|
Post by Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H. on Aug 4, 2014 11:59:08 GMT -6
The court wishes that the Secretary of State would actually read its order to appear: "A subpoena is hereby issued ordering the Chancery to appear before the court so that it may make a ruling on the injunction. The Chancery has until Wednesday, August 6 to notify the court as to its counsel so that a hearing may commence on the matter." This court did not give 48 hours notice to file a response, it gave closer to 3 days notice to appoint an attorney and make that attorney known to the court. Additionally, the Secretary of State is bordering on contempt of court in his continual refusals to follow the courts simple order. Do not walk into my courtroom Mr. Secretary of State and "refuse" to do anything. Oh, that, I do get. But people are asking me to answer what I am intending to do about the injunction sent against the Chancery, which I have not seen yet. If you want me in the court, I will be there, as I respect the bench. It's the attitude of the Attorney General who refuses to summarize why he wants me in the cort that I do not understand. I am asked to hire an attorney, but I was never officially informed as to why I am needed in court in the first place! In Canada, a judge, when he requests the presence of someone in court, is required by law to explain why so that the proper attorney can be hired. I know that I am not in Canada, but I would like an explanation as to why I am needed in court while I am preparing an election, in a simple statement. That is all I have been asking since the first exchange in this. If that is too much to ask, then I regretfully would need to ask the court to postpone my presence in court until after the election.
|
|
|
Post by Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H. on Aug 4, 2014 12:01:10 GMT -6
I have received the information I requested. I am now looking to hire an attorney
|
|
|
Post by Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun on Aug 4, 2014 12:21:54 GMT -6
It's the attitude of the Attorney General who refuses to summarize why he wants me in the cort that I do not understand. A mild objection, your Honour: I have never refused to explain the nature of the injunction in simple and few words, in fact having asseverated my willingness to do so several times in private, and in public.
|
|
|
Post by Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H. on Aug 4, 2014 12:35:56 GMT -6
It's the attitude of the Attorney General who refuses to summarize why he wants me in the cort that I do not understand. A mild objection, your Honour: I have never refused to explain the nature of the injunction in simple and few words, in fact having asseverated my willingness to do so several times in private, and in public. Your honor, can you remind him that willingness to do something and doing something are two different things. I asked for a quick explanation on the issue and still didn't get it. But have I hired an attorney.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Aug 4, 2014 13:28:51 GMT -6
Your Honour, I will be representing the Chancery in this matter, if it pleases the cort. I am a member of the Bar in good standing.
I'd ask all future correspondence on this matter come through me.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Aug 4, 2014 14:29:10 GMT -6
Your Honour, after reviewing the facts here and discussing the matter with my client, I would like to give notice that the Chancery will be vigorously contesting the initial requested injunction demanded by the Attorney-General. While the Secretary of State takes no position as to S:reu Kildow's crimes or the other facts of this case, we feel that the desired injunction is improper on many substantive and procedural grounds.
The Chancery has indicated to me that it is interested in a thorough and strong defense. I understand that the accused has already pled, so I leave it to your Honour and the discretion of the Attorney-General as to how we should proceed.
|
|
Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă
Puisne (Associate) Justice of the Uppermost Court
Fraichetz dels punts, es non dels mürs
Posts: 4,063
Talossan Since: 9-23-2012
|
Post by Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă on Aug 4, 2014 14:47:04 GMT -6
Welcome Sir Alexandreu. The court believes that the request for an injunction is inseparable from sentencing of the convicted defendant and therefore will not be able to proceed with sentencing until the matter of the injunction is resolved. Therefore, the court will proceed on two fronts: arguments from the Chancery and the Government as to the injunction and arguments from the defense as to sentencing. How long does the Chancery need to file a brief in regards to the injunction (keeping in mind the courts desire to wrap up the case as quickly as possible in the interests of justice).
|
|
Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă
Puisne (Associate) Justice of the Uppermost Court
Fraichetz dels punts, es non dels mürs
Posts: 4,063
Talossan Since: 9-23-2012
|
Post by Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă on Aug 4, 2014 14:48:50 GMT -6
It's the attitude of the Attorney General who refuses to summarize why he wants me in the cort that I do not understand. A mild objection, your Honour: I have never refused to explain the nature of the injunction in simple and few words, in fact having asseverated my willingness to do so several times in private, and in public. Objection overruled in light of counsel for the Chancery appearing. However, the court will remind the Chancery that it is not the courts practice nor obligation to summarize arguments in a case which is why this court suggested the appointing of counsel.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Aug 4, 2014 15:19:31 GMT -6
I would like to thank this cort for its forebearance - my client is not an attorney, but simply a hard-working civil servant. As you advised, he did immediately obtain counsel, and I will endeavour to work with the Attorney-General, government, and your Honour to achieve a satisfactory outcome in the eyes of justice.
The Attorney-General may wish to amend his complaint and drop the injunctions against the Chancery, proceeding directly to sentencing without involving my client. Failing that, I believe that I'd ask for a week to prepare a brief. I have a habit of usually getting such matters done within a day or two, but I want to make sure I cover all of my bases.
|
|
Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă
Puisne (Associate) Justice of the Uppermost Court
Fraichetz dels punts, es non dels mürs
Posts: 4,063
Talossan Since: 9-23-2012
|
Post by Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă on Aug 4, 2014 15:46:20 GMT -6
The Chancery has one week to prepare its brief.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Aug 4, 2014 19:20:06 GMT -6
Thank you, your Honour.
Having reviewed the documents and begun on my brief, I wonder if this cort might humor me - not having heard it from the Attorney-General myself, I want to once more point out that he may simply amend his charges and complaint and leave the Chancery entirely out of this matter. The Chancery strongly prefers not to be involved, but I have no choice but to represent my client as vigorously as possible if the Government is intent on pressing for these injunctions. He has clearly expressed his wishes in this regard.
Before we begin on this, could we hear from the Attorney-General himself about this possibility? He may have reconsidered.
|
|
Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă
Puisne (Associate) Justice of the Uppermost Court
Fraichetz dels punts, es non dels mürs
Posts: 4,063
Talossan Since: 9-23-2012
|
Post by Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă on Aug 4, 2014 22:13:58 GMT -6
The court waits on a response from the Attorney General.
|
|
Owen Edwards
Puisne Justice
Posts: 1,400
Talossan Since: 12-8-2007
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Aug 5, 2014 10:09:45 GMT -6
Defence begs leave to potentially file a response in the ongoing People vs Chancery injunction dispute given defendant is (evidently) an interested party - after all dependent on this Cort's decision he may well have been illegally deprived of his rights as a citizen.
|
|
Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă
Puisne (Associate) Justice of the Uppermost Court
Fraichetz dels punts, es non dels mürs
Posts: 4,063
Talossan Since: 9-23-2012
|
Post by Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă on Aug 5, 2014 10:15:56 GMT -6
The court will welcome arguments from the defense in response to the Chancery's pending brief. The court also notes it is still waiting on the Attorney General to respond to the motion by the Chancery to split the injunction from the charges.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Aug 5, 2014 10:19:49 GMT -6
Your Honour, if the Attorney-General does decide to press for these unnecessary injunctions - and I strongly urge him to reconsider - then the Chancery will demonstrate that the defence should not be permitted to enter arguments with regards to the injunction, out of questions of standing and procedure. While I don't ask that the defence request is denied, I'd ask that you defer your decision on the matter until after you have read my brief. I hope that is amenable to defence counsel?
|
|