PETITION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF re: OrgLaw amendment

[Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă]

The Cort acknowledges the motion for dismissal filed by the Respondent and will take the issue under advisement. We will rule upon the motion after we have received an answer from the Petitioner.

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

Your Honours, the Petitioner replies to the Respondent's motion to dismiss as follows:

---

We would begin by noting that the petition of 2 June was entitled 'In re: 47RZ28', and was narrowly focused on the question of the validity of the King's refusal to proclaim that single amendment. Thus, the crucial sentences in the majority panel's decision on the 2 June petition are as follows:

At issue is the interpretation of Organic Law Article XV Section 1 as it applies solely to 47RZ28... amendments that were "proclaimed" are not on trial here...

With the above, the majority panel made it clear that the evidence of previous amendments passed without the King's proclamation was specifically not taken into account in their decision. In contrast, the current Petition specifically requests that such evidence be taken into account, in determining whether all previous amendments which were not proclaimed (though not "anti-proclaimed", if there were such a thing) have the force of law. Thus, the Identity of Claims argued by counsel for the Respondent fails.

No judicial principle can justify an inconsistency or even a contradiction in case law. The majority decision on the 2 June petition resolved the narrow question of whether the refusal to proclaim 47RZ28 stood given the plain language of OrgLawXV:1, excluding and in isolation from any previous amendments. The question the Cort must resolve right now is whether the "plain language decision" on the 2 June decision also means that all previous OrgLaw amendments are vacated, as - the Petitioner argues, and was suggested by Justice Edwards in his dissent (see ss. 9-10 of the current Petition) - would simply be logically and legally consistent with the majority decision on the 2 June petition.

The question before the Cort in this petition is therefore a question of all Constitutional law in Talossa, given the decision on the 2 June petition, which was made excluding the status of any previous amendments. It is therefore a new question, and not res judicata.

Finally, we would like to offer - if the Cort deems it necessary - to amend our Petition to make it clear that this Petition does indeed seek clarification on all Organic Law amendments which have been deemed to pass into law without Royal proclamation.

[Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă]

The Cort acknowledges the answering brief of the Petitioner. The Cort will take the briefs under advisement and will notify both the Petitioner and the Respondent if We have need of further clarification and/or when We have a ruling to announce.

[Sir C. M. Siervicül]

Thank you, Your Honour. Respondent would welcome any opportunity the Cort sees fit to allow to clarify any issues raised by these filings, respond to questions, or provide further argument.

[Sir C. M. Siervicül]

Feb 4, 2016 17:37:12 GMT -6 Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă said:

The Cort acknowledges the answering brief of the Petitioner. The Cort will take the briefs under advisement and will notify both the Petitioner and the Respondent if We have need of further clarification and/or when We have a ruling to announce.

Your Honour,

The Attorney-General's clarification of the government's view of the petition raises some very significant issues in Respondent's view. Respondent respectfully requests leave of the Cort to file an additional motion to dismiss the petition without prejudice, based on an apparent absence of a justiciable controversy and lack of standing. We would be prepared to file our motion by tomorrow morning.

[Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă]

The Cort will accept an amended brief from the Respondent.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

Justice dal Nordselva, I believe my brief on standing will be ready on Monday. Unfortunately, however, I have another request in the meantime.

Although I know you are the distain leader of the Free Democrats of Talossa political party and a prospective member of their Cabinet in the next government, and that the Avocat-Xheneral is the leader of that same party and a prospective Seneschal, I didn't believe it would be a problem for you to maintain your impartiality. Unfortunately, it has come to my attention that your Honour, Justice dal Nordselva, has been discussing this case elsewhere and with the Avocat-Xheneral -- even extending so far as to offer advice.

In light of this, I request that your Honour recuse himself entirely from the case.

[Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă]

Sir Alexandreu,

I have looked back at any comments I may have made anywhere and I have pointedly refused to comment on any case. I have told the A-X that I cannot offer advice on numerous occasions. I cannot imagine what you are referring to. Do you have evidence of your claims?

EDIT: You have not been granted standing in this case, so any request from you to recuse myself is improper as you are not a party to this matter.

[Sir C. M. Siervicül]

Feb 5, 2016 14:44:24 GMT -6 Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă said:

The Cort will accept an amended brief from the Respondent.

Your Honour,

Please find attached Respondent's amended motion. Sections I.B and II.B-C are new, as well as a new paragraph each in the introduction and conclusion.

Attachments:

Amended Motion to Dismiss.pdf (177.43 KB)

[Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă]

The Cort acknowledges receipt of the Motion to Dismiss.

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

Your Honours, the Petitioner's legal team are discussing our response to this motion as we speak.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

Your Honour, I certainly do have evidence of my claim.

I am uncertain of what to do. My request has direct bearing on the ability of this Cort to fairly consider motions and briefs, including my brief regarding standing. It would seem to be a very poor precedent if this Cort were to rule that someone who was interested in a fair hearing was unable to request relief to ensure that fair hearing until they'd already had the hearing. This Cort has decided to eliminate the appeals process, by hearing this matter in full panel. This means that a future justice, one less scrupulous than our current justices, might be beyond challenge. That is to say, a corrupt justice could simply bar petitions on behalf of their partisan interests without fear of evidence of their improper actions ever coming to light: the petitioner could be barred from cort for lack of standing, and they would be unable to either appeal or make a motion to ask for recusal.

Your Honour has barred me from making motions until I can prove standing. Is that your Honour's final ruling on the subject? If so, I will make this motion after our standing to be a party to this hearing has been accepted.

[Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă]

Speaking on my own behalf, I also do not know how to proceed because I cannot fathom what evidence you claim to have. Additionally, there has been no ruling in regards to your standing because the Cort wishes to be apprised of possible precedent.

However, I am not the only justice on this case and when I speak for the Cort it is only after in chambers discussions.

[Sir Alexandreu Davinescu]

Your Honour, you stated directly to me that "[y]ou have not been granted standing in this case, so any request from you to recuse myself is improper as you are not a party to this matter."

This would seem to be a clear direction from the presiding justice, directing me not to offer any motions -- including the motion requesting recusal. I have already stated why I think such a bar would be a very poor precedent, but I certainly did not intend to willfully defy it and stand in contempt of this cort. If you so direct, I will wait to make my motion until after myself and those I represent have been accepted as having legitimate standing.

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

Your Honours, I hereby make the following motion that Sir Alexandreu Davinescù be required by this Cort to produce any evidence he may have of Justice da Nordselvâ "discussing this case elsewhere and with the Avocat-Xheneral -- even extending so far as to offer advice", within the current business day, or else be found in contempt of Cort.

For someone who is not (yet) a party to the case to be holding up a black bag labelled "SHOCKING EVIDENCE" and requiring to be made a party to the case before he will open the bag is a reasonably transparent parlour trick. I confess myself utterly baffled about what this kind of "evidence" could be. If it consists of verbatim records of discussions between myself and Justice Nordselva on this case, I welcome them being entered into the record - although alarm bells will ring about how these discussions got to Sir Alexandreu, and open up whole new questions of espionage.

Other than that, I don't see how they can be relevant. This is a delaying tactic and a cynical use of legal procedure to prevent the substantive issue of this case being discussed. I would urge Sir Alexandreu to be very, very careful about the bag of worms he is now opening.