
Senators, it has been brought to my attention by our colleague, the Túischac'h Munditenens Tresplet, that a so-called suo moto action was issued by one Justice Béneditsch Ardpresteir. (It has recently been quashed by His Honour, the Justice Tamorán.) Senators, I know not even where to begin! I ask first and foremost that the esteemed members of this House forgive this my emotional response. Receive herein a copy of the injunction first:
(All rise)
This Court room assembles in haste to pass a suo moto injunction in haste with a bonafide intention to save the citizens of Talossa from being associated with certain activities which might border on illegality.
This injunction may be modified either suo moto or after hearing certain parties and is subject to appeal.
This Court prima facie feels that either RZ3 needs to be somehow removed from the Clark, or it has to be voted down. Despite this, even if it passes, the King should not give his assent to it and make it a law.
Being situated in a location where the same is illegal, plus voluntarily accepting the Winconsin Codes, the Kingdom of Talossa can't be seen to be violating the code of conduct of our neighbouring nation.
In recent times though there was a cry to legalize recreational use, but the same was not successful in the neighborhood state. It has been reported that Rep. Chris Taylor & Sen. Jon Erpenbach co-sponsored two medical cannabis bills earlier this year, but their attempts have been stalled by the state’s leadership.
Hence we as a nation should not attempt to do something illegal per se by trying to change the Talossan Laws, and bringing them to conflict with the Winconsin/ US laws at least.
Whilst the Court was concerned on the above line, it was also made aware that certain honorable citizen share similar concerns.
Thus this Court as a precautionary and preventive measure pass a injunctive order that "Even if RZ3 of the 51st Cosa is passed as a law for the Kingdom of Talossa, it would not make any changes to any Statutes of the Nation and the passed Bill in the form of the Act would be kept in abeyance from implementation till the neighborhood state of Winconsin or the Federal Government of the USA makes certain changes to their existing laws whereupon no penal or civil action(s) could be taken against the Kingdom of Talossa or any of it's citizen in relation to the substance of the proposed legislation."
This Court also injuncts Member of Cosa Béneditsch Ardpresteir, O.SPM. to vote on this particular Bill so as to avoid conflict(s). If there is difficulty in placing a no vote/ blank vote/ ignore, then the said MC can choose the option of exercising the choice of 'abstain'.
The Court now goes into recess, but calls for opinions and interpretation on the subject matter and encourage discussion on the subject on the Witt. People are encouraged to apply for presentation of their Amicus brief. At the end of a fortnight or even a month the Government is urged, and it may place it's stand before the Court.
(All rise)
This Court room assembles in haste to pass a suo moto injunction in haste with a bonafide intention to save the citizens of Talossa from being associated with certain activities which might border on illegality.
This injunction may be modified either suo moto or after hearing certain parties and is subject to appeal.
This Court prima facie feels that either RZ3 needs to be somehow removed from the Clark, or it has to be voted down. Despite this, even if it passes, the King should not give his assent to it and make it a law.
Being situated in a location where the same is illegal, plus voluntarily accepting the Winconsin Codes, the Kingdom of Talossa can't be seen to be violating the code of conduct of our neighbouring nation.
In recent times though there was a cry to legalize recreational use, but the same was not successful in the neighborhood state. It has been reported that Rep. Chris Taylor & Sen. Jon Erpenbach co-sponsored two medical cannabis bills earlier this year, but their attempts have been stalled by the state’s leadership.
Hence we as a nation should not attempt to do something illegal per se by trying to change the Talossan Laws, and bringing them to conflict with the Winconsin/ US laws at least.
Whilst the Court was concerned on the above line, it was also made aware that certain honorable citizen share similar concerns.
Thus this Court as a precautionary and preventive measure pass a injunctive order that "Even if RZ3 of the 51st Cosa is passed as a law for the Kingdom of Talossa, it would not make any changes to any Statutes of the Nation and the passed Bill in the form of the Act would be kept in abeyance from implementation till the neighborhood state of Winconsin or the Federal Government of the USA makes certain changes to their existing laws whereupon no penal or civil action(s) could be taken against the Kingdom of Talossa or any of it's citizen in relation to the substance of the proposed legislation."
This Court also injuncts Member of Cosa Béneditsch Ardpresteir, O.SPM. to vote on this particular Bill so as to avoid conflict(s). If there is difficulty in placing a no vote/ blank vote/ ignore, then the said MC can choose the option of exercising the choice of 'abstain'.
The Court now goes into recess, but calls for opinions and interpretation on the subject matter and encourage discussion on the subject on the Witt. People are encouraged to apply for presentation of their Amicus brief. At the end of a fortnight or even a month the Government is urged, and it may place it's stand before the Court.
(All rise)
Should I first ridicule the preposterous Justice on his wrong Latin? The word motus is, after all, a u-stem word, thus it should read correctly suo motu.
Should I admonish him for the fact that motions sua sponte have, to my knowledge, never ever been issued in Talossa, and that only seldom in Anglo-American jurisprudence have they been used to such magnitude? Granted, sua sponte decisions are ubiquitous in certain aspects of jurisprudence. The assignment of a trial judge, or the determination of a trial date, a dismissal due to lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, or even a question posed by a sitting judge or Justice, directed to the defence or the prosecution/plaintiff, can be regarded as mini-sua sponte decisions.
However, the Uppermost Cort must not interject into the orderly proceedings of the Ziu with such blatant disregard for the law, and the trust which the people of Talossa place in it. It is highly improper, if not even criminally illegal, for a Justice to dismiss the doctrine of ne ultra petita in such an important matter, and to intervene in the Clark sua sponte.
It cannot be illegal for the legislative body of the Kingdom of Talossa to do its job, namely legislating, passing laws. Notwithstanding the fact that the law in question has not even been passed yet, a law that is not inOrganic cannot be subject to a request of injunction by any Court of Law, because Courts of Law are, themselves, bound to the law. If an Organic bill cannot be enjoined against by petition of an interested party, it cannot possibly be enjoined against by the Uppermost Cort sua sponte. That would be like the Uppermost Cort issuing an injunction against a bill that changes sections in the Organic Law for which changes are permitted.
The Justice Ardpresteir seems also to be confused as to what constitutes sovereignty, and wants Talossa to adhere to the Laws of Wisconsin, and the United States of America. He has furthermore voiced his opinion that
The day Talossa tries to openly defy Indian laws, I'd definitely have to choose to quit.
You will also notice that the person enjoined, Béneditsch Ardpresteir, is the same person as the Justice who issues the injunction. I understand there is the doctrine of Multiple Hats in Talossa, but the doctrine of conflict of interest, and judicial impartiality, is paramount and is supreme to that of the Multiple Hats. It borders on insanity that a person thinks it possible to ISSUE AN INJUNCTION AGAINST ONESELF.
Senators, I ask that we discuss this matter, and I ask that we consider moving to issue a Sense of the Senäts, admonishing the Justice in question, and urging the Ziu to dismiss Béneditsch Ardpresteir from the Uppermost Cort for cause. I would furthermore like to inform you that the Túischac'h has requested that we join efforts in issuing a statement against the Justice in question.