Case Government ./. ESB - to the Clerk of Courts

[Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun]

Receive herein a criminal action from the Crown against Eiric S. Börnatfiglheu, to be filed with the Uppermost Court in the Attachment, altogether with one exhibit:

ESB .-. Gov.pdf (600.39 KB)
Exhibit A.pdf (312.21 KB)

Respectfully,

/s/
M. É. A. da Lhiun

[Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun]

This filing is retracted owing to inactivity by the Clerk of Courts, and instead will be submitted via e-mail.

[Owen Edwards]

The Clerk had sent this to the Magistracy so there is no blame attaching there. This was incorrectly filed initially in any case. The case will be assigned to Magistrate Nordselva. I'll sort out having a thread made in the Magistracy.

[Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun]

I must object, your Honour. This action is explicitly to be submitted to the Uppermost Court, as is stated in the file as well as in the thread. Furthermore, we have sent to the Clerk of Court the same file, with a few minor changes, to be submitted before the Justices of the UC.

Should the Uppermost Court not see fit to handle the case herself, then we hope that she will defer it to the Magistrates' Court. However, due to certain questions of citizenship, jurisdiction must be had in the Uppermost Court.

[Owen Edwards]

Could the AG expand on his reasoning? One purpose of the Magistracy is to offer a first Cort permitting the UC to stand as a Cort of appeal. An immediate hearing before the UC would deprive the defendant of any recourse to judicial appeal. I can see nothing in the defendant's status that would require a hearing before the UC - so please enlighten me.

[Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun]

Gladly, your Honour.
Currently, the defendant is not a citizen of Talossa. My complaint, among other requests, aims to either:

(1) overturn the UC precedent that a non-Talossan person may not be prosecuted, since he is "out of the Kingdom's jurisdiction"

OR

(2) nullify the Writ of Termination of Citizenship, issued by then-SoS Iustì C. Canün.

Since the Magistrates' Court cannot overturn a precedent set by the UC, and since this precedent is the current hindrance for a prosecution by the Magistrates' Court, the case is to be filed with the UC. It is in no way intended to deprive the defendant of any appeal that might be had, however, this case cannot, to my current knowledge, be pondered by the Magistracy.

[Owen Edwards]

We believe (and have elsewhere stated) that the defendant's decision to place himself under our jurisdiction is sufficient exception to the UC's precedent to render a prosecution by the Magistracy viable (and set a precedent thereby). The defendant intends to plead guilty at any rate.

If you are still unhappy with having the case heard by the Magistracy then your next action should be to ask the UC for an injunction.

[Owen Edwards]

[Explanatory note - I'm not trying to be awkward by being firm. It's procedural. The Magistracy expects to take cases at first instance except where absolutely necessary. Furthermore the Clerk filed this with the Magistracy and we find no reason not to sit the case. Obviously the latter is less relevant with the withdrawal of the case.]

[Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun]

I agree that there is no point in arguing about a case that has been retracted. Unless the Clerk of Court forwarded you the new complaint, that is?