|
Post by Avocat-Xheneral on Mar 15, 2018 13:33:16 GMT -6
My Lord Chief Justice Ián Tamorán S.H., A fair amount of time has passed for public comments. I have submitted a supplemental brief that addressed many of your concerns. While the Cort maintains discretion to carefully consider a case in the time it deems appropriate, could the Cort provide some insight into when it will make further inquiry or render a decision? Respectfully Submitted, _______/S/_________ Viteu Marcianüs Attorney-General Ministry of Justice Kingdom of Talossa
|
|
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 3, 2018 15:28:45 GMT -6
The Cort will come to order.Those present may be seated. This is a preliminary statement upon the Petition for Postconviction Relief (in the matter of Eric S. Börnatfiglheu, hereinafter called the Accused ), hereinafter called the Petition, as extended in the Memorandum of Law in Response to First Discussion (in the matter of Eric S. Börnatfiglheu), hereinafter called the Response Memorandum. The trial of that case of HM Government v. Börnatfiglheu, Case No. 14-05 is hereinafter called Trial 14-05. The body of the presentation here is rather long, and is presented in the attached document ESB_Cort_Schedule_20180403.pdf (43.22 KB) There is one quote from that document repeated here for clarity and immediate presentation and action: [This Cort makes] an intermediate lifting of restraints upon the Accused, as imposed in the sentence of Trial 14-05, with the caveat that should it be deemed just that those restrains (or some subset of them) be reimposed, then that reimposition will take place, but will have no effect upon any free actions, or the consequences thereof, performed by the accused from this immediate lifting of restraints until any such reimposition. That lifting of the said restraints takes effect from this moment. From this moment, the Accused is no longer required to perform any community service as part of his Talossan citizenship (though, out of his own free and moral choices he is urged to do so on his own behalf, but without Talossan restraint). From this moment, the Accused is free to enter into political and governmental activities, insofar as he wishes. From this moment the Accused is free to hold any office of state, provincial or central, as is deemed appropriate for him by his fellow citizens, without regard to Trial 14-05 or the accusations therein.
The Cort will rise. Justice Ián Tamorán S.H.3rd April 2018
|
|
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, 2018 5:22:19 GMT -6
Public Notice of Schedule
This Cort has prepared a substantive draft of its judgement, and will make that judgment final with publication soon after noon on the 20th April 2018/xxxix.
If any citizen has relevant matters to be considered in the body of that final judgement, then they must inform this Cort either publicly or this Justice in camera prior to noon on the 16th April 2018/xxxix.
Justice Ián Tamorán S.H.
|
|
King John
King of Talossa
Posts: 2,415
Talossan Since: 5-7-2005
Knight Since: 11-30-2005
Motto: COR UNUM
King Since: 3-14-2007
|
Post by King John on Apr 10, 2018 9:46:59 GMT -6
My Lord Chief Justice —
It has been my belief, as I communicated to this honourable Cort some time ago, that SOMEONE ought to have been heard in opposition to this petition. In the normal course of events, the Government would defend its own earlier actions, but in this case the Government was arguing in favour of the petition and against itself, as it were. The Attorney General argued at great length, and NO OTHER VOICE was permitted to argue against him; which strikes me as quite wrong. It is particularly frustrating to me, in that the Attorney General, in his arguments, besides making false statements of fact, accused ME of various crimes — including perjury — without my being admitted to counter his arguments.
You ordered him and me to stop posting things here. I did stop, and waited to be invited to speak — which never happened.
— John R
|
|
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 10, 2018 16:51:14 GMT -6
My Lord Chief Justice — It has been my belief, as I communicated to this honourable Cort some time ago, that SOMEONE ought to have been heard in opposition to this petition. In the normal course of events, the Government would defend its own earlier actions, but in this case the Government was arguing in favour of the petition and against itself, as it were. The Attorney General argued at great length, and NO OTHER VOICE was permitted to argue against him; which strikes me as quite wrong. It is particularly frustrating to me, in that the Attorney General, in his arguments, besides making false statements of fact, accused ME of various crimes — including perjury — without my being admitted to counter his arguments. You ordered him and me to stop posting things here. I did stop, and waited to be invited to speak — which never happened. — John R I had hoped that my previous statement would have been interpreted as a free invitation for all to comment - mea culpa for my not being clear. If there is a requirement for the period of further consideration to be made longer, then this Cort is perfectly willing to extend that time. You are most certainly invited to speak. You - as any other citizen - may now speak freely in open Cort, or communicate in camera.
In the light of this request, this Cort will extend the period of further deliberation until at least the end of Tuesday 24th April 2018/xxxix. With my apologies for any unintentionally excessive restrictions previously placed.
|
|
|
Post by Avocat-Xheneral on Apr 13, 2018 11:31:01 GMT -6
My Lord Chief Justice,
In response to allegation made about the office of the Attorney-General, I wish to point out the filing entitled "Memorandum of Law in Response to First Discussion" Sepcifically, I bring to the Corts attention page 9, n 8, which reads, "The Attorney-General takes this opportunity to clarify some issues. Notwithstanding subsequent developments, which will be addressed as necessary, upon reflection, the Attorney-General wishes to make it known that his contention with the legal propriety of King John’s actions in the first instance, measured from the moment he undertook the investigation to the when he addressed the nation, and all acts in between, focuses on the conduct itself. The Attorney-General, either implicitly or explicitly, indicated that King John in the first instance likely committed the crimes of unlawful use of telephone and harassment (see 35RZ21 §§ 941.012, 947.013). In retrospect, I do not believe King John undertook his actions with the intent to frighten, threaten, intimidate, harass, or any of the requisite elements of the aforementioned crimes, when he contacted defendant, and for my mischaracterization, I offer my unqualified apology, on the record, to King John. It is my opinion now that King John acted in a way he thought was legal, and while a mistake of law does not absolve criminal liability, where, as here, it speaks directly to the specific intent required for criminal conduct, he cannot be guilty of a crime. To be clear, the Attorney-General maintains King John should not have acted the way he did in that those action resulted in, what I believe, a deprivation of defendant’s right to a fair trial for any number of reasons. As such, in the unlikely event something analogous happens in the future, the Attorney-General, regardless of personal and political differences with King John, believes the appropriate action would be to immediately that, upon learning of the perceived criminal conduct, King John immediately contact the appropriate authority to take over the investigation and to decide the appropriate steps. It is, after all, within the discretion of the Attorney-General to pursue criminal charges. In the U.S., for a very specific type civil claim for an abuse of an individual’s civil rights by one acting under color of law, the first time that circumstance is before a court, the defendant is generally absolved of liability. However, going forward, defendants will not be afforded that understanding as the initial case puts all those in similar positions on notice that the action was unconstitutional. But as notice of a law is required for criminal or civil liability (and there is a presumption that everyone knows the law), when such instances are fact specific and vary, as is the case here, the law addresses circumstances as they arrive (for those familiar with US law, I’m referencing 42 U.S.C. § 1983). I think this is an appropriate analogy. Finally, to the extent that this served as a proximate cause to the unfortunate colloquy between the Attorney-General and King John before this Cort, I apologize, on the record, for my conduct. While I maintain other claims that were made are appropriate, I wished to clarify where I think the divergence of understanding occurred, and to take responsibility for my part in said misunderstanding."
I would also point out that I did not argue at great length that no other voice should be heard, I argued that non-parties should not be heard but should file an amicus curiae, as invited by the Cort with its first round of questions. As you made it clear, those would be submitted for in camera review but published at the Cort's discretion. Therefore, the Crown could have responded. My objection was open participation in the actual proceeding. The Cort should also take note that I did not object to the participation of the former A-G. So this argument that I opposed any other voice than mine is unavialing.
That said, the Crown continues to libel me in front of this Cort, even after I rescinded certain accusations and apologized, and continues to knowingly and with malicious intent misrepresent the facts of this proceeding. Therefore, I move for sanctions.
If the Crown wishes to withdraw the previous post or modify it to remove the libelous content found therein while seeking clarification regarding its ability to participate, I shall withdraw my motion.
Unrelated to this, I will be posting a motion shortly for clarification on other procedural issues on how to proceed as a result of the intermediate order.
|
|
|
Post by Avocat-Xheneral on Apr 20, 2018 17:03:31 GMT -6
My Lord Chief Justice,
In light of the Cort's general invite for commentary and the forthcoming final judgment expected on April 24, 2018, the Attorney-General requests clarification as to the issue of solemn affirmation with respect to the April 9, 2018 order, or put another way, whether the April 3, 2018 intermediate order, which requested that said information be submitted "under Solemn Affirmation of their truth," remains controlling.
Further, to the extent any submissions are made for in camera review, and considering other statements made but not ignoring the right to respond to substantive issues, the Office of the Attorney-General requests the ability and a reasonable amount of time to review said submissions prior to any dispositive determination as to afford said office with a fair chance to respond, in camera, to any and all allegations contained therein, lest the Cort not afford the Attorney-General the opportunity to be heard on the matter asserted.
To the extent that such submissions from certain individuals do not materially impact the Cort's determination, it is requested that the Cort render its determination on the merits and as soon as possible to prevent the Kingdom of Talossa from committing further injustice. It is within this Cort's ability to settle many of these matters, such as the issue of harsh or excessive punishment, duplicity of charges, or propriety of the charging instrument, on the law and without making findings of fact. Insofar as the Cort determines it necessary to make certain findings of fact, the Office of Attorney-General notes that all information has been submitted for the Cort to render an objective determination without reliance on testimony concerning events that are remote in time. If, however, this Cort should find contrarily, then the Office of Attorney-General requests the opportunity to cross-examine those individuals, in open Cort, on certain inconsistent statements.
Respectfully Submitted,
_______/S/_________ Viteu Marcianüs Attorney-General Ministry of Justice Kingdom of Talossa
|
|
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 23, 2018 15:24:40 GMT -6
In reply to the questions posed by the Honourable Avocat-Xheneral (posting of 21 April), this Cort assures the Honourable Avocat-Xheneral and all others who seek information about this case that:
Firstly, all submissions made to a Cort are made under Solemn Affirmation of their truth. This is a controlling requirement for all communications with all Corts. The forthcoming ruling from this Cort will have a longer clarifying description of this requirement, but it may be accurately summarised as stated in the first sentence here: "all submissions made to a Cort are made under Solemn Affirmation of their truth".
Secondly, there have been no further submissions of evidence or enquiry made to this Cort prior to this time, which is 22:20 BST 23 April 2018/xxxix. If any submissions are received within the next 16 hours they will immediately be published by this Cort. If no such submissions are made, then this Cort will retire to chambers to prepare the final document announcing its analyses and judgements, to be published soon after 12:00 BST 26 April 2018/xxxix.
Meanwhile, this Cort thanks all who have contributed their valuable time and attentive labour in the carrying forward of this case.
Justice Ián Tamorán S.H.
23rd April 2018/xxxix
|
|
Glüc da Dhi
Secretary of State
Posts: 6,112
Talossan Since: 5-14-2009
|
Post by Glüc da Dhi on Apr 24, 2018 6:49:14 GMT -6
My Chief Lord Justice,
I am not a lawyer, (nor am I a native speaker of English) but as no one more eloquent or better legally trained than me seems to have taken the time to respond to some of the arguments made I would like to make a few comments. I hope I'm not being inappropriate here.
First of all with regards to the severity of the sentence, I agree that this should that this should be considered "... above all, by the overriding considerations of Justice.". For this, context is needed. Talossa is a small community, which can only function based on mutual trust. Trust in our legal system, trust in democracy and trust in each other. We do not apply the vetting procedures that certain other nations use with regards to naturalisation, nor do we ask for identity cards combined with actual presence when voting, and it is my believe that introducing such measures would destroy Talossa, so trust is of crucial importance. If one person were to succesfully pretend to be more than 5% of the electorate in an election, thereby gaining significant power and was well on his way to more than doubling that percentage for the next election, in most countries that would rightfully seen as a major attack on democracy. It would also be disastrous for trust in democracy. Civil disabilities and fines do not prevent one from living ones life, it doesn't expel one from the community. Mostly, it temporarily prevents one from participating in the system one sought to undermine. Compare that to one punishment suggested by 36RZ10 in such cases: banishment. It appears to me that rather than being cruel such a sentence would be mild and reasonable, and allow the convicted at least the opportunity to restore trust in the long term.
Sadly, I don't have anymore time to complete what I wanted to say, or to put in in a document, so I will just leave it at that.
Glüc da Dhi speaking as himself, 24-4-2018
|
|
|
Post by Avocat-Xheneral on Apr 24, 2018 19:29:51 GMT -6
May it please the Cort: This Office of Attorney General acknowledges that it has read the submission put forth by S:reu Glüc da Dhi. While it stands in opposition to the argument, the OAG posits that counterarguments already exist in the record and, thus, there need not be any rebuttal in this instance. The OAG appreciates the submission and the thought put into it. As such, the decision to not respond directly to the point raised should not be understood as a disregard to the merits, but only that such counterarguments already exists. For the record, if any other counterarguments are advanced that the OAG determines is adequately addressed in the record, unless otherwise mentioned, a similar post that the OAG declines to respond shall be made with the aforestated understanding implicit. Such disclaimers as this need not be included in every post. Respectfully Submitted, _______/S/_________ Viteu Marcianüs Attorney-General Ministry of Justice Kingdom of Talossa
|
|
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 26, 2018 2:51:56 GMT -6
The Cort will come to order.
Those present may be seated.
The analysis and first statement of judgement concerning the Petition for Postconviction Relief (in the matter of Eric S. Börnatfiglheu may be found in the attached document Postconviction_Judgement.pdf (379.15 KB). By reason of its length the texrt of that document is not included here in its entirety. This Wittenberg posting contains a copy of only the final section of that document, containing Rulings and Statement of Judgement. All the references herein are references to the complete report. That report contains the reasoning behind each of these judgements, including the relationships between these individual rulings: this Cort requests that the whole of the report be read prior to raising commentary upon any of the judgements stated here.
This Cort makes the following Rulings and Statements in Response to the Judgment of Petition for Postconviction Relief (in the matter of Eric S. Börnatfiglheu). Further judgements may be issued by this Cort after subsequent investigations, described in the full report.
II.1 The function of this Cort is the exercise of Justice. [I.2.2]
II.2 The function of this Cort is to uphold the application of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights within Justice and morality in the enforcement of Talossan Law. [I.2.6]
II.3 This Cort may de jure decide the merits of The Petition. [I.5.3]
II.4 The 15 alleged offences under Wisconsin Criminal Code 947.0125 are struck out of the Charging Instrument for Trial 14.05, and all parts of the sentencing relating to those alleged offences are struck out. [I.6.1.6]
II.5 All the references to the allegations within the Charging Instrument being that of a Criminal act or Class C misdemeanour are struck out. [I.6.1.6]
II.6 The law applicable to this case and that of Trial 14-05 has been determined to be only the Talossan Law at the time of the alleged offences. No part of Wisconsin law is to be used in this case. No part of Wisconsin law is to be applied within the consequences or judgements of Trial 14-05. No part of the Talossan Law being used in this case has been found to be Inorganic. [I.6.1.7]
II.7 Neither possible premature plea nor prior public statements had any effect upon bias within or impartiality of Trial 14-05. Neither bias nor impartiality occurred because of either or both of those two counts. [I.6.3.6]
II.8 The sentence imposed by Trial 14-05 was not cruel. [I.7.3.4]
II.9 The sentence imposed by Trial 14-05 was over-severe, and is ruled to be now completed, without any further limitations to be placed upon The Accused. [I.7.4.5]
II.10 The sentence imposed by Trial 14-05 was not degrading. [I.7.5.3]
II.11 The sentence imposed by Trial 14-05 was not bizarre. [I.7.6]
II.12 The bulk of the Charging Instrument is struck out, leaving only a single accusation of a single offence, and a request for punishment at the discretion of the Corts. [I.8.5]
II.13 The Accused was not in full legal knowledge of the complete list of charges being brought, but was sufficiently aware of at least one charge against which he could reasonably plea. [I.9.2]
II.14 The Accused’s plea in Trial 14-05 is valid only insofar as the guilt for a single offence was admitted by The Accused. [I.10]
II.15 All statements made to or within a Cort are made under Solemn Affirmation. [I.9.4.1]
II.16 No perjury within Trial 14-05 is declared here. Those actions stated in the body of this document [supra I.9.4.4] for permitting any future judgement to be made by this Cort must be followed. [I.9.4.3] [I.9.4.4]
II.17 No duress within Trial 14-05 is declared here. Those actions stated in the body of this document [I.9.4.4] for permitting any future judgement to be made by this Cort must be followed. [I.9.4.4] [I.9.4.7]
II.18 Both Ian Lupul [King John ] and The Accused [E.S. Bornatfiglheu ] are directed to sections I.9.4.4 and I.9.4.6 of the report, which sections contain actions to be taken by those persons. This Cort requires these actions be completed, by the first sending of in camera responses, prior to 23:59 UTC hours on Thursday 17th May AD 2018/xxxix. Once those responses have been received they shall be published by this Cort for public inspection. The Cort will then announce what period of public discussion and comment shall then be allowed prior to this Cort retiring to consider its further judgements. [I.9.4.4] [I.9.4.6]
II.19 As a request, and not as a ruling, it is suggested that the Ziu might look at sections I.6.2.3 and I.7.4.6 for discussion, and consultation with all the people in general in Talossa. It is the personal opinion of this Justice that it would be of benefit to Talossa that the points raised there – and, indeed, at other places in this analysis – be considered. [I.6.2.3] [I.7.4.6]
Court is adjourned.
Chief Justice Ián Munditenêns Treisoûret Tamorán, S.H.
26th April AD 2018/xxxix
|
|
|
Post by Avocat-Xheneral on Apr 26, 2018 11:20:21 GMT -6
May it please the Cort,
In light of the Corts judgment in the matter, the Office of the Attorney-General hereby withdraws the pending motions calling for contempt.
Further, the Attorney-General shall refrain from further participation insofar as the in camera submission do not address or make any allegation against said Office. In the event that some allegation is made, the Attorney-General requests the right to respond.
Finally, inasmuch as the Cort has ordered certain individuals to file a submission, it is encouraged that, provided those individuals are not currently represented, the Cort assign counsel, if the individuals so desire. As it relates to the King, while ordinarily the Attorney-General would represent him, on account of an obvious conflict, at the Cort's or King's request, the Attorney-General will appoint a temporary deputy, which would naturally be with the King's consent.
Respectfully Submitted,
_______/S/_________ Viteu Marcianüs Attorney-General Ministry of Justice Kingdom of Talossa
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Apr 26, 2018 20:28:31 GMT -6
If it pleases the Cort, will this Cort entertain an amicus brief at this time on the matter of this judgment? Your Honour has begun a new phase of these proceedings in which personal in camera questioning appears to be the goal. I know it is unusual to request to submit a brief, but the interests of justice compel me as a member of the bar. I believe there are serious Organic problems with these proceedings, primarily (but not exclusively) because the adversarial process -- central to our system -- has been abandoned here.
The Avocat-Xheneral has lodged and argued a petition that should rightly have been brought by the accused and defended by the Crown in the very person of the Avocat-Xheneral. This represents a repugnant conclusion for the future that must be examined: the supraposition of the politically-elected Seneschal and his Cabinet over the independent course of justice in the country. They are -- at a minimum -- in violation of XVI.8, which calls for decisions only after the "fullest opportunity for all members assigned to a case to consider the case in question," as well as Lex.D.2.5, which requires the Avocat-Xheneral to "defend the government against actions brought against it in said courts."
These and other serious issues will be argued at length in my brief, if I am permitted to offer one.
I regret that I have not had time to read up on this case and speak up earlier, but I cannot in good conscience continue to ignore this matter now that I am aware of it. I also apologize for addressing the Cort without invitation, but I also know that our Corts have generally been fairly forgiving of procedural issues, which have often been awesomely ad-hoc and performative in true Talossan fashion, so I have high hopes I will be permitted to be heard. Either way, thank you.
|
|
|
Post by Avocat-Xheneral on Apr 27, 2018 8:03:08 GMT -6
May it please the Cort,
This Cort offered an expansive period for public commentary, which ranged from January 12, 2018 to April 25, 2018. Motions and claryfing orders were made but ultimately the fundamental, albeit extraordinary, opportuinity for the public to submit their thoughts on the case remained thoughout.
The Corts order disposed of many issues and narrowed any remaining issue of the phone call, for which it invited only commentary fron two individials. As such, the Attorney-General posted that it would appoint a temporary deputy to represent the King for that inquiry, if requested. For clarity, said individual would have absolute autonomy and report only to the Prime Minister. The Office of the Attorney-General sent a message to the King describing this, and naming an individual that would likely be agreeable. If there is another individial preferred, the OAG is partial to honoring its commitment but, if there are reservations, will make them known in Chambers to only the involved parties.
That digression aside, the time for public commentary has elapsed, and a final order with respect to many issues has been rendered. To those issues, the law of the case doctrine precludes further review unless vacatur or reargument is sought by an aggrevied party. Alternatively, a individual may seek to file an independent action against the OAG or use the democractic process for removal. Ultimately, litigation must, at some point, come to a conclusion, and permitting further commentary on issues of fact and law that have already been settled undermines that process and promises to unnecessarily extend the proceedings. No good cause has been established to permit further commentary; the Cort was generous with providing roughly five months for commentary; and any futher commentary should stay within the parameters of what is now currently before the Cort.
As such, the OAG objects to further interference that seek to reargue those issues already decided, especially from parties who lacked any standing in the first instance.
|
|
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 27, 2018 11:24:31 GMT -6
This Cort notes the withdrawal by the Avocat-Xheneral of any pending motions calling for contempt. Furthermore this Cort assures both the Attorney-General and any other party making submission to this Cort and all other citizens of Talossa that all allegations raised, and which are considered by this Cort to be part of this case, will be presented to the relevant parties for response or for statement of intending to respond prior to any further action. All parties who are currently being enjoined by this Cort to respond in camera have the right to appoint or, if necessary, ask the Cort’s permission to appoint representation on their behalf or to speak in their own right.
This Cort wishes to clarify any possible confusion that may have arisen between the prior case of Trial 14-05 and its attendant documentation and this case of consideration of the Petition, in the identification of certain individuals, in that the Monarch is in no way being questioned here, but the citizen S:reu Ian Lupul is being called to give evidence. S:reu Ian Lupul currently holds the title of Monarch (King John ) of Talossa, with all its attendant and associated honours, but it is not the Monarch this Cort is questioning or from whom a written submission is required, it is S:reu Ian Lupul. In the Judgement Paragraph I.12.1 it is stated: "Note also that within this document the Monarch is not indicated to have taken part, but only Ian Lupul as an individual and El Süsadmin. If any actions in this case were taken by Ian Lupul as Monarch then we have a deeply serious further matter concerning the political and democratic foundation of this very nation".
This Cort also observes that Trial 14-05 was between “The People of the Kingdom of Talossa” and “The Talossan Government” (the Charging Instrument, reference within the Judgement documentation posted at Thursday 26th day of April AD 2018/xxxix at 09:51), with the Attorney-General at that time as their representation, and the Accused E.S. Bornatfiglheu . This Petition, however, was brought directly by the Attorney-General under his duties of monitoring and review of the Justice system here within Talossa as a petition to the Uppermost Cort (Cort pü Inhalt) to reconsider the correctness of and level of sentence from that prior Trial 14-05. Thus the primary participants in this Petition are not the participants in Trial 14-05 (The People and Government on the one part and The Accused on the other part), but the Attorney-General on his own part in petition to the Uppermost Cort (Cort pü Inhalt). Had S:reu Ian Lupul or The Accused or any other Ministry or group or individual wished to communicate with this Cort during the consideration of this Petition, then there was ample time given for communication to this Cort to be made. On the 10th day of April AD 2018/xxxix there was a query as to whether public communication was permitted, and this Cort explicitly extended the available time to the 24th day of April AD 2018.xxxix. Some communications were received by this Cort in that time period, and are referenced within the Judgement documentation).
This Cort has nothing to forgive in Sir Alexandreu Davinescu ’s address to the Cort without prior invitation: in this context that was perfectly reasonable and perfectly acceptable. However, this Cort will not at this time entertain the amicus brief requested, as it appears to contain two errors of fact: the first being that this was a case in which the Government was a party, as it was not, as indicated supra; and the second being that there was lacking the "fullest opportunity for all members assigned to a case to consider the case in question", as that time for consideration has been noted supra, which time gave the "fullest opportunity". Moreover, the Adversarial process is not directly applicable here: if there were adversaries, then one of them would be the whole Cort at Trial 14-05; instead, what this case of the Petition has considered and is further considering are the results of Trial 14-05, how the decisions of that Trial were reached, and whether there are actions that should and must be taken to remedy any deviation from Justice arising from that case and that trial.
This Cort believes that an amicus curiae is “one (such as a professional person or organization) that is not a party to a particular litigation but that is permitted by the court to advise it in respect to some matter of law that directly affects the case in question” (to quote Merriam-Webster). If Sir Alexandreu Davinescu or any other party wishes to apply (or reapply) to raise an amicus brief, then they are free to do so: but this Cort will entertain granting such requests only when they are in accord with the definition quoted supra.
|
|