Talossa v. Ben-Ard, et al.

[Avocat-Xheneral]

Ministry of Justice  

Office of the Attorney General  

---

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

I, Viteu Marcianüs, Attorney General for the Kingdom of Talossa, do hereby move the Uppermost Cort of the Kingdom of Talossa to issue the relief sought against Béneditsch Ardpresteir, O.SPM. , Ián Tamorán S.H. , Dame Litz Cjantscheir, UrN in the complaint attached herein. 

Further, it is requested that, considering the individuals involved, that said justices immediately and unequivocally recuse themselves from this action, and in the event an appeal is necessary pursuant to Organic Law, Article XVI, Section 2 (c), that such an appeal be heard with the requisite three judge quorum, absent the individuals involved, with the third justice appointed upon consent of all parties, pursuant to Organic Law, Article XVI, section 7. 

Attachment: Talossa v Ben-Ard et al.pdf (274.42 KB)

                                                                            Viteu Marcianüs
                                                                            Avocat-Xheneral
                                                                            Ministry of Justice
                                                                            The Kingdom of Talossa

[Owen Edwards]

Case received. Unless Justice Nordselva objects, I'll take the case.

[Owen Edwards]

Justice Nordselva is happy with the arrangement.

The injunction requested in point 15 of the brief is granted (that respondents cannot make sua sponte interventions in this case). As regards the discussion in chamber about Justice Cjantscheir's availability, the Cort is satisfied with severing that section of the case pertaining to Justice Cjantscheir without prejudice, if the AG and the respondent agree (if necessary, if the respondent's availability is curtailed before she has a chance to agree or disagree, the Cort is also happy to do so on the AG's sole request).

Do the other respondents have any initial responses to enter?

(I'll say here as a matter of procedure that it strikes me that with three of the four parties in the case being legal professionals, it could get pretty technically dense and perhaps even pretty aggressive, in a way probably quite appropriate to macronational legal matters; however, I'll say now that I expect a modicum of courtesy to other parties as well as to the bench, as well as sincere efforts towards clarity. I know everyone will be happy to oblige!)

[Avocat-Xheneral]

My apologies to the Cort for responding in such an informal way. And apologies for any typos found herein (I'm typing on my phone at work).

The Attorney General sees no reason to oppose severing Justice Cjantscheir from this action, but for clarity, not dismissing the claim against her . In that regard, the claim as it relates to her can be addressed after resolution of the current case. Further, the Attorney General is open to Justice Cjantscheir subsequently intervening if she feels it is necessary and desirable, but in the interim, she should refrain from commenting publicly on this case and refrain from filing any amicus curiae.

Provided the Cort and remaining respondents agree to this stipulation, I think we can proceed.

As to the Cort's request for decorum, the Attorney General invites the density inherent in this case, but wishes to remind the Cort that Talossa is, like other common law countries, and what is practices in the home jurisdictions of all parties, an adversarial system. Nevertheless, even in those systems, a certain decorum is mandated out of respect for the Presiding Judge or Justice, and the institution of the judiciary. In that vein, I believe that there is no reason for any of the parties to breach decorum, even when zealously advocating their positions. Thus, the Cort has the Attorney General's promise that the proceedings, the Cort, and all involved parties will be accorded, as is proper, the requisite decorum and courtesy warranted. Additionally, the Attorney General, with the exception of ex parte discussions between the parties, wishes to make it clear that the parties should never address each other in Cort, but only address the Cort in their advocacy.

With that stated for the recorded, the Petitioner moves this Cort to set a deadline of two weeks, to be counted from one day upon granting of said motion, for the remaining respondents to join issue, and if respondents fail to do so, grant leave for petitioner to file an order to show cause for default judgment.

[Owen Edwards]

So granted (as notification has been offered to all respondents). Responses will need to be in by 2359hrs GMT, 29th November 2017, in lieu of motions to extend.

[Avocat-Xheneral]

Ministry of Justice  

Office of the Attorney General  

---

To the Esteemed Justice Edwards: 

Petitioner in the above captioned matter, as noticed on or about November 14, 2017 hereby moves this Cort for an Order to Show Cause as to this Cort should not enter default judgment against respondents, pursuant to the Cort's ORDER dated November 15, 2017, and upon respondents' continued failure to answer or plead.  The Order to Show Cause and Entry for Default Judgment are attached below.  For the Cort's convenience, an editable OSC has been attached.  

Attached hereto: Talossa v Ben-Ard et al - OSC EDJ.pdf (14.12 KB))

Attached hereto: Talossa v Ben-Ard et al - OSC.docx (21.17 KB)



Viteu Marcianüs

Avocat-Xheneral

Ministry of Justice

The Kingdom of Talossa

[Avocat-Xheneral]

To the Esteemed Justice:

There is a pending motion before this Cort. If it is the Corts preference, I can just as easily petition for entry of default judgment.

Viteu Marcianüs

[Avocat-Xheneral]

Ministry of Justice  

Office of the Attorney General  

---

To the Esteemed Justice Edwards: 

Having previously requested, and been granted, an order for respondents to join issue; and respondents having not joined issue by the dates set out by this august Cort; and upon filing by petitioner an order to show cause as to why an default should not be entered against respondents; and having not had that order issued by this Cort; petitioner now moves this Cort for entry of default judgment granting petitioner the relief sought. 

Please find the formal motion here: Talossa v Ben-Ard et al - Default Judgment.pdf (138.16 KB)

Respectfully submitted, 


Viteu Marcianüs
Avocat-Xheneral
Ministry of Justice
The Kingdom of Talossa

[Owen Edwards]

The Cort will issue a full ruling this coming Wednesday. It does, in the interim, find that the substance of the complaint is granted by default judgement; as this is a constitutional case rather than a civil damages case, the exact nature of relief will be detailed in the ruling (rather than via petition).

The Cort thanks the A-G for his patience.