PETITION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF re: OrgLaw amendment

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

Esteemed Justices of the Uppermost Cort!

In accordance with Cort Rulebook 3.3.1, I come before you in my capacity as Attorney-General and on behalf of the Government of Talossa to file the enclosed Petition for Injunctive Relief.

restéu voastrâ,
Senator Miestrâ Antôniâ Istefansëfiglhâ Schivâ, UrN.

Petition in re Proclamation of OrgLaw Amend....pdf (563.1 KB)

[Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă]

The Cort pü Inalt acknowledges receipt of the brief filed by Avocat-Xheneral Schivâ and will issue a ruling as to hearing this trial.

Justice dal Nordselvă

[Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă]

Cort will come to order!

After careful consideration, the Cort has agreed to take up this case. The Cort hereby notifies Avocat-Xheneral Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN of its notice to appear.

The Cort also inquires as to who will be representing any respondent to this case (the King, other interested party, etc.).

The hearing will begin upon proper acknowledgement of the respondent and the petitioner.

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

Present and ready, your Honour.

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

Your Honours, can we get a vague idea of how long we will wait for a respondent or respondents to present themselves? Time is a factor, in that if my request for an injunction on the referendum on the 3/4 Majority Amendment were to be passed, a decision would be much preferable before February 15.

[Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă]

The Cort has received two requests by separate individuals to intervene. We will inform when we have more information.

[Sir C. M. Siervicül]

Jan 22, 2016 17:14:06 GMT -6 Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă said:

The Cort also inquires as to who will be representing any respondent to this case (the King, other interested party, etc.).

Your Honour, I will be representing His Majesty in this matter. The respondent will have a motion to dismiss all or part of this petition, if the Cort pleases. In the interest of time, I'll keep it quick and dirty.

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

So, your Honours, what happens now? I repeat: the question of whether the injunction on the referendum on the 3/4 Majority Amendment will be enforced must be decided by February 15 at the latest. And if that injunction is not granted, the whole essence of this petition (that the Ziu was misled into passing an Amendment which will do the opposite of what is meant) will be ipso facto rejected. So we need quick decisions in the cause of justice.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

Your Honours, as one of the MZs who voted on that law, I would like to file a brief regarding this injunction, joined by other MZs. We have clear standing. When is the filing deadline?

[Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă]

The Cort has reached a ruling in regards to the request for an injunction and amicus briefs filed by two previous interested parties. The ruling will be issued as soon as possible.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

Your Honour, does this mean that the MZs who passed the amendment won't get a chance to be heard on the injunction? Given that the election and referendum looms, that would seem to constitute immediate harm on an issue on which we have clear standing, without any deadline for filing ever having been issued. Is there any chance of reconsideration, so that the legislative branch has a chance to respond?

[Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă]

An explanation from the Cort is forthcoming. The Cort would caution all interested parties that we are moving in a manner that is both fair and sensitive to time-constraints.

[Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă]

Article XV Section 1 of the Organic Law, quoted in part, states: An amendment to the Organic Law may be made by proclamation by the King where so authorized by a vote of two-thirds in both chambers of the Ziu, and approval of the majority of voters participating in a referendum on the question of the amendment no later than during the next scheduled general election following the approval of the Ziu.

Organic Law is clear in regards to the requested injunction when it states in Article XV Section 1, that a referendum on an amendment duly passed by the Ziu, shall be transmitted no later than during the next scheduled general election following the approval of the Ziu.


It is clear to this Cort that any amendment passed according to the provisions of Article XV Section 1 must be placed before the people no later than the next scheduled election. If the Cort were to grant the requested injunction, it would instantly render its own decision inorganic as the referendum administrator, the Secretary of State, is Organically required to place all amendments passed by the Ziu since the previous General Election to the people no later than the next General Election.


Additionally, the Cort, should it grant an injunction as requested, would be violating the separation of powers as laid out in Article XV of the Organic Law. The power to amend the Organic Law lies directly in the hands of the Ziu, the King, and the People. It is not for this Cort to interfere in that legislative process. Our only concern in the amendment process is if there is an Organic problem in the process of passing the said amendment, or if we are petitioned to examine the organicity of an existing statute or amendment.


The petitioner has not satisfied to our satisfaction that there was a fundamental error in the process by which the 3/4ths Amendment passed the Ziu. Indeed, public record indicates a vigorous and robust debate taking place on the bill, where it passed with no opposition in the Senate and 83% of the vote in the Cosa.


The petitioner additionally argues that the ZIu passed the bill in question under "false pretenses." This Cort must assume that MZs voted with due dilligence after considering all available information at the time of voting. The Cort cannot guess at what MZs assumed or did not assume.


This Cort finds that there is no justificable cause for this Cort to interfere in the legislative process which stands up the test of being both Organic and Legal. To do so would far exceed the separation of powers and organically permitted reach of this Cort. Once the Ziu passed an Amending Bill, an Organically required process begins and this Cort has no authority to stop the process or instruct the Secretary of State to remove the bill from the ballot.


Further, the Cort sees no cause of injury to the petitioner from the holding of this referendum, nor has the petitioner satisfied us that a miscarriage of justice will occur if the referendum outlined should be held. The point of the referendum is to amend the Organic Law to either give, amend, and/or remove powers from State Bodies, including the King. 


In summary, this Cort denies the request for injunction and also denies the requests of Ian Plätschisch, Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun, and Sir Alexandreu Davinescu to submit briefs.

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

Thank you, your Honours. In that case, I must insist that the Cort proceed with all due speed towards resolving the fundamental issue in the Petition. I don't think I need to argue that - given the referendum on 48RZ10 will be going ahead starting 15 February, i.e. 11 days from now - that the Cort will be doing the people of Talossa a disservice if they do not know, when voting in this election, whether they are voting for a limit on or an expansion to Royal powers in re: Organic Law amendments.

I would formally request a timetable for the substance of the petition to be heard.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

Your Honour, I'd also like to request permission to submit a brief on the central matter at hand, again representing myself and other current and former members of the Ziu. The petitioner's brief argues in part for the invalidation of dozens of legally-passed amendments to the Organic Law, and as members of the legislature that passed those amendments, we have clear standing to argue for their validity and preservation when they are called into question.