MARCIANÜS v DA SCHIR, et al. - Petition

[Avocat-Xheneral]

My Lord Chief Justice:

Could the Cort please provide a deadline as to when it will render its decision?

Viteu Marcianüs
Avocat-Xheneral
The Kingdom of Talossa

[Munditenens Tresplet]

Your Honour,

As counsel for the Government Defendants in this matter, we respectfully request that this Cort make its ruling as soon as it may be possible in order to protect the due process rights of both Defendants and Plaintiff who currently would have a limited time to appeal any ruling in this matter, as well as to resolve any confusion that may be present in the run up to the election beginning on September 15. To that end, Defendants wish to make aware of this Cort the following:

1. This case was initially filed by the Attorney-General on June 13, 2017 at 7:35 PM EDT.

2. Special counsel for the Defendants was appointed on June 13 at around 11:30 PM EDT, and counsel entered his appearance in this action soon thereafter.

3. The Cort set a briefing schedule on June 14, and this matter was fully briefed on June 16th at around 6:00 PM EDT.

4. Due to unfortunate circumstances within Justice Cjantscheir's family, for which Defendants join with the Attorney General in expressing our sympathies, Your Honour took over this case on July 3rd and offered a deadline of July 5 for which the Cort would make its ruling.

5. In the interim period between June 16 and July 3, pursuant to the midterm election rules as created by 50PD06, the midterm election that forms the basis for Petitioner's complaint was conducted.

6. The provisional results of the midterm election which showed the passage of 50RZ15 were posted on July 2nd, and pursuant to 50PD06, became the certified results on July 9th.

7. Following the certification of 50RZ15, the Electoral Commission Reform Act (50RZ16) came into immediate effect, which creates an Electoral Commission comprised of a UC Justice, a Senator, an individual appointed by the King, and the Secretary of State as a non-voting member.

8. According to 50RZ16, the Secretary of State is required to notify the relevant bodies or parties responsible for appointing members to the Electoral Commission at least two months prior to the September 15th Balloting Day, or by July 15th. Thereafter, those parties are responsible for making appointments to the Electoral Commission at least one month prior to Balloting Day, or by August 15th, which is in 24 days. If members aren't appointed by this deadline, the Secretary of State is responsible for selecting and appointing members.

9. The Uppermost Cort is itself one of those bodies responsible for appointing a member from within its ranks to serve on the Electoral Commission. To Counsel's knowledge, the Cort has not yet been officially made aware of this, owing to the pendency of this lawsuit.

10. Furthermore, the Secretary of State is required to make election rules that coincide with the multiple changes made following 50RZ15 and 50RZ16, and must present these rules to the new Electoral Commission for their review and certification on or by August 15th.

11. Should this Cort, however, rule against the midterm referendum election as conducted by 50PD06, the Electoral Commission would revert to its previous iteration, being comprised entirely of UC Justices as 50RZ16 would no longer be in effect. Furthermore, the Secretary of State would have to rewrite the election rules once again to comply with relevant law as it stood prior to the certification of 50RZ15 and the effectiveness of 50RZ16, which would include the returning requirement for the Electoral Commission to individually validate ballots prior to an election's certification.

12. Moreover, both parties in this lawsuit would have a limited amount of time in which to determine whether to appeal to an en banc sitting of this Cort from any such ruling, and would once again be made to comply with an expedited briefing schedule that reflects the urgency of this matter.

13. Additionally, in the event of a ruling contrary to the Defendants' position, 50RZ15, as well as the referendum on the Monarchy (50RZ14), would immediately be scheduled to be voted on during the September 15 Cosâ election as the previous results would be invalidated. However, should Defendants appeal to an en banc Cort, and their appeal be granted presumably following the September election, it may cause confusion as to which results are valid--the results following the Midterm election or those following the September election? If it is the former, would that not negate the results of the September election entirely as the election would have been conducted under election laws that would no longer have been in force?

14. In the event of a negative outcome for the Attorney General, should he himself thereafter pursue an appeal and receive a favorable decision from an en banc sitting, the September election conducted under the procedures created by 50RZ16 would have to be negated as well, assuming again that any appeal is not ruled upon until after the election takes place.

Therefore, Your Honour, Defendants again respectfully request an expedited ruling on this case to avoid any potential unfortunate situations as have been outlined above. The faster this Cort can rule gives the parties more time to prepare for any appeals or any election rule changes which may or may not occur.

Respectfully submitted,

Munditenens Tresplet
Deputy A-G, Counsel for Defendants

[Avocat-Xheneral]

My Lord Chief Justice:

On June 14, 2017, the Honorable Dame Litz Cjantscheir, UrN , issued a scheduling to file briefs, and stated that a decision would be rendered no later than June 18, 2017.

On June 27, 2017, the Honorable Dame Litz Cjantscheir, UrN, informed the parties that due to a family bereavement, she was preoccupied but would issue an order within forty-eight (48) hours.

On July 3, 2017, Your Honor, Chief Justice Ián Tamorán S.H. , informed the parties that Justice Cjantschier was unable to fulfill her duties due to a family issue and stated his intention to rule on the matter, providing each party with a period of forty-eight (48) hours to file any objection.

On July 4, 2017, the Attorney General, Petitioner, expressed their condolences for Justice Cjantscheir and stated they had no objection to Your Honor deciding the case.

On July 13, 2017, Petitioner requested that the Uppermost Cort provide information as to when an order will be made.

On July 22, 2017, temporary Deputy Attorney General, Respondent, requested that the Cort issue a decision as soon as possible due to the upcoming election to take place in or around September 2017.

It has now been sixty (60) days since the scheduling order by Justice Cjantscheir, thirty-one (31) days since Your Honor informed the parties that he will decide the case, twenty-one (21) days since Petitioner requested information regarding a decision by the Cort, and twelve (12) days since Respondent requested information regarding a final decision.

Petitioner would like to respectfully request that Your Honor issue a final decision on this merits of the case, or provide a date by which the parties can expect the Cort to issue its ruling.

Petitioner further requests that this Cort strike from the record any arguments set forth in Respondents' June 22, 2017 letter that seek to persuade the Cort to their opinion, as Respondents improperly seek to introduce a new argument that was not previously briefed. Petitioner brings to light Respondents' attempt to persuade this Cort using nothing more this conjecture and mis-perceived injury, introducing irrelevant points in an attempt to obfuscate the weakness of the arguments previously brieed. Finally, Petition merely points out that if this Cort were to rule soon on this topic, the old system will be used and the referendum can properly appear on the ballot for the upcoming General Election, thus preventing any of Respondents' imagined injuries from occurring. 


                                                                                                                                                    Respectfully submitted, 

                                                                                                                                                    Viteu Marcianüs
                                                                                                                                                    Avocat-Xheneral
                                                                                                                                                    The Kingdom of Talossa

[Avocat-Xheneral]

My Lord Chief Justice,


After consulting with opposing counsel, we respectfully move the Cort to strike from our previous letters the portions we both agree were inappropriate, as we both sough to argue points not initially briefed before this Cort. As such, we have edited our previous letters to strikethrough the text in question, and leave it to the Cort's discretion to grant this motion. 

Finally, Petitioner and Respondents once again call on this Cort to issue an Order sooner, as to prevent uncertainty. 

Respectfully submitted,

            /s/                                                                               /s/
        Munditenens Tresplet                                                    Viteu Marcianüs    
        Counsel for Respondents                                               Counsel for Petitioner
        Deputy Attorney General                                               Avocat-Xheneral
        The Kingdom of Talossa                                                 The Kingdom of Talosssa