Sir C. M. Siervicül
Posts: 9,636
Talossan Since: 8-13-2005
Knight Since: 7-28-2007
Motto: Nonnisi Deo serviendum
|
Post by Sir C. M. Siervicül on Feb 10, 2015 6:21:31 GMT -6
Your Honour,
The Defence also wishes to note for the record its continuing objection to the representation of the Crown by one who is not a member of the Bar (lest the issue be deemed waived on appeal). No disrespect to S:reu da Biondeu is intended, we simply believe that the law has not been complied with. The Cort's point about juridical persons had not escaped me, and indeed if Lexh. G.3.8 had used the term "persons" we would not have raised the objection in the first place. But the statute uses the word "individuals", and in context it appears that the distinction is critical.
|
|
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 Feb 10, 2015 8:09:46 GMT -6
Your Honor,
The Government wishes to object to your continued absence from this court. You posted a notice of 10 days time for the defense to respond, yet Your Honor has not been seen in the courtroom in 20 days. The government hereby moves for a recusal by his Honor so that these proceedings can be heard by another Cort.
Respectfully
|
|
Sir C. M. Siervicül
Posts: 9,636
Talossan Since: 8-13-2005
Knight Since: 7-28-2007
Motto: Nonnisi Deo serviendum
|
Post by Sir C. M. Siervicül on Feb 12, 2015 17:36:25 GMT -6
Your Honour, My client has directed me to inform the Cort that he waives jurisdiction under Criminal Code sec. 939.03. While my views of the merits of the issue are unchanged, Lord Hooligan does not want what was essentially an afterthought in the motion to distract from the more important challenges to the substance of the charges (in fact, he was reluctant to raise the issue in the first place). Therefore, please consider section IV.G (EDIT: pardon me, III.G) of the motion to dismiss filed on the 10th withdrawn. Regarding the new recusal request made by the prosecution, the Defence trusts the Cort to make an honest assessment of whether Your Honour's availability for the foreseeable future will impede the expeditious resolution of this case. But in making that determination, we trust that the Cort will also take into account what the alternatives are. The most responsive jurist in the Kingdom (D:r dal Nordselva) is, unfortunately, no longer on the bench. The only other magistrate has another active case with a pending motion that has been awaiting decision since last October. And the Cort pü Inalt is short-handed, with an appeal that apparently has not been touched since it was filed in December and other matters that have been awaiting action for much longer. We must acknowledge the sad reality that "slow" is the default pace of our all-volunteer judiciary. It is unclear what reason the prosecution has to believe that a recusal here would improve the situation in any way. On another matter, the Defence notes that the Attorney-General stated in this thread that he was not appearing in this case due to unspecified "ethical conflicts". However, the Attorney-General has subsequently appeared in this case to raise objections and make motions. We respectfully request that the Cort order the Government to disclose the nature of these "ethical conflicts" and the Attorney-General's role in conducting and supervising the prosecution of this case. I sincerely expect that there's a perfectly reasonable explanation, but under the circumstances it would be irresponsible for me not to inquire further. (Tagging: Béneditsch Ardpresteir, O.SPM., M.T. Patritz da Biondeu, Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă)
|
|
Owen Edwards
Puisne Justice
Posts: 1,400
Talossan Since: 12-8-2007
|
Post by Owen Edwards on May 5, 2015 6:38:23 GMT -6
Having received (along with defending counsel and others) the recusal of the sitting Magistrate, the case falls to me. I will need to get up to speed on the relevant documentation, as I very particularly have avoided involvement in and knowledge of this case (for the sake of utmost transparency, I left the previous Cosa's Cabinet discussion group when it turned to this case, and required that governmental discussions of the case be conducted elsewhere than the current Cosa's cabinet group).
Are all parties able to be present and active?
|
|
Sir C. M. Siervicül
Posts: 9,636
Talossan Since: 8-13-2005
Knight Since: 7-28-2007
Motto: Nonnisi Deo serviendum
|
Post by Sir C. M. Siervicül on May 5, 2015 16:09:16 GMT -6
Are all parties able to be present and active? Your Honour, My time available for Talossan affairs has been limited recently, but I'm available to check in on Wittenberg on a more or less daily basis.
|
|
Sir C. M. Siervicül
Posts: 9,636
Talossan Since: 8-13-2005
Knight Since: 7-28-2007
Motto: Nonnisi Deo serviendum
|
Post by Sir C. M. Siervicül on May 22, 2015 9:44:24 GMT -6
Your Honour, Any word from the prosecution? If the Court expects the Crown to respond to the defence's motion to dismiss, I would humbly suggest setting a deadline and considering any request for extension as needed if the Crown requires more time. Aside from that, the defence requested clarification from the Court on a couple of procedural points in late January, to which the Court never responded. Perhaps you could consider those questions while we are waiting for the Crown. (Tagging: Owen Edwards, M.T. Patritz da Biondeu)
|
|
Sir C. M. Siervicül
Posts: 9,636
Talossan Since: 8-13-2005
Knight Since: 7-28-2007
Motto: Nonnisi Deo serviendum
|
Post by Sir C. M. Siervicül on May 22, 2015 18:29:36 GMT -6
Your Honour,
A couple of other matters: First, the Defence withdraws its request of 12 February that the Cort inquire into the conflicts referenced by former Attorney-General dal Nordselva. D:r dal Nordselva is no longer Attorney-General, and I have been reminded of prior public statements by D:r dal Nordselva making his position clear. I am satisfied.
Second, in the dismissal request, I mentioned the rule that statutory terms with a technical meaning at law should be interpreted according to their technical meaning, citing to Wisconsin case law. I wish to note for the record that the same rule of construction is incorporated into the Organic Law at Article XVI, Section 9.
|
|
Owen Edwards
Puisne Justice
Posts: 1,400
Talossan Since: 12-8-2007
|
Post by Owen Edwards on May 29, 2015 11:31:42 GMT -6
Counsel,
I will set a deadline when a new government is formed and an Attorney-General is present in the Cort; the complex situation of the Crown's standing will likely be resolved by that, anyway.
I note your two supplementary points, and am grateful for the supplement as to technical meanings at law.
I will endeavour to reply to the January procedural points over the next week, though macronationally it will be busy. However, I've finished a PhD chapter so have more mental energy to offer!
|
|
Sir C. M. Siervicül
Posts: 9,636
Talossan Since: 8-13-2005
Knight Since: 7-28-2007
Motto: Nonnisi Deo serviendum
|
Post by Sir C. M. Siervicül on Jun 1, 2015 9:35:48 GMT -6
Counsel, I will set a deadline when a new government is formed and an Attorney-General is present in the Cort; the complex situation of the Crown's standing will likely be resolved by that, anyway. I note your two supplementary points, and am grateful for the supplement as to technical meanings at law. I will endeavour to reply to the January procedural points over the next week, though macronationally it will be busy. However, I've finished a PhD chapter so have more mental energy to offer! Your Honour, First, congratulations on finishing your PhD chapter! We are now more than nine months past when the Crown issued its complaint, five and a half months past when the Clerk filed the complaint with the Magistracy, and over three and a half months since the Defence filed its dismissal motion. Now it will be as much as another month before a new government is formed and it appears that the Crown will not have to do anything at all to move this case forward until that time. I am seriously concerned about my client's statutory and organic right to a speedy trial. The Defence has made it clear at multiple points during this process that it does not want this case dragged out any longer than necessary. I am afraid that, if a speedy trial is even theoretically possible at this point, in going forward the Defence will be forced to choose between abandoning the right to a speedy trial or accepting unreasonably short deadlines to rush through a trial if the case survives the pending motion to dismiss. (Tagging M.T. Patritz da Biondeu)
|
|
Owen Edwards
Puisne Justice
Posts: 1,400
Talossan Since: 12-8-2007
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Jun 1, 2015 13:30:47 GMT -6
I recognize the defence's assertion of their client's right to a speedy trial. As per Barker v Wingo (and I am pretending to teach someone far more knowledgeable than me), no set number of days is to be considered a breach of a speedy trial, though length and reason of delay are relevant to whether the right has been breached. The most important factor for upholding Barker's conviction in Barker v Wingo was that the incredibly long delay in that trial had not meaningfully prejudiced the trial against the defendant. There would have to be a demonstration that the defendant was in fact harmed (as to the trial) by the delay.
I'm grateful for you tagging the Crown's counsel; it would be good to hear from him.
|
|
Sir C. M. Siervicül
Posts: 9,636
Talossan Since: 8-13-2005
Knight Since: 7-28-2007
Motto: Nonnisi Deo serviendum
|
Post by Sir C. M. Siervicül on Jun 3, 2015 19:07:24 GMT -6
Your Honour, Given that M.T. Patritz da Biondeu has appeared and been posting on Witt again, and Seneschal Lüc da Schir has exhibited a recent willingness to draft legal briefs on short notice in his capacity as acting Attorney-General, the Defence humbly suggests that the Cort should direct these officers of the court to turn their attention to the proceeding that has been languishing here, as the government has been completely ignoring your 5 May request to report on its availability for nearly a month now. Your Honour, my client has essentially been in a self-imposed exile from Wittenberg since these charges were filed, such is the humiliation and distress that they have caused him. He is prejudiced by every day this case is allowed to languish without the opportunity to clear his name.
|
|
Owen Edwards
Puisne Justice
Posts: 1,400
Talossan Since: 12-8-2007
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Jun 4, 2015 5:04:59 GMT -6
The government is hereby directed to appear in the Cort by 2359BST on Sunday 7th June.
Your client's exile is self-imposed, not imposed by anyone else; and I imagine Barker felt fairly distressed by the 5 year wait on his trial. That decision did not consider that sufficient prejudice. However, your argument is noted, and the Cort agrees a swift resolution would be best.
|
|
|
Post by M.T. Patritz da Biondeu on Jun 4, 2015 22:13:14 GMT -6
Your Honor,
I apologize for my tardiness in appearing. At this time the government is dropping all charges against any and all defendants in this case. We feel at this time, after many delays and disappearances, that is best we just accept this situation as a learning lesson for all parties involved.
|
|
Owen Edwards
Puisne Justice
Posts: 1,400
Talossan Since: 12-8-2007
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Jun 11, 2015 4:42:14 GMT -6
The Cort is utterly bemused by the Crown's latest response. Whilst, unfortunately, I do not think I can force the Crown to pursue the case, the current state of affairs appears to me to leave a cloud over the defendant, who has not "had his day in court". Now, of course, if the prosecution had withdrawn charges for technical reasons, or statute reasons, or evidential reasons - that would be well enough. But that the Crown takes it upon itself to judge when lessons have been learned and when justice has been done is outrageous! The job of the Corts is to adjudicate such matters. The Crown has undertaken a spectacular waste of this Cort's time, as well as tarring the name of the defendant with serious charges - charges so serious that he ought either to be punished or fully exonerated, as the case may be. The Crown must be rather more thoughtful and careful in future cases, as it has demonstrated a disgraceful carelessness in this one.
Given the Crown's false faith, I also revoke the plea bargain agreed with Timotgi Asmourescu; the charges against him are dismissed without prejudice.
|
|