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 7, 2014 17:10:51 GMT -6
The court thanks the Chancery for its reply brief. As the court considers a ruling and awaits rebuttal from the Attorney General, it also waits for the defense in regards to sentencing of the convicted. Has the defense prepared its comments to the Court?
|
|
Owen Edwards
Puisne Justice
Posts: 1,400
Talossan Since: 12-8-2007
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Aug 7, 2014 17:39:37 GMT -6
As a clarification of the Chancery's counsel remarks - without presuming to reply to other points where we might - the criminal impeachment procedure continued after it was concluded that no damages could be awarded in the civil suit. We note that whilst the UC may overturn the precedent of a permitted "Roman" prosecution the Magistracy may not (as it must rule according to exact precedent where available).
Your Honour - we are preparing the sentencing brief now. I'm fairly busy over the weekend (perhaps free Saturday) so could we hold off til Monday evening? Given the turn round on the injunction proceedings that shouldn't delay us too much. Thanks for your forbearance!
|
|
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 7, 2014 19:43:27 GMT -6
The court will give the defense until Monday evening at 7pm Talossan time to file a brief in regards to sentencing. The court expects that prior to that, it will have ruled on the injunction.
|
|
Owen Edwards
Puisne Justice
Posts: 1,400
Talossan Since: 12-8-2007
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Aug 8, 2014 4:41:10 GMT -6
Thank you your Honour.
|
|
|
Post by Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun on Aug 8, 2014 6:32:54 GMT -6
Your Honour, esteemed defence parties,
I thank you all for your forbearance, and wish for forgiveness. However, things are a little bit crazy at the moment, in my Talossan, and extra-Talossan life. I therefore ask for an additional day or two, to file a rebuttal regarding the injunction.
Again, my most humble apologies. Thank you.
|
|
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 8, 2014 7:37:13 GMT -6
The court will reluctantly provide the time necessary but as the injunction is central to much of this trial, let's try to move it along please.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Aug 8, 2014 19:01:36 GMT -6
The court thanks the defense for the relevant ruling. It is sad that many of the cases ruled upon by our judiciary are not indexed in some fashion or at the very least linked with meaningful names. The court now eagerly awaits response from the plaintiff and will give the Attorney General another day to respond. Your Honour, the Scribery has been working to make this happen with a judicial archive. It is incomplete yet, but hopefully it may be helpful in the future: wiki.talossa.com/Cort_dels_Edilicieux
|
|
|
Post by Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun on Aug 10, 2014 6:14:35 GMT -6
Your Honour, receive herein, with my sincerest apologies for the overall delay, the reply to the Chancery's defence's brief: rep14-05.pdf (147.56 KB) For the reasons elaborated above, we stand by our request for the injunction, and pray that the motion to dismiss of the Chancery's defence not be considered.
|
|
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 10, 2014 7:18:36 GMT -6
Thank you Mr. attorney General. The court will issue its ruling shortly.
|
|
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 10, 2014 7:52:58 GMT -6
In the Matter of
People v. Eiric S. Börnatfiglheu
Magistrate Txec dal Nordselva, presiding
RULING - REQUEST FOR INJUNCTION The Cort has carefully weighed the arguments presented to it. The government, as part of its complaint against S:reu Kildow has stated its belief that the Chancery acted inorganically in its writ of termination of citizenship against S:reu Kildow and his “sock-puppets.” The basis of the argument being that S:reu Kildow never publicly renounced but did so via email to King John, to which King John posted the said renunciation onto Wittenberg. There is little doubt that S:reu Kildow did indeed make this renunciation to His Majesty. After the posting by the king, the Chancery acted in what it believed to be a lawful manner and duly terminated the citizenships of the 18 persons (1 real and 17 imagined). The Chancery has argued that 1) the government has no standing in this issue, 2), the injunction request omits certain facts (i.e. a public renunciation), 3), the Chancery cannot overrule a valid renunciation, 4) there is no reason to assume a renunciation did not occur, 5) restoring citizenship for the sock-puppets is not reasonable, and 6) the Attorney General has acted improperly “behind the scenes.” EXAMINATION OF THE EVIDENCE/ARGUMENTSStanding - The Chancery stated in its brief that the government cannot “bring action to compel the Chancery to reconsider a decision unless they have a compelling interest in the decision.” What would be a compelling interest that would bring the government standing? The answer is proper enforcement of statutory and Organic law. It is the opinion of this court that if the government is acting to ensure that statutory and/or Organic law is applied correctly, it does have standing to bring action to correct an incorrect application of law. Public renunciation - Organic Law is quite clear on how a renunciation must occur. OrgLaw XVIII Section 9 states “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.” This law has two key components: a public renunciation and a Writ of Termination of Citizenship issued under the seal of the Chancery. The Chancery issued the legally required Writ but did S:reu Kildow publicly renounce? In Exhibit B of this case, the King stated in his public statement to the Kingdom, “I don’t know whether he intends to renounce his citizenship.” In Exhibit C, the Writ of Termination of Citzenship dated 27 January 2013 states, “Whereas the person responsible has renounced his citizenship.” In Exhibit D, S:reu Kildow stated on 12 January 2014 “I resigned my citizenship in the Kingdom of Talossa.” It wasn’t until the Chancery’s brief that the statements allegedly by the defendant and posted publicly by the King were presented wherein the defendant stated “consider this my renunciation of citizenship. This omission by the government is rather glaring and immensely bothers the Court. The Court has a rather uncertain path forward and so it looks to precedent to help settle the issue. In Lowry v. Chancery, the Uppermost Cort ruled that “…the declaration must be made publicly. While it can certainly be argued that an e-mail or PM to the Secretary of State constitutes a public declaration, this seems inconsistent with the intended purpose of this provision. Interpreted to mean any communication with the SoS constitutes “public declaration” places an undo amount of discretion in the hands of the Secretary and limits public oversight.” In this case, S:reu Kildow emailed the King who then publicly posted the said renunciation. S:reu Kildow himself did not publicly post his renunciation as is required by law and precedent. However, it is also established fact that S:reu Kildow was unable to post publicly due to his account being suspended in an ex parte order of the Uppermost Cort. The question that remains, therefore, is in the absence of the ability to post a public renunciation, is one posted via a third party (in this case the King) valid? The defendant argues that he was under duress when he submitted his renunciation via email to the king. Was the mentioning of the potential of both macro national and micro national prosecution a form of duress that coerced the defendant into acting in a manner in which he would otherwise not have acted? None of the parties have deposed the king in this matter so all we have is what he has stated as well as what the defendant has stated in his own words to which he has never denied in this Court saying. If a public renunciation did not occur, then the third argument of the Chancery is irrelevant. The court has already stated that it is not considering injunctive relief on the part of the 17 fake citizens and stated in its decision that to do so would be inconsistent with the guilty verdicts of creating the said accounts. ANALYSISWhat is therefore germane to this ruling are three issues: standing of the Attorney General, public renunciation and duress. In the case of public renunciation, if one did occur then this injunctive request is null and void. If a renunciation was not validly delivered, no Writ could legally have been presented. Likewise, if duress occurred, even if a public renunciation did validly occur, in the courts discretion it could nullify the Writ. The Court is bound by statute (both Organic and Statutory) as well as precedent set by the Uppermost Cort. Organic Law is clear on the matter of public renunciations but not clear as to what public means. However, Lowry v. Chancery is remarkably similar in many respects wherein a renunciation occurred via either email (in the present matter) or PM (in the Lowry case) and that both Lowry and Kildow were under some form of pressure. Lowry holds that a renunciation must be made specifically by the renouncing citizen and cannot be the statement, no matter how valid, of another person (i.e. the Chancery as part of the Royal Household). The King, despite his best intentions, is not S:reu Kildow and so under this precedent is not entitled to publicly renounce on another persons behalf.The court finds that no valid public renunciation occurred. As the court has determined no public renunciation occurred prior to the Writ of Termination, the subject of duress need be considered no further. It is also the opinion of this court that the Attorney General possesses standing in that he is seeking proper enforcement of the law as to the application of OrgLaw XVIII Section 9. DECISIONThe court hereby issues an injunction against the Chancery of the Kingdom of Talossa to not enforce the Writ of Termination of S:reu Kildow thereby restoring the citizenship of the defendant. until such time as this injunction can be reviewed by the Uppermost Court. The 17 nonentities referred to frequently as sock puppets were never legally citizens from the beginning but fraudulent creations and therefore this court denies the injunction request of the government for these pretend persons. Additionally, the Attorney General has moved into the territory of contempt of this court in his ex parte discussions with the Secretary of State but the court notes that these discussions to do not seem to have tainted the proceedings which is the only reason why this court is not now imposing sanctions on the Attorney General. The court hereby warns S:reu da Lhiun that any further missteps during this trial will result in sanctions imposed by the court. Order entered August 10, 2014 /s Dr. Txec dal Nordselva
|
|
|
Post by Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun on Aug 10, 2014 8:21:42 GMT -6
Thank you, your Honour, for the swift action.
Sadly, I am uncertain as to why, or if, I am held in contempt of court, and whether the contempt is of civil or criminal nature. Specifically, would your Honour care to elaborate: - which order by the court has not been followed by me?; and/or, - how the court has been disrespected by my actions?
so that I can avoid making the same mistake.
We furthermore do not understand as to why your Honour believes that the Uppermost Court needed to review the injunction (unless there is an appeal), as both parties - movant and defendant - had the ability to speak out on the merits of the requested injunction.
|
|
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 10, 2014 8:32:29 GMT -6
You weren't held in contempt but you came close. The court was disturbed by the ex parte communications with a partial defendant in this case and the omission of evidence regarding the renunciation. Any discussions with defendants and/or their counsel should either be done in this court or in chambers. Also, the mention of a review by the UC is intended to state that this ruling will stand unless and/or until the UC has been asked to review it. The court will revise the wording.
Edit: I should note that both the ex parte communications and the omission of evidence had the potential to damage the proceedings. Had either of these issues tainted the proceedings, a contempt order would have been entered (thus the strongly worded warning issued instead).
|
|
Owen Edwards
Puisne Justice
Posts: 1,400
Talossan Since: 12-8-2007
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Aug 10, 2014 10:06:21 GMT -6
We thank the Cort for its ruling. We will offer our sentencing brief tomorrow on behalf of Cxhn Bornatfighleu.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Aug 10, 2014 10:38:54 GMT -6
Your Honour, I must lodge my strong complaint that the Chancery was not given the opportunity to respond to the Attorney-General. As the respondent to the request for the injunction, we should have right of response to any arguments put forward to compel actions on our part, especially when they are novel arguments as in this brief. I would request that your Honour put a hold on your order, pending revision after the Chancery has had a chance to reply. The Attorney-General shouldn't get both the first and the last word on the matter.
|
|
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 10, 2014 10:42:28 GMT -6
Your Honour, I must lodge my strong complaint that the Chancery was not given the opportunity to respond to the Attorney-General. As the respondent to the request for the injunction, we should have right of response to any arguments put forward to compel actions on our part, especially when they are novel arguments as in this brief. I would request that your Honour put a hold on your order, pending revision after the Chancery has had a chance to reply. The Attorney-General shouldn't get both the first and the last word on the matter. So ordered - the ruling is stayed pending final arguments from the Chancery.
|
|