APPEAL Case 13-01

[Brad Holmes]

I received the following email on 17JUL13, two days before the petitioner renounced his citizenship. I have no idea if this invalidates the petition, but I'm still posting it. (It sounded like others would have sought an appeal as well).

From: Adm. T.M. Asmourescu
To: Clerk of Courts, Justices of the CpI

Naturally, as I am party to this case, I recuse myself from considering it and consent to either one of you hearing it solo or appointing a temporary justice.


Please also include:


Motion for Injunctive Relief


The petitioner hereby petitions the Uppermost Cort to enjoin the government from the enforcement of the What's the Difference Act pending ruling.

Attachments:

H:\Me\Talossa\Asmourescu V HM Government UC....doc (36.5 KB)

[Béneditsch Ardpresteir, O.SPM.]

Jul 21, 2013 15:12:03 GMT -6 Brad Holmes said:

I received the following email on 17JUL13, two days before the petitioner renounced his citizenship. I have no idea if this invalidates the petition, but I'm still posting it. (It sounded like others would have sought an appeal as well).

Your Lordships of the CpI,

In Talossa, there is no unilateral renunciation of citizenship. As proper steps and procedural guidelines weren't followed in this case, the Appellant is still deemed to be a citizen. Thus the present appeal should be treated as valid.

Further messages from various people of the Kingdom require me to edit my words and add the relevant provision of OrgLaw to it ~

"Article XVIII: Citizenship and Rights
Section 9
Talossans may voluntarily renounce their own citizenship. This may be done by publicly issuing a written Declaration of Renunciation. It shall take immediate effect upon its acknowledgement by the Secretary of State through issuance of a Writ of Termination of Citizenship, which shall be published under the seal of the Chancery."

I believe that Adm. Tim's may have voluntarily renounciated his own citizenship , by publicly issuing a written Declaration of Renunciation. However the same would have taken immediate effect upon its acknowledgement by the Secretary of State through issuance of a Writ of Termination of Citizenship, which was required to be published under the seal of the Chancery and I believe that the same has not been done.

Further, the said citizen has been 'notified and charged' under the penal provisions of extant statutory laws. In such a situation, it would not be apt for the Chancery to allow his removal through a Writ. Hence I have already requested the Office and the officers of the Chancery not to take any such step without consulting the Attorney General, for it will give scope for unnecessary complications.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is requested that the Uppermost Court defers issuing any direction in this case till the end of this month. This is so because the Government's stand would only be clear after the statutory period of ten days, which expires on the 27th of this month, to which the said appellant is entitled to in order to reply to the 'charge and the notification'.

Any steps taken by this Court would cause a travesty of justice which would not be in the interest of the nation.


BenArd
Attorney General