|
CASE
Sept 6, 2012 19:37:13 GMT -6
Post by Eðo Grischun on Sept 6, 2012 19:37:13 GMT -6
I, Eovart Grischun, present my defence.
I wish to enter a plea of guilty. I am unaware if I got the mentioned refund or not. I didn't get the bank statement till later, I guess I wasn't paying too much attention because I can't remember ever seeing or looking for this refund. I had assumed that I did get it, I had no reason to think the former Prime Minister would not have issued the refund after saying that she would. I didn't pay a second time, as I wanted to pay by the same method but into an official account of the Kingdom and not one pulled out of nowhere at the last minute. I was witholding payment until such official accounts could be set up, an issue that has only just recently been resolved. If this refund did get to my account, my party was not lawfully registered as I did not follow with a second payment. I believe that the Prime Minister, while trying to solve a problem with good intention, carried out actions that our laws do not permit for. I lodged a request to injuct, but The clerk of courts didn't act upon my requests at the time, the issue dragged on, the Chancery seemed to be ok with everything, no one chased me for money, the court dragged on, the issue went away.
|
|
Brad Holmes
Cunstaval to Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Atatürkey, and flying by the seat of my RUMP
Posts: 1,014
Talossan Since: 3-16-2006
|
CASE
Sept 8, 2012 14:38:21 GMT -6
Post by Brad Holmes on Sept 8, 2012 14:38:21 GMT -6
I declare this court in session. The plaintiff has made his initial argument; I invite the defendants named (Iustin Canun, Litz Cjantscheir, Bradley Holmes and Eovart Grischun) to present their defence within 7 days from this date - though should they have a mitigating circumstance why they cannot, they may PM me asking for an extension. ... I, Bradley Holmes, present my defense. The charges against me are as filed. On September 22 2011, I sent the following message to the clerk of courts: ... On September 22 2011, Brad Holmes replied as follows: Filed. The Courthouse is under construction. Your case will be assigned as soon as construction is complete. (Hopefully much sooner than later) Brad Clerk Today, January 25 2012, I seek to file the following charges, in public forum: ... C: an impeachment of Bradley Holmes on the following charges: (i) acting in capacity of Clerk of Courts did recieve (sic) a request for a trial from Eovart Grischun, and did conspire with others to not have the case heard and acted to ensure the same. ... These charges are completely baseless. There was no conspiracy or action of any type - only inaction. Which I acknowledge and for which I apologize. My evidence. 1.) The previous layout of the "Courthouse" on Wittenberg was inadequate. As the new Clerk, I wanted something more suitable to hopefully better organize and track judicial business. It took some time before the boards were set up. It took more time before I had the ability to manipulate threads within the Courthouse. 2.) On the exact same day the charges were filed, I replied that they had been received. I even noted that there would be a delay in any action due to the "re-modeling". 3.) There has been no communication with anybody about the case, much less "the others" mentioned in the charges. *** I also share S:da Litz Cjantscheir's concern about the (ironic) legality of this legal procedure. Also, I freely admit that I don't check Witt every day. Or even every other day. Sometimes it's a week or more before I log on. And when I log on, I don't look at every post or in every board. Yet somehow life goes. But I'm concerned that I was under a subpoena to appear in court, but no active effort was made to summon me. There was only the passive post from the Magistrate. In fact, it's lucky I happened to check Witt when I did, otherwise I would have likely missed the deadline and could have been held in contempt.
|
|
Owen Edwards
Puisne Justice
Posts: 1,400
Talossan Since: 12-8-2007
|
CASE
Sept 10, 2012 5:02:47 GMT -6
Post by Owen Edwards on Sept 10, 2012 5:02:47 GMT -6
As all the defendants have either offered a defence, or in D:na Cjantscheir's case apparently declined to enter a defence, I now invite amicus curiae briefs from the following:
Most Hon. Ma la Mha, Lord Hooligan Rt. Hon. Alexandreu Davinescu Rt. Hon. Istefan Pertgonest (with the assumption that above post from the Clerk of Courts constitutes his brief) Sir Mick Preston
I will allow 7 days from this date for the above-named to present their briefs (or so many days as it takes, if it is less than 7), before allowing the plaintiff to make a response to the defendants, if he so desires. The defendants will then have the opportunity for any closing comments.
|
|
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
|
CASE
Sept 10, 2012 14:21:18 GMT -6
Post by Dame Litz Cjantscheir, UrN on Sept 10, 2012 14:21:18 GMT -6
MOTION TO DISMISS [/center] I, Litz Cjantscheir, Co-Defendant, hereby moves the Court to dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint with prejudice. The bases for this Motion are set forth in the accompanying Memorandum. Dated this day as postmarked, Respectfully Submitted by, Litz Cjantscheir
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS
FACTS
[/center] (i) S:reu Éovart Grischun, the plaintiff on January 25th 2012, filed the following charges, against the defendant, Litz Cjantscheir: (i) acting in capacity of Minister of Finance did commit acts of crime against statute and Organic law by changing electoral registration rules during an election, the act itself being illegal and dictatorial and the rules themselves not being prescribed in any law.
(ii) did conspire with others regarding inorganic behaviours of office. On the above charges, the plaintiff sought the following relief from the court:
an impeachment of Litz Cjantscheir
Given that the plaintiff is suing the Defendant, Litz Cjantscheir in her capacity as Prime Minister and as Acting Minister of Finance, one must assume that the plaintiff is referring to these offices, and these offices alone in his petition. Since the last General Election, the defendant no longer holds these offices. (ii) On September 22nd 2011, the plaintiff allegedly, though not proven by the plaintiff nor has sufficient evidence been offered by the plaintiff to prove this email was actually sent to the clerk of the courts, made the following charges against, the Defendant: ...do hereby seek a ruling and judgement of this most Honourable Court, ruling that decisions made by Litz Cjantscheir, acting in the role of Minsiter [sic] of Finance for His Majesty's Government, on Thursday 8th September 2011 are illegal and seek that they be overturned and that an injuction [sic] in granted forcing the authorites [sic] to remedy the situation at hand in a legal manner at no cost to political party leaderships and that a period of grace be installed permitting payment of registration fees later than usual.
ARGUMENT [/center] (i) The plaintiff's complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and as thus, the Plaintiff's claim must be dismissed because his legal claims, even if taken as true or proven, would not entitle the plaintiff to relief he seeks, as the defendant no longer holds the office(s) of Prime Minister and/or Finance Minister and thus cannot be impeached, by court order or otherwise, from said office(s). The defendant acknowledges that on the date of filing, January 25th 2012, the plaintiff’s claim could of had, if proven beyond all reasonable doubt, relief granted. However, given the delay of almost nine months since the filing of this case and its hearing, the plaintiff’s claim upon which relief may be granted is no longer valid as it is beyond the powers of this court and indeed, inorganic for this court to order the impeachment (be it retrospectively or not) of the defendant from a office she no longer holds. (ii) The plaintiff's complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and as thus, the Plaintiff's claim must be dismissed because his legal claims, even if taken as true or proven, would not entitle the plaintiff to relief he seeks, given that (a) the previous Cosa in which the CSPP was a party of, has been dissolved, (b) the CSPP is no longer a political party in the Kingdom, (c) the Court can no longer grant a injunction and/or extend the payment time, as per the relief sought by the plaintiff for the reasons of (a) and (b) above nor can the Court retrospectively make such judgements as they cannot be followed or enforced by any party. The defendant acknowledges that on the date of filing, January 25th 2012, (the defendant questions the filing of said charges in September 2011 as (a) there is no public record of such and (b) the defendant was not notified of such charges, therefore the charges/petition cannot be counted as correctly and/or lawfully filed in September 2011) the plaintiff’s claim could of had, if proven beyond all reasonable doubt, relief granted. However, given the delay of almost nine months since the filing of this case and its hearing, the plaintiff’s claim upon which relief may be granted is no longer valid as it is beyond the powers of this court and indeed, inorganic for this court to order any injunction or ruling as requested by the plaintiff as relief. CONCLUSION [/center] For the reason stated above, the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss should be granted. Dated this day as postmarked, Respectfully Submitted by, Litz Cjantscheir Defendant
|
|
|
CASE
Sept 10, 2012 15:03:59 GMT -6
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Sept 10, 2012 15:03:59 GMT -6
As all the defendants have either offered a defence, or in D:na Cjantscheir's case apparently declined to enter a defence, I now invite amicus curiae briefs from the following: Rt. Hon. Alexandreu Davinescu Your Honour, in this brief of support for the defendants, I will show why these charges must be dismissed against all defendants, because the nearly nine month delay the amount of time permitted by law by the The Habeas Corpus Enforcement Act, 40RZ4, as well as by the Organic Law S:reu Eðo Grischun reports that he made the charges on September 22nd, 2011, and Clerk of Courts Brad Holmes assigned a case number and relayed the case to the Magistracy on January 26th, 2012. Yet it was not until September 5th, 2012, that Your Honour was able to call the court to order and the actual trial began. The Ninth Covenant states that "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury or tribunal of the Crown." And while this provision alone would be sufficient to make any prosecution which took 229 days, the OrgLaw is further clarified by 40RZ4, which declares that: "The Crown shall have up to 90 days from the time of notification of the accused in which to prepare its case. If a case is not prepared by the Crown within the allotted time, a mistrial shall be declared and the charge or charges against the accused shall be rendered null and void." For 229 days, the charges were accepted and assigned a case number, and the case was assigned. And during that period, the defendants were forced to wait and endure the opprobrium of legal threat, unable to redress or move because of the absence of the magistrates rather than any fault of their own. Even if this did not exceed the clearly defined statutory limit in which any person(s) can be held in legal limbo, case 12-01 must be dismissed in recognition of the Organic provision for a speedy trial. I respectfully request a dismissal of this 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
|
CASE
Sept 10, 2012 15:22:03 GMT -6
Post by Dame Litz Cjantscheir, UrN on Sept 10, 2012 15:22:03 GMT -6
OBJECTION [/center] As all the defendants have either offered a defence, or in D:na Cjantscheir's case apparently declined to enter a defence, I now invite amicus curiae briefs from the following: Most Hon. Ma la Mha, Lord Hooligan Rt. Hon. Alexandreu Davinescu Rt. Hon. Istefan Pertgonest (with the assumption that above post from the Clerk of Courts constitutes his brief) Sir Mick Preston I will allow 7 days from this date for the above-named to present their briefs (or so many days as it takes, if it is less than 7), before allowing the plaintiff to make a response to the defendants, if he so desires. The defendants will then have the opportunity for any closing comments. I wish to strongly object against S:reu Justice Edwards remarks, at no point during this case, did I, or any person(s) representing me indicate and/or express, whether directly or implied, any decision by myself to decline entering a defence into this case and move that the offending remarks be removed from the record of the Court. From my understanding and from the directions given by S:reu Justice Edwards, each of the co-defendants had seven (7) days from last Thursday 6th September to enter a defence, to quote: I declare this court in session. The plaintiff has made his initial argument; I invite the defendants named (Iustin Canun, Litz Cjantscheir, Bradley Holmes and Eovart Grischun) to present their defence within 7 days from this date - though should they have a mitigating circumstance why they cannot, they may PM me asking for an extension. Once 7 days has expired, I will accept amicus curiae briefs covering material not otherwise dealt with by the various parties from: Alexandreu Davinescu, Sir Mick Preston, Baron Hooligan, and Istefan Pertgonest (whose brief above shall be "put on ice" and brought back out once the 7 days has expired). I will then invite any further responses from the named parties (within reason) before rendering a judgement. It is now Monday 10th September and seven days have not elapsed nor have I given any indication that I will not be entering a defence. Therefore, unfounded assumptions are being made which are detrimental to and infringe upon my right and that of my co-defendants, to that of a fair trial. I move for the offending statement to be removed from the record of this Court and the original deadline of 7 days from Thursday 6th Sept. for the filing of defences be re-instated.
|
|
|
CASE
Sept 10, 2012 20:06:16 GMT -6
Post by Eðo Grischun on Sept 10, 2012 20:06:16 GMT -6
OPPOSITION/OBJECTION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR DISMISSAL
[/u][/b] I, Éovart Grischun, the plaintiff, hereby object to a motion to dismiss that has been filed with the Court by Litz Cjantscheir, a co-defendant in this case. If it so pleases the court, I ask that the motion to dismiss is denied based on the following arguments: 1. The defendant's motion states that; The plaintiff's complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and as thus, the Plaintiff's claim must be dismissed because his legal claims, even if taken as true or proven, would not entitle the plaintiff to relief he seeks, as the defendant no longer holds the office(s) of Prime Minister and/or Finance Minister and thus cannot be impeached, by court order or otherwise, from said office(s). The defendant acknowledges that on the date of filing, January 25th 2012, the plaintiff’s claim could of had, if proven beyond all reasonable doubt, relief granted. However, given the delay of almost nine months since the filing of this case and its hearing, the plaintiff’s claim upon which relief may be granted is no longer valid as it is beyond the powers of this court and indeed, inorganic for this court to order the impeachment (be it retrospectively or not) of the defendant from a office she no longer holds.
[/i] I argue that Dame Cjantscheir no longer holding office is irrelevant. Retrospective impeachment of charges can still occur, otherwise any person breaking laws while acting in an official capacity may simply leave office and escape trial. Impeachment need not include loss of office and in many parts of the world it does not. In Talossa, the law has never defined what an impeachment may or may not involve other than the Organic Law providing the Courts with broad powers to use as they see fit. RE: dates, times and the right to a speedy trial. I argue that Statutory Law 40RZ4 (The Habeas Corpus Enforcement Act) is unsafe and should be overturned/repealed by the court. This Act states the following; in the interest of providing the accused with the rights granted to him by the ninth Covenant of Rights and Freedoms, the following rights shall be considered to be inalienable and shall be afforded to all citizens in civilian trials: ... (Act continues).
[/i] My argument that this law is unsafe is that it uses language that should be reserved for the Organic Law (ie: 'the following rights shall be considered inalienable'). Talossan Statutory Law should not be defining the inalienable rights of citizens. The Organic Law is the supreme law of the land regarding inalienable rights and any habeas corpus enforcement should take place in that Organic Law. The apparent rights given to Talossans under 40RZ4 should have been added to the Organic Law via an amendment from the Ziu and not via Statutory Law. The Organic Law states that the accused has the right to a speedy trial and if 40RZ4 is an invalid statute and is overturned by this court, then in the absence of any further definition of 'speedy trial', the court may not be able to decide what is regarded as speedy and what is not. Furthermore, there is worldwide precedent in the fact that habeas corpus rules only apply to charges originating when the accused has broken laws of a parliament, in this case the Ziu, and that within common law a person can be tried without time-bar. If the court will allow me to be bold, I argue that Talossan courts need to take international precedents, especially those of common law, into account when deciding matters before them. I believe this to be important in defining and interpreting Talossan Law which is still in it's infancy compared to other nations of the world. 2. The defendant's motion states that; "The plaintiff's complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and as thus, the Plaintiff's claim must be dismissed because his legal claims, even if taken as true or proven, would not entitle the plaintiff to relief he seeks, given that (a) the previous Cosa in which the CSPP was a party of, has been dissolved, (b) the CSPP is no longer a political party in the Kingdom, (c) the Court can no longer grant a injunction and/or extend the payment time, as per the relief sought by the plaintiff for the reasons of (a) and (b) above nor can the Court retrospectively make such judgements as they cannot be followed or enforced by any party." [/blockquote] While the court may or may not be able to grant an injunction on events now passed and while the court may or may not be able to lawfully extend the payment time, this does not mean the entire case should be dismissed. The question over whether Dame Cjantscheir's original actions were lawful or not remains, as do questions regarding the conduct of the other three defendants. The facts that the previous Cosa has been dissolved and that the political party in question no longer exists as a legally existing entity make no bearing on all of the charges being heard by this court. For example, the fourth named defendant in this case (Grischun) may still be found guilty and ordered by the court to pay monies due and previously withheld regardless of whether the party or the Cosa exists as it did then. Also, the second named defendant (Cjantscheir) may still be found to have acted illegally in her previously held offices regardless of whether the Cosa has since dissolved or not. 3. (ERROR IN THE MOTION) The motion states that "the CSPP is no longer a political party in the Kingdom" This is not valid. The Common Sense Progressive Party (CSPP) is an active and registered political party in Talossa. The CSPP was registered with the Chancery just prior to the recent election in the summer of 2012. The CSPP also holds seats in the current Cosa assembly. I should also add that the CSPP's existence or non-existence is irrelevant and holds no bearing to this case as it had no involvement in the matters now before this court. The Common Sense Party (CSP) is the party in question and not the CSPP. I conclude by asking, once more, of this court to deny the motion to dismiss and allow this hearing to continue. Signed, Éovart Grischun, Plaintiff. Date as timestamped.
|
|
Owen Edwards
Puisne Justice
Posts: 1,400
Talossan Since: 12-8-2007
|
CASE
Sept 11, 2012 5:02:32 GMT -6
Post by Owen Edwards on Sept 11, 2012 5:02:32 GMT -6
The motions to dismiss are received, as is the plaintiff's response. I will rule on them in due time (as I will be travelling most of today).
As for D:na Cjantscheir's concerns about her right to present a defence, I can only say that out here on the frontier, a defendant filing a petition for an injunction (to a superior court), before leaving the "courtroom" and offering no signal that they intend to present any further defence suggests to me that the defendant might be declining to present a defence.
I am sure, however, that the defendant observed that I did not close the window of opportunity for defendants to present their briefs; I merely opened the window for friends of the court. The defendant is (still) invited to present their defence up until the end of the original window (or beyond if I receive an explanation of extenuating circumstances) without any prejudice to their 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
|
CASE
Sept 11, 2012 9:00:36 GMT -6
Post by Dame Litz Cjantscheir, UrN on Sept 11, 2012 9:00:36 GMT -6
May it please the Court, I wish to file a response to S:reu Grischun's counter motion, however due to several real life issues arrising today, I humbly ask that the honourable court not rule on the motions till I get the opportunity to file same tomorrow evening, if not before.
My humble regards,
Litz
|
|
Owen Edwards
Puisne Justice
Posts: 1,400
Talossan Since: 12-8-2007
|
CASE
Sept 11, 2012 9:20:44 GMT -6
Post by Owen Edwards on Sept 11, 2012 9:20:44 GMT -6
The Court is happy to grant a delay to allow D:na Cjantscheir to file a response.
|
|
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
|
CASE
Sept 12, 2012 8:09:46 GMT -6
Post by Dame Litz Cjantscheir, UrN on Sept 12, 2012 8:09:46 GMT -6
Counter Arguments to Objections/Opposition made by Plaintiff, S:reu Grischun RE: Motion for Dismissal [/center] I, Litz Cjantscheir, co-defendant to this case do hereby present my counter argument to the objections/opposition raised by the plaintiff, S:reu Grischun regarding my motion to dismiss, filed with this Court on September 10th, 2012. I argue that Dame Cjantscheir no longer holding office is irrelevant. Retrospective impeachment of charges can still occur, otherwise any person breaking laws while acting in an official capacity may simply leave office and escape trial. Impeachment need not include loss of office and in many parts of the world it does not. In Talossa, the law has never defined what an impeachment may or may not involve other than the Organic Law providing the Courts with broad powers to use as they see fit. The plaintiff argues that as the co-defendant no longer holding of the Office of Prime Minister (or Finance Minister) is irrelevant, it is my counter argument that it is very relevant, given the fact that the plaintiff is no longer entitled to the relief he seeks, e.g. the impeachment of Litz Cjantscheir. Firstly, the widely accepted definition to impeach someone is “ to charge, that person, a public official with a public crime for which the punishment is removal from office.” Given that Dame Cjantscheir no longer holds the Office of Prime Minister or any other Governmental Office, the offices which are subject to this case. The plaintiff can no longer seek the removal of Dame Cjantscheir from Office as she simply no longer holds that office. The defence is not arguing that any person breaking laws should be allowed to escape trial, but we are arguing that the relief/redress sought by the plaintiff is no longer valid and if, the plaintiff’s arguments are accepted by this court to be true, the Court cannot order a impeachment of Dame Cjantscheir, as there is no office within the context of this case to impeach her from. Therefore, the defence argues that this case be dismissed with prejudice as the plaintiff no longer has grounds on which relief can be granted as per his petition to this Court. Secondly, the co-defendants enjoy the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Therefore, it is the defence’s argument that an retrospective impeachment cannot be granted, as such would breach the defendants’ rights of the presumption of innocence, as none of the defendants have been proven guilty in any manner by any court. Thus, the court cannot organically order a retroactive impeachment from the date this petition was filed given that the defendants were not offered the opportunity to defend themselves, there was a lengthy delay from the date of filing to the date of hearing, they could not of reasonably stopped discharging their duties while awaiting trial and cannot of continued working knowing that every decisions/duty discharged could be overturned if found guilty on a case which had no fixed date. In the case of Dame Cjantscheir, is a retroactive impeachment is granted all PDs/Prime Ministerial Orders relating to Reunion would be undone, citizenship grants to the returning citizens would be inorganic/illegal and PDs made by Dame Cjantscheir would be rendered null and void from the date of this case. This is a largely unacceptable punishment that could be issued by this court as it punishes innocent citizens of the Kingdom of alleged actions which did not involve them and it would be inorganic for this Court to uphold said PDs/Prime Ministerial Orders as the authority making said, if retroactively impeached was not organically empowered to do so. Therefore, the defence argues that this Court cannot grant a retroactive impeachment in any shape or form. Thirdly, the plaintiff argues that “the law has never defined what an impeachment may or may not involve other than the Organic Law providing the Courts with broad powers to use as they see fit.” This is incorrect, the Organic Law mentions impeachment three times, in Art IV, Section 12, regarding the impeachment of members from the Senate. Therefore, the defence argues, that impeachment is defined by Law as the removal of a person from their said public office, as punishment for crimes committed by said person. In addition, the plaintiff states that the Courts have broad powers to use as they see fit, this is also incorrect, Art XVI, Section 10 of the Organic Law states: “The Cort shall try persons for all offences under law, such as a person doing something he should not, or not doing something he should. The Cort shall inflict such punishment as the law provides.” Therefore, the Courts may only inflict punishment as the Law provides and not as the plaintiff states, as they see fit. It is the defence’s argument that the law does not provide for the Court to inflict impeachment orders for the Prime Minister and his/her Cabinet and instead these powers are invested in the Crown (via its power to appoint and remove) and the Cosa (via its vote of confidence and power of petition). Therefore, we argue that any impeachment ordered by this court would in fact be inorganic as it breaches the separation of powers and the powers of the Ziu and is not a punishment that that is Organic with Art XVI, Sec 10, namely the infliction of punishment that the law provides. Therefore, the defence argues for dismissal of all charges against Litz Cjantscheir and the dismissal of this case, given the defendant no longer holds grounds for the relief he seeks and the inorganic action of a order of impeachment, retrospective or otherwise from this Court. RE: dates, times and the right to a speedy trial. I argue that Statutory Law 40RZ4 (The Habeas Corpus Enforcement Act) is unsafe and should be overturned/repealed by the court. This Act states the following; in the interest of providing the accused with the rights granted to him by the ninth Covenant of Rights and Freedoms, the following rights shall be considered to be inalienable and shall be afforded to all citizens in civilian trials: ... (Act continues).
[/i] My argument that this law is unsafe is that it uses language that should be reserved for the Organic Law (ie: 'the following rights shall be considered inalienable'). Talossan Statutory Law should not be defining the inalienable rights of citizens. The Organic Law is the supreme law of the land regarding inalienable rights and any habeas corpus enforcement should take place in that Organic Law. The apparent rights given to Talossans under 40RZ4 should have been added to the Organic Law via an amendment from the Ziu and not via Statutory Law. The Organic Law states that the accused has the right to a speedy trial and if 40RZ4 is an invalid statute and is overturned by this court, then in the absence of any further definition of 'speedy trial', the court may not be able to decide what is regarded as speedy and what is not. Furthermore, there is worldwide precedent in the fact that habeas corpus rules only apply to charges originating when the accused has broken laws of a parliament, in this case the Ziu, and that within common law a person can be tried without time-bar. If the court will allow me to be bold, I argue that Talossan courts need to take international precedents, especially those of common law, into account when deciding matters before them. I believe this to be important in defining and interpreting Talossan Law which is still in it's infancy compared to other nations of the world. [/quote] It is the defence’s argument the plaintiff has no legal standing or sufficient grounds to challenge the Organicity of the above act, namely, the plaintiff must have suffered some direct or substantial injury or be likely to suffer such an injury if a particular wrong is not redressed and a defendant must be the party responsible for perpetrating the alleged legal wrong. Given that the plaintiff has not suffered some direct or substantial injury or be likely to suffer such an injury if a particular wrong is not redressed and none of the defendants are a party responsible for perpetrating the alleged legal wrong, this counter claim must be dismissed. The Plaintiff, should be free to take this claim against the relevant parties in another case, however, in this case he has no legal standing to present such a claim. Secondly, it is the defence’s argument that one may challenge a law or policy on organic grounds if he can show that enforcement of the law or implementation of the policy infringes on an individual organic rights, this law does not infringe upon the organic rights of the plaintiff or that of the co-defendants, but merely reinforces those rights by further defining and building upon them. The plaintiff’s arguments are therefore invalid and this counter claim should be dismissed. 2. The defendant's motion states that; "The plaintiff's complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and as thus, the Plaintiff's claim must be dismissed because his legal claims, even if taken as true or proven, would not entitle the plaintiff to relief he seeks, given that (a) the previous Cosa in which the CSPP was a party of, has been dissolved, (b) the CSPP is no longer a political party in the Kingdom, (c) the Court can no longer grant a injunction and/or extend the payment time, as per the relief sought by the plaintiff for the reasons of (a) and (b) above nor can the Court retrospectively make such judgements as they cannot be followed or enforced by any party." [/blockquote] While the court may or may not be able to grant an injunction on events now passed and while the court may or may not be able to lawfully extend the payment time, this does not mean the entire case should be dismissed. The question over whether Dame Cjantscheir's original actions were lawful or not remains, as do questions regarding the conduct of the other three defendants. The facts that the previous Cosa has been dissolved and that the political party in question no longer exists as a legally existing entity make no bearing on all of the charges being heard by this court. For example, the fourth named defendant in this case (Grischun) may still be found guilty and ordered by the court to pay monies due and previously withheld regardless of whether the party or the Cosa exists as it did then. Also, the second named defendant (Cjantscheir) may still be found to have acted illegally in her previously held offices regardless of whether the Cosa has since dissolved or not. [/quote] The defence argues that the plaintiff has reinforced the very reason why this case must be dismissed, namely, that the plaintiff does not have any grounds upon which he can seek relief, that is, the order for a injunction or the extension of a payment period. The Court cannot order said nor can any person enforce or follow said orders. The fact is, even if the plaintiff’s petition were found true, this court cannot grant the plaintiff the relief he seeks, a long established legal ground for dismissal of this case. My example is, your boss wears, what is in your opinion ugly ties, your take your boss to court for wearing ugly ties, while your argument may be correct in fact, the court cannot grant you any relief, e.g. cannot make a order or a order for what you seek, therefore the case must be dismissed. The same is true in this case, while the plaintiff’s petition, may (the defence strongly opposes this) be true in fact, the bottom line is the Court cannot grant the relief the plaintiff seeks, e.g. an injunction/extension, and this case must be dismissed. The question of guilt/innocence is not up for debate here, the fact is this court cannot grant the plaintiff the relief he seeks and would merely be a tribunal of inquiry and not a court of law should this case be allowed to proceed. 3. (ERROR IN THE MOTION) The motion states that "the CSPP is no longer a political party in the Kingdom" This is not valid. The Common Sense Progressive Party (CSPP) is an active and registered political party in Talossa. The CSPP was registered with the Chancery just prior to the recent election in the summer of 2012. The CSPP also holds seats in the current Cosa assembly. I should also add that the CSPP's existence or non-existence is irrelevant and holds no bearing to this case as it had no involvement in the matters now before this court. The Common Sense Party (CSP) is the party in question and not the CSPP. The defence accepts the Plaintiff’s argument here (a result of typo while typing after a long day in the office and lack of coffee) and would like the Court’s permission to amend the original petition to read Common Sense Party (CSP) and not CSPP as the original motion states. My original intention was to refer to the Common Sense Party and not that of the CSPP, which are not party to this case. Therefore, I humbly petition this court to allow such amendment. The defence would also at this opportunity like to request this court to consider in addition to the above grounds, that the plaintiff has provided insufficient evidence to this Court, to prove beyond all reasonable doubt, that any of the co-defendants acted or did conspire to act inorganically or in any way acted or conspired against the plaintiff. The plaintiff’s arguments are purely speculative and have no foundation in fact nor has sufficient evidence been provided to prove that any of the co-defendants, acted or conspired to act inorganically as they have been charged. Therefore, this case should be dismissed on grounds of insufficient evidence has been presented by the plaintiff for this trial to proceed. The defence has clearly established that there are numerous grounds upon which to dismiss all charges against Litz Cjantscheir and to dismiss the case in its entirety. The defence trusts that reason and a view for justice for all parties will prevail in the courts consideration of this motion. Respectfully submitted by: Litz Cjantscheir, Co-Defendant Date: As postmarked
|
|
Owen Edwards
Puisne Justice
Posts: 1,400
Talossan Since: 12-8-2007
|
CASE
Sept 12, 2012 9:33:01 GMT -6
Post by Owen Edwards on Sept 12, 2012 9:33:01 GMT -6
This Cort receives D:na Cjantscheir's counter-response and accepts the amendment requested by her to her original motion to dismiss. It will render judgement in the next few days (i.e. once the Magistrate sitting has had time to unpack his stuff and re-read the arguments).
|
|
|
CASE
Sept 12, 2012 17:05:38 GMT -6
Post by Eðo Grischun on Sept 12, 2012 17:05:38 GMT -6
May it please the court, I would like to request a continuance due to absence of counsel. I beg the court accepts that my lack of legal knowledge and naivety coming in to the court has caused me to suffer an unfair advantage so far, especially against a law degree holding barrister and the head of the Bar. I request a short delay in proceedings to afford me time to seek legal counsel. I require this time to find a legal representative and to discuss the case with him/her before returning to this hearing.
|
|
Owen Edwards
Puisne Justice
Posts: 1,400
Talossan Since: 12-8-2007
|
CASE
Sept 14, 2012 7:57:14 GMT -6
Post by Owen Edwards on Sept 14, 2012 7:57:14 GMT -6
This Cort declares itself in recess as per the instruction of the Uppermost Cort, which will also allow the plaintiff to seek counsel. Prior to the ruling of the Uppermost Cort a further request to present an amicus curiae brief was received from Dien Tresplet; Cx:hn Tresplet may present his brief after the recess has ended.
|
|
Owen Edwards
Puisne Justice
Posts: 1,400
Talossan Since: 12-8-2007
|
CASE
Dec 29, 2012 15:59:12 GMT -6
Post by Owen Edwards on Dec 29, 2012 15:59:12 GMT -6
Given the filling of the third Magistracy spot, I hereby declare this Cort open once more. I will be checking with S:reu Grischun if he has sought counsel.
Sir Mick Preston, Lord Hooligan, and Dien Tresplet have been recognized as amicus curiae and may present briefs in that regard.
|
|