Tresplet v. HM Chancery, et al.

[Munditenens Tresplet]

To the Clerk of Cort and Esteemed Justices of the Uppermost Cort:

I hereby file the attached complaint and emergency application for a temporary restraining order against Defendants HM Chancery, Marti-Pair Furxheir, the Electoral Commission, and His Majesty King John. I hereby certify that the Defendants have been served with a copy of the complaint and application by email and Witt PM. Service on the Electoral Commission was effectuated on Marti-Pair Furxheir, currently the only sitting member of the Commission.

Should the application for a restraining order be rejected, I will be filing an amended complaint.

Respectfully submitted,
Munditenens Tresplet

Attachments:

TrespletvHMChanceryetal.pdf (164.46 KB)

[Dame Litz Cjantscheir, UrN]

The Uppermost Cort

The Cort wishes to acknowledge the petition laid before it by S:reu Tresplet.

Whilst the Cort considers this petition, I am hereby temporarily granting the temporary restraining order sought by the petitioner. I will review this order in due course.

So ordered,

Dame Litz Cjantscheir, UrN

[Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H.]

Dec 2, 2016 3:15:52 GMT -6 Dame Litz Cjantscheir, UrN said:

The Uppermost Cort

The Cort wishes to acknowledge the petition laid before it by S:reu Tresplet.

Whilst the Cort considers this petition, I am hereby temporarily granting the temporary restraining order sought by the petitioner. I will review this order in due course.

So ordered,

Dame Litz Cjantscheir, UrN

Since I do not yet have an attorney, may I ask the cort why the temporary restraining order was issued? It is obvious to me that until the King nominates the Electoral Commission, the election is not certified and that the declaration "All of the referendum are ratified" actually means "All of the referendum are ratified provided the electoral commission certifies the election". 

Everyone, including the petitioner and I know that the electoral commission needs to certify the election and as a result, I would need to express in each sentence concerning the election results something like "provided the electoral commission validates the vote".

Furthermore, the petitioner is asking me to not enforce referendum #2 when I have not yet announced any intentions of enforcing said referendum, I have only announced that the results of the vote points toward ratification.

I therefore feel that a restrainer order is premature considering that no announcements of application of referendum #2 was made or could be made before the election is certified, and no certification can be made until an electoral commission is named.

The petitioner also speculates about the certification process admitting that he is petitioning merely because he is unaware of prior certification of the secret voting system when the electoral commission hasn't even decided which procedure to use, since it is not formed yet.

I am not commenting on the validity of the petition itself, I simply want to iterate that in my limited understanding of the law, this request for restraining order is premature since it rests on theoretical actions taken in the future on my part on which I have not yet made any announcements on.

[Dame Litz Cjantscheir, UrN]

Dec 2, 2016 4:52:44 GMT -6 Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H. said:

Dec 2, 2016 3:15:52 GMT -6 Dame Litz Cjantscheir, UrN said:

The Uppermost Cort

The Cort wishes to acknowledge the petition laid before it by S:reu Tresplet.

Whilst the Cort considers this petition, I am hereby temporarily granting the temporary restraining order sought by the petitioner. I will review this order in due course.

So ordered,

Dame Litz Cjantscheir, UrN

Since I do not yet have an attorney, may I ask the cort why the temporary restraining order was issued? It is obvious to me that until the King nominates the Electoral Commission, the election is not certified and that the declaration "All of the referendum are ratified" actually means "All of the referendum are ratified provided the electoral commission certifies the election". 

Everyone, including the petitioner and I know that the electoral commission needs to certify the election and as a result, I would need to express in each sentence concerning the election results something like "provided the electoral commission validates the vote".

Furthermore, the petitioner is asking me to not enforce referendum #2 when I have not yet announced any intentions of enforcing said referendum, I have only announced that the results of the vote points toward ratification.

I therefore feel that a restrainer order is premature considering that no announcements of application of referendum #2 was made or could be made before the election is certified, and no certification can be made until an electoral commission is named.

The petitioner also speculates about the certification process admitting that he is petitioning merely because he is unaware of prior certification of the secret voting system when the electoral commission hasn't even decided which procedure to use, since it is not formed yet.

I am not commenting on the validity of the petition itself, I simply want to iterate that in my limited understanding of the law, this request for restraining order is premature since it rests on theoretical actions taken in the future on my part on which I have not yet made any announcements on.

The Cort has not heard this case nor has ruled on the petitioner's petition. It has not made any final judgement or determination on this case.

The Cort has issued a temporary injunction to allow itself to consider the petitioner's case without the status quo or any material facts/matters being altered or to prevent any further injury to the petitioner whilst this case is under the consideration of this Cort.

This Cort can lift this injunction at any time or issue a preliminary injunction should it see fit to do so.

Until such a time a full hearing is heard or the Cort dismissed this petition, I cannot comment further on this case.

[Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H.]

Dec 2, 2016 6:15:24 GMT -6 Dame Litz Cjantscheir, UrN said:

Dec 2, 2016 4:52:44 GMT -6 Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H. said:

Since I do not yet have an attorney, may I ask the cort why the temporary restraining order was issued? It is obvious to me that until the King nominates the Electoral Commission, the election is not certified and that the declaration "All of the referendum are ratified" actually means "All of the referendum are ratified provided the electoral commission certifies the election". 

Everyone, including the petitioner and I know that the electoral commission needs to certify the election and as a result, I would need to express in each sentence concerning the election results something like "provided the electoral commission validates the vote".

Furthermore, the petitioner is asking me to not enforce referendum #2 when I have not yet announced any intentions of enforcing said referendum, I have only announced that the results of the vote points toward ratification.

I therefore feel that a restrainer order is premature considering that no announcements of application of referendum #2 was made or could be made before the election is certified, and no certification can be made until an electoral commission is named.

The petitioner also speculates about the certification process admitting that he is petitioning merely because he is unaware of prior certification of the secret voting system when the electoral commission hasn't even decided which procedure to use, since it is not formed yet.

I am not commenting on the validity of the petition itself, I simply want to iterate that in my limited understanding of the law, this request for restraining order is premature since it rests on theoretical actions taken in the future on my part on which I have not yet made any announcements on.

The Cort has not heard this case nor has ruled on the petitioner's petition. It has not made any final judgement or determination on this case.

The Cort has issued a temporary injunction to allow itself to consider the petitioner's case without the status quo or any material facts/matters being altered or to prevent any further injury to the petitioner whilst this case is under the consideration of this Cort.

This Cort can lift this injunction at any time or issue a preliminary injunction should it see fit to do so.

Until such a time a full hearing is heard or the Cort dismissed this petition, I cannot comment further on this case.

Thank you for the clarification your honor.

[Dame Litz Cjantscheir, UrN]

The Uppermost Cort

---

The Cort having carefully considered the petition presented before it by S:reu Tresplet (“Petitioner”), and evidence of matters related thereof, wishes to make the following ex parte rulings:

---

RULING:


ON COUNT ONE

1. The Cort finds that the “Official Results” thread posted on Wittenberg by the Secretary of State (“SoS”) on the 2nd of December 2016: (http://talossa.proboards.com/thread/11873/official-50th-cosa-election-results?page=1&scrollTo=148795), does not constitute an Official Certified Election result as it lacks a crucial element.

For an election to be certified, members of the Electoral Commission must “independently confirm[ed] the final tally and together [certified] the election” [Art VII Sec 6 OrgLaw]. Given that no Electoral Commission has been constituted or appointed in accordance with established procedure, it would be impossible for such a commission to confirm the tally nor certify this election. Lacking this essential element, the SoS cannot certify or issue a certified election result.
The Cort wishes to further note, that we do not believe that the results above were intended to be viewed as the official certified results, though we do see how it may be interpreted as such by some citizens. Therefore, this Cort recommends that the Sos and the Chancery puts clearly on such “uncertified” results that the results are pending certification and do not represent an official certified election result.

2. As this Cort has already ruled there is no Electoral Commission appointed or constituted, now or prior to the start of or during the election we further rule based on such that the provisions of Art VII Sec 7 OrgLaw, have not been met, that is, the Commission has not verified the reliability of the secure online ballot system and has not unanimously approved its use with a public vote. Therefore, all ballots regardless of the means in which they were cast, will need to be individually verified and certified by the members of the Electoral Commission.

3. Given that no complaint has been laid before this Cort on the matter, nor evidence presented to it to substantiate the claim nor is the individual party to this case, Paragraph 38 of the petition which forms part of Count 1, is hereby struck out.

4. As no Electoral Commission has been constituted or appointed, in or against established practise, this Cort cannot at this time rule on the composition of the Electoral Commission or the method in which members of the Electoral Commission are appointed. Therefore, Paragraph 41 is struck out.

Relief Granted:

5. The Cort accepts that the SoS did not intend for his post to be viewed as the Official Certified Results of this election and this Cort is further satisfied that the SoS, nor his agents or person(s) or bodies otherwise will not issue any certified copy of the election results which does not uphold all the provisions of the OrgLaw. The Cort must ensure that its ruling on this matter is adhered to in full, therefore we grant the petitioner’s motion for an injunction enjoining the SoS, his agents or person(s) or bodies otherwise and the Electoral Commission their agents or person(s) or bodies otherwise from certifying the election result until such a time all ballots, regardless of means in which they were cast, have been individually certified by each member of the Electoral Commission and each member has issued a public statement confirming such. The Cort reserves the right to at any time revoke or amend this injunction and it shall cease to apply upon the certification of the current election – 50th Cosa.

ON COUNTS TWO & THREE

6. Given that His Majesty, The King has not yet indicated if he wishes to proclaim or refuse to proclaim 49RZ23, this Cort cannot yet proceed with a full hearing. Therefore, the Cort will ask King John or His Majesty’s Counsel to state to this Cort within 72 hours from this ruling, whether he intends to or not proclaim the Amendment 49RZ23, which is at the centre of this case.

7. Until such a time this Cort temporarily enjoins His Majesty and/or His agents or person(s) or bodies otherwise from proclaiming 49RZ23, The Mandatory Cosa Lists Amendment, by all or any means, pending further instruction from this Cort. The Cort reserves the right to at any time revoke or amend this injunction.

8. The Cort reserves judgment on counts 2 & 3.

DISMISSAL ON RESPONDENTS

9. Give the SoS and The Electoral Commission are not parties to the issues surrounding counts 2 & 3, that is they have no active role in the proclamation of the amendment. They are hereby dismissed from further hearings of this case and all relief sought against them on solely on Counts 2 & 3 are denied. The Crown will remain the sole defendant/respondent party to this case going forward.

Any ruling of the above matter may be appealed to the Uppermost Cort en banc.

This Court is adjourned pending the response of His Majesty or His Majesty’s Counsel.

So ordered,


Dame Litz Cjantscheir, UrN

[Munditenens Tresplet]

Your Honour,

Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter and your expedited ruling.

Just to clarify the following portion of the ruling, is the Chancery also dismissed from the case with respect to issues not involving the injunction?

Dec 2, 2016 14:04:00 GMT -6 Dame Litz Cjantscheir, UrN said:

DISMISSAL ON RESPONDENTS

9. Give the SoS and The Electoral Commission are not parties to the issues surrounding counts 2 & 3, that is they have no active role in the proclamation of the amendment. They are hereby dismissed from further hearings of this case and all relief sought against them on solely on Counts 2 & 3 are denied. The Crown will remain the sole defendant/respondent party to this case going forward.

Thank you in advance.

Respectfully,

Munditenens Tresplet

[King John]

Dec 2, 2016 14:04:00 GMT -6 Dame Litz Cjantscheir, UrN said:

ON COUNTS TWO & THREE

6. Given that His Majesty, The King has not yet indicated if he wishes to proclaim or refuse to proclaim 49RZ23, this Cort cannot yet proceed with a full hearing. Therefore, the Cort will ask King John or His Majesty’s Counsel to state to this Cort within 72 hours from this ruling, whether he intends to or not proclaim the Amendment 49RZ23, which is at the centre of this case.

7. Until such a time this Cort temporarily enjoins His Majesty and/or His agents or person(s) or bodies otherwise from proclaiming 49RZ23, The Mandatory Cosa Lists Amendment, by all or any means, pending further instruction from this Cort. The Cort reserves the right to at any time revoke or amend this injunction.

8. The Cort reserves judgment on counts 2 & 3.

With greatest respect, the Crown thanks the Cort for the invitation, and offers these answers and thoughts.

Regarding the appointment of an Electoral Commission, the Crown is entirely happy to await the Cort's opinion as to what should be done.  Last election, I appointed three of the five Justices, selecting randomly.  But I see merit in S:reu Tresplet's argument that I erred in doing so, and that that action was beyond my Organic powers.

It is not my intention to promulgate the Amendment in question, until and unless I am persuaded of its Organicity.  (I would welcome this honourable Cort's advisory opinion as to whether it is in fact Organic.  It certainly has its problems.)  To the points raised by S:reu Tresplet, I would add my own question as to whether an Amendment can contain a Law, as this one purports to do, in such a way that the Amendment's being promulgated accomplishes the adoption of the Law.  If so, that would introduce an additional method, unknown to the Organic Law, for passing a Bill, i.e. to include the Bill in an Organic Amendment.  (The Bill could have been passed in the normal fashion, with the provision that it only comes into effect if and when the Amendment is promulgated.)  The promulgation of this Amendment might set a careless and undesirable precedent here.

Further, it is the Crown's position that the Cort cannot Organically either enjoin the Crown from exercising, or order the Crown to exercise, one of its Organic powers, or to restrict that exercise except as might be specified in the Organic Law — which is not the case here.  The OrgLaw grants to Justices the power to "issue court orders or injunctions according to the generally accepted principles of Anglo-American law", one of which principles most certainly is the co-equal status of the "branches" of Government.  The Supreme Court of the United States could not even temporarily enjoin the President from signing a Bill, any more than the President could (by Executive Order perhaps) require the Court to issue a particular ruling.  Neither could the Uppermost Cort of Talossa require the Cosa to approve a VOC, or require the Senats to elect a particular Mençei.  Nor does the Cort have any Organic power to enjoin the Crown from promulgating an Amendment.

And further still, since the OrgLaw puts no time limit on the Crown's promulgating an Amendment or deciding not to, the Crown holds that the Cort cannot compel the Crown to announce a decision within a particular time period.  The Cort, for all its great prestige and high authority, is not a Board of Dictators over the other Organic officers of the Kingdom.

— John R

[Dame Litz Cjantscheir, UrN]

Thank you King John for your prompt response.

Firstly, I would like to refer you to Article XVI Section 13 of the Organic Law:

Section 13
Any judge or justice may issue court orders or injunctions according to the generally accepted principles of Anglo-American law. These injunctions may order a party to perform his legal duty, or may prevent the enforcement of a law which may be Inorganic (unconstitutional). Violation of an injunction is treated as contempt of court. The final arbiter of the organicity of injunctions is the Uppermost Cort of Talossa. [emphasis added]

This Judge is of the opinion that Section 13, clearly provides this Cort with the full authority to "...order a party to perform his legal duty, or may prevent the enforcement of a law which may be Inorganic (unconstitutional)." Therefore, in my opinion, this Cort does have the right to order a party, be it the Crown or Prime Minister or Cosa/Senate or other bodies, state or otherwise to perform his/her/their legal duties. This Cort has very limited power in preventing a party from performing his/her/their lawful duties, one such case is the enforcement of a law which is inorganic. My own interpretation is that the Crown, by promulgating the Amendment in question, will be, at least in definition, enforcing a law which "may" be inorganic. Therefore, a injunction against this action is Organic and it is my opinion that the injunction issued by this Cort under Section 13, preventing the enforcement of a law by promulgation is Organic. I am open to correction by my fellow judges, should they feel otherwise and would welcome their decision as final arbiter of the organicity of injunctions.

The Cort cannot compel the Crown to make a decision as to when or when not to promulgate a amendment, however in the interest of justice, this Cort can enquire as to the Crown's thoughts on a matter, this is what the Cort was doing in order to best decide how to deal with this case and again in exercise of Section 13 above.

This Cort will need time to consider the rest of your response and decide how best to approach in what is a developing situation.

Until such a time a decision is made, this Cort stands in recess and injunctions remain in place.

So Ordered,

Dame Litz Cjantscheir, UrN

[Munditenens Tresplet]

NOTICE OF APPEAL

Your Honour,

Please take notice that I will be appealing the decision to dismiss respondents HM Chancery (whom I'm assuming was also dismissed), SoS, and The Electoral Commission from Counts 2 and 3 of my petition to an en banc Cort. I have noticed all parties of my intent to appeal, and I will be filing the appeal later today or tomorrow.

I do not request any stay of proceedings in this case in the interim, however, I do request a restraining order be issued against the SoS, the Chancery, and The Electoral Commission preventing them from certifying the results of 49RZ23 pending the outcome of my appeal, assuming that this appeal may take a longer period of time to decide and the EC may already be finished with certifying the rest of the results from this election in compliance with Your Honour's current injunction.

This the 3rd day of December, 2016.

Respectfully submitted,

Munditenens Tresplet

[Munditenens Tresplet]

Your Honour,

I plan to oppose S:reu Plätschisch's request for standing which was sent by Witt PM, and I beg the Cort's indulgence to allow me 24-48 hours to prepare a brief in opposition prior to the Cort making a ruling. I had to spend all last night with my mother in the ER, and this evening I learned of the death of a close friend whom I just visited yesterday. In addition, I am still working on preparing the appeal of your dismissal of HM Chancery, the SoS, and the Electoral Commission from my complaint.

Respectfully,

Munditenens Tresplet

[Munditenens Tresplet]

Your Honour,

I hereby file the attached Motion to Deny Ian Platschisch's Request for Standing in this case, and brief in support of the Motion filed concurrently herewith. I certify that I have served all parties, and Ian Platschisch, with a copy of the Motion and brief.

Respectfully submitted,
Munditenens Tresplet

Attachments:

motionandbriefrerequest.pdf (194.15 KB)

[Munditenens Tresplet]

NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL

Pursuant to the sound legal principles of "Damned if you do and damned if you don't", and "Screw it", recognizing the lack of confidence and recognition in this Cort's authority that is shared by many, and realizing that virtually no one possesses the capacity to understand many of the issues at play in my suit, I hereby dismiss all claims as to all parties without prejudice.

A similar notice of withdrawal has been made in the Appeal case.

I certify that all parties, and Ian P., have been served with a copy of this notice.

As always and for the final time, Respectfully submitted,
Munditenens Tresplet

[Avocat-Xheneral]

Ministry of Justice  

Office of the Attorney General  

---

To the Clerk of the Cort and Esteemed Justices of the Uppermost Cort:


The Ministry of Justice, acting as counsel to the Government of the Kingdom of Talossa, hereby files the attached Order to Show Cause in the above-captioned matter. 

Attachment: TrespletvHMChancery et al - Def Order to Sh....pdf (252.54 KB)

The Ministry further includes, for the convenience of the Cort, an editable copy of the Order to Show Cause. 

Attachment: TrespletvHMChancery et al -Order to Show C....docx (18.47 KB)
  

                                            Respectfully submitted, 

                                            Viteu Marcianüs
                                            Attorney General to the Kingdom of Talossa



 

[Munditenens Tresplet]

Re: Motion and Proposed Order to Show Cause

Plaintiff does not oppose the rescinding of the temporary injunction, if such injunction is even still considered valid following the dismissal of my lawsuit. Plaintiff considers this to be his sole response to the motion, and would oppose any that would require plaintiff to show any further cause as to why the order should not be rescinded.

Alternatively, Plaintiff would propose that the Cort simply vacate the injunction pursuant to the voluntary dismissal, without prejudice, which ended this lawsuit.

Respectfully,
Munditenens Tresplet