Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN
Seneschal
the new Jim Hacker
Posts: 6,635
Talossan Since: 6-25-2004
Dame Since: 9-8-2012
Motto: Expulseascâ, reveneascâ
Baron Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
Duke Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
|
Post by Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN on Feb 3, 2016 15:43:50 GMT -6
Your honours, the validity of every single OrgLaw amendment since 1997 is what we are here today to discuss. Petitioner argues that all of them were valid, including 47RZ28; but if 47RZ28 is invalid, then all are invalid.
If this putative brief wants to argue against the validity of 47RZ28 but in favour of all the other amendments, then I'm not sure what possible grounds it can stand on apart from the monarchist beliefs of one particular MZ (and perhaps his party) that "we don't mind being overridden by the King". And if the brief doesn't argue that, I'm not sure what the point is.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Feb 3, 2016 15:50:34 GMT -6
Your Honours, the petitioner is arguing, in part, in favor of overturning all amendments passed by the Ziu. Certainly it seems to me that members of the Ziu would then have standing to address such a suit. If necessary, I can present precedent from other courts showing that pertinent members of the legislature are given a chance to defend the validity of the legislative process as a rule.
Is the petitioner, in her above statement, ceding her contingent demand that all amendments be overturned?
|
|
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 3, 2016 17:14:40 GMT -6
The Cort would remind both Sir Alexandreu Davinescu and Dame Miestra Schiva that there is a proper order and decorum in this Cortroom. The Cort is acting with all due dilligence and will make a final determination when it has a finding. The Cort admonishes both parties that they should address Us and not each other. Sir Alexandreu, the Cort would encourage you that, as we have denied the submission of amicus briefs in this matter, your clients may wish to work with the Respondent and His counsel, Sir C.M. Siervicul if so desired. Is your intended brief intended as an amicus brief, or are you seeking to join the Respondent? The Cort also is waiting on a brief from the Respondent. Sir C. M. Siervicül, do you have a brief for us? Without it, the Cort will be forced to move on the strength of the Petitioner's brief alone.
|
|
Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN
Seneschal
the new Jim Hacker
Posts: 6,635
Talossan Since: 6-25-2004
Dame Since: 9-8-2012
Motto: Expulseascâ, reveneascâ
Baron Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
Duke Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
|
Post by Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN on Feb 3, 2016 17:41:54 GMT -6
Apologies for speaking out of order, your Honour. I will happily take this up with Sir Alexandreu outside the Cort.
|
|
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 3, 2016 18:07:37 GMT -6
The Cort also is waiting on a brief from the Respondent. Sir C. M. Siervicül, do you have a brief for us? Without it, the Cort will be forced to move on the strength of the Petitioner's brief alone. Your Honour, I had been waiting for an indication from the Cort as to whether it would be willing to entertain a motion to dismiss (specifically, that the matter raised in the current petition is barred as res judicata), or would require a full responsive pleading to the allegations and claims in the petition. I apologise for the lack of clarity in my previous post. I could file a motion to dismiss by tomorrow morning. If the Cort requires a full responsive pleading up front, I would request a bit more time--Saturday perhaps.
|
|
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 3, 2016 18:21:14 GMT -6
The Cort will consider your motion once it is presented and would encourage the Respondent to be prepared to file a responsive pleading after We have ruled on any motions before Us.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Feb 3, 2016 18:52:29 GMT -6
Your Honour, it is my view that I and those who will join with me have natural standing as respondents in our own right. While there are no Talossan precedents regarding standing, it is a widely accepted principle that in any civil proceeding, those parties whose interests would be directly harmed by those proceedings have a natural right to be represented during those proceedings. The petitioner's brief would directly harm the interests of the legislature of Talossa, for the petitioner's first requested relief is to overturn the action of the Ziu, making that action void: "The first course would be to uphold the decision in re: 47RZ28, declare that the plain language of Org.XV:1 is in effect, and accordingly vacate all amendments made since 1997 as invalid because 'not proclaimed.' "
We do not intend merely to join with the respondent, enlisting Sir Cresti as our representative. The Crown is a necessary and respected part of our governing apparatus, but its interests and those of the Ziu are not identical. The members of the Ziu are entitled to their own representative to see to their separate and vital interests.
In the absence of specifically Talossan precedent, I can provide, at this court's direction, directly applicable precedent from other incidents in which an injunction has been requested against legislative procedures. In cases where questions of procedure, entirely separate from the legislature's actions, as in the case of proclamation, yet having direct bearing on the legislature's interests, the legislature should be afforded the right to be a respondent, not only an inactive friend of the court.
It would be a very harmful precedent if this court ruled that representatives from the legislature had no standing to respond. Consider a comparable case, where the Secretary of State failed to stamp laws with his official stamp, and a petitioner appealed to have these laws overturned on those grounds. Shouldn't that case, too, include the legislators who passed those laws -- giving them the full opportunity to protect their interests from immediate harm under an injunction? Or consider the principles in a separate sphere: if a homeowner filed for an injunction against their neighborhood's homeowner's association, arguing that they didn't want a required fire hydrant in front of their house -- and even further, that all fire hydrants should be removed -- then shouldn't we expect that the town would be afforded the right to defend the purpose of fire hydrants?
To put it another way, the petitioner seeks to overturn many of the justly-passed laws of the legislature. The legislature, in part and in its separate persons, wishes to object to this requested destruction of its lawful actions.
|
|
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 3, 2016 19:48:06 GMT -6
The Cort will take your arguments under advisement, Sir Alexandreu.
|
|
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 4, 2016 7:26:39 GMT -6
The Cort has determined that it will allow Sir Alexandreu Davinescu to submit a full motion, specifically addressing "directly applicable precedent from other incidents in which an injunction has been requested against legislative procedures" as he has stated in his prior statement. Sir Alexandreu, time is of the utmost importance and We desire to move this case along, so We require that you're brief be supplied in as timely a manner as possible.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Feb 4, 2016 8:53:37 GMT -6
Certainly, your Honour. When is the deadline for me to submit the motion?
|
|
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 4, 2016 11:09:18 GMT -6
Certainly, your Honour. When is the deadline for me to submit the motion? More than four days would likely test the Cort's patience.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Feb 4, 2016 12:11:24 GMT -6
It's a great deal of research to compile precedent from different courts of law, but I will do my utmost to get this done by Monday, in an effort to be as speedy as possible. I know that time is pressing, and I don't believe that will be a problem.
I was going to ask for a period of a week to gather further parties to join this suit, beyond those already in agreement. In the interest of time, though, would your Honour be willing to accept a "rolling" list, as more MZs join my list of those party to the response? Usually I would be given time for aggregation before proceedings, I think, but since this matter is pressing, I would agree to simply doing that as we moved along through the process.
|
|
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 4, 2016 12:49:30 GMT -6
RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
The Petition for Injunctive Relief re: the Proclamation of Organic Law Amendments (hereinafter 29 December Petition) currently before this Cort is (setting aside elements previously rejected by the Cort) essentially the same as the Petition for Declarative Relief re: the Application of Amendment 47RZ28 (hereinafter 2 June Petition) previously filed by the Government. As such, the claims asserted in it are barred as res judicata, and Respondent moves that they be dismissed with prejudice.
LAW
The doctrine of res judicata prohibits parties from relitigating the same causes of action or issues of fact or law repeatedly in successive court cases. There are two branches of res judicata, known as claim preclusion and issue preclusion (or collateral estoppel, which some authorities describe as a parallel doctrine to, rather than a form of, res judicata).
Res judicata is a basic principle of Anglo-American law, rooted in the need to protect the finality of court judgments in order to prevent confusion and uncertainty and avoid the waste of court (and litigant) resources. In England (see, e.g., SGI v. Deakin, 2001 EWCA Civ 777) and Canada (see, e.g., Erschbamer v. Wallster, 2013 BCCA 76), claim preclusion and issue preclusion are typically referred to as “cause of action estoppel” and “issue estoppel”, respectively.
“Fairness to the defendant and sound judicial administration require that at some point litigation over the particular controversy must come to an end.” DePratt v. West Bend Mut. Ins. Co., 113 Wis.2d 306, 311 (Sup. Ct. 1983). Thus, res judicata (of the claim preclusion variety) bars a second lawsuit when 1) a final judgment was issued in a previous case, 2) the previous case and the new case involve identical parties or their privies, and 3) the previous case and new case involve identical causes of action or claims. Id. Res judicata applies “to all matters which were litigated or which might have been litigated in the former proceedings.” Id. at 310.
Even if the second case involves a different cause of action than the first, the doctrine of issue preclusion or collateral estoppel holds that the parties to the second case are conclusively bound by the first court’s resolution of any issue of law or fact that was 1) litigated and actually decided in the first case, and 2) essential to the first judgment. Landess v. Schmidt, 115 Wis.2d 186, 197-198 (Ct. of App. 1983). “Relitigation of previously decided issues is undesirable”, and “effects of relitigation include the waste or misallocation of judicial resources consumed in reconsidering issues and evidence that had already been presented in the prior action and the spector of inconsistent decisions on identical issues.” Id. at 198.
IDENTITY OF PARTIES
In In re: 47RZ28, the petitioner was His Majesty’s Government as represented by the Attorney-General, and the respondent was His Majesty the King. In this case, the petitioner is His Majesty’s Government as represented by the Attorney-General, and the respondent is His Majesty the King. The identity of the parties in both cases is beyond question.
IDENTITY OF CLAIMS
Both the 2 June Petition and the 29 December Petition assert the same fundamental claim: that the Organic Law amendment proposed by 47RZ28 is valid and effective under OrgLaw XV:1. See 2 June Petition at ¶8, “Remedies Requested”; 29 December Petition at ¶24.c. While the 29 December Petition states that the effectiveness of 47RZ28 “is not the major thrust of this case,” dismissing it as a “possible side-effect”, that assertion is belied by the “Relief Sought” section of the petition.
The Relief Sought section is divided into five paragraphs. The first two are merely premises leading to the conclusion—beginning with “that therefore” (emphasis added)—of the third, which requests that “the Cort vacates the decision of the majority in in re: 47RZ28, and declares that amendment to have come into effect.” The claim that 47RZ28 is a valid and effective amendment is, therefore, the principal focus of the December 29 Petition, and Petitioner explicitly acknowledges that the prior decision on the same amendment must be vacated in order for the Cort to grant the relief requested now.
Of course, the 29 December Petition originally asserted an additional claim for an injunction against a referendum on 48RZ14, but this claim has already been rejected by the Cort. The 29 December Petition contains language (e.g. at ¶19) which could be read as a claim that previous Organic Law amendments should be invalidated under the rationale of the Cort’s prior decision In re: 47RZ28, but the Petition does not actually request such invalidation, and Petitioner has disclaimed any such intent in this thread.
ISSUES ESSENTIAL TO THE CURRENT CASE WERE RESOLVED BY PREVIOUS JUDGMENT
Even if Petitioner were to construe the 29 December Petition as somehow raising a different cause of action supported by different legal theories, it is apparent that any new claims relating to 47RZ28 involve issues of law that were litigated and decided, and essential to the judgment in, the previous case. Specifically, the parties litigated and the Cort necessarily decided the issues of 1) whether OrgLaw XVI:1 requires a proclamation to pass an amendment into law, and 2) whether OrgLaw XVI:1 allows the King discretion not to proclaim an amendment, or to refuse to proclaim an amendment.
CONCLUSION
Petitioner’s claim that the 47RZ28 amendment is valid and effective is barred because the Cort has made a previous final decision on the same claim involving the same parties, which previous decision is therefore res judicata. Even if the 29 December Petition can be read as containing an additional claim seeking the invalidation of previous amendments (in the alternative to the claim that 47RZ28 is valid and effective), the fact remains that the claim that 47RZ28 is valid and effective is identical to the one made and decided in the previous case, and cannot go forward.
Moreover, the Cort’s resolution of specific points of law regarding the King’s refusal to proclaim 47RZ28 is binding on Petitioner under the doctrine of issue preclusion or collateral estoppel. As such, Petitioner cannot possibly receive the relief requested in paragraphs 24.b and 24.c of the 29 December Petition, which incorporate propositions that are the complete reverse of essential findings made in the Cort’s previous decision, because Petitioner is estopped from pleading contrary to the Cort’s prior findings on these issues.
Therefore, the Cort should dismiss the 29 December Petition with prejudice to the extent that it seeks the relief sought in paragraphs 24.a through 24.c of the Petition. Paragraph 24.d would therefore be moot as the language alleged to be “unclear and confusing” would not be relevant to any matter in actual controversy before the Cort. Paragraph 24.e has already been dismissed.
Respectfully submitted,
C. M. Siervicül Counsel for Respondent
|
|
Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN
Seneschal
the new Jim Hacker
Posts: 6,635
Talossan Since: 6-25-2004
Dame Since: 9-8-2012
Motto: Expulseascâ, reveneascâ
Baron Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
Duke Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
|
Post by Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN on Feb 4, 2016 14:32:30 GMT -6
Your Honours, the Petitioner has prepared a response to this motion - we are double-checking this with "real lawyers" and will file it within the day, oc'halà.
|
|
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 4, 2016 14:45:52 GMT -6
It's a great deal of research to compile precedent from different courts of law, but I will do my utmost to get this done by Monday, in an effort to be as speedy as possible. I know that time is pressing, and I don't believe that will be a problem. I was going to ask for a period of a week to gather further parties to join this suit, beyond those already in agreement. In the interest of time, though, would your Honour be willing to accept a "rolling" list, as more MZs join my list of those party to the response? Usually I would be given time for aggregation before proceedings, I think, but since this matter is pressing, I would agree to simply doing that as we moved along through the process. The Cort is not currently interested in a list of additional parties as we have not yet ruled on the addition of Respondents to this matter. The Cort thanks you for your speedy efforts in providing your brief so that this case not drag on needlessly.
|
|