|
Post by Avocat-Xheneral on Jan 17, 2018 14:44:46 GMT -6
The Attorney General objects to any submissions from the Crown. As the statute of limitations has tolled on any action that could be brought against him, and such limitations exist because, without a record, we'd only have a person's recollection of events that transpired many years ago, he is incredible as a matter of law.
Inasmuch as the King asserts that the Ministry of Justice has levied false accusations against him, the proper recourse is for the Crown to file a defamation case in our Corts, not seek rehabilitation through this proceeding.
|
|
Ián Tamorán S.H.
Chief Justice of the Uppermost Court
Proud Philosopher of Talossa
Posts: 1,401
Talossan Since: 9-27-2010
|
Post by Ián Tamorán S.H. on Jan 21, 2018 10:36:10 GMT -6
This Cort assures the Honourable Avocat-Xheneral that it not its intention to raise any further action against any citizen or any officer of state, the Crown included. Any such further actions would have to be raised elsewhere. There may, however, be points of fact, insofar as they may still be remembered, which may be pertinent to the considerations in hand. His Majesty is one such person who may have relevant recollections, and may well be questioned about them.
Should any person, individual or corporate, believe that false accusations have been raised against them, then - as the Honourable Avocat-Xheneral has correctly pointed out - it is for that party to file the appropriate case, should they so wish. This Cort is not considering any such side case, but only this specific petition concerning S:r Eric S. Börnatfiglheu, known as the Defendant.
|
|
|
Post by Avocat-Xheneral on Jan 21, 2018 11:18:05 GMT -6
The Avocat-Xheneral reminds the Cort that the Crown has made a statement in open Cort that essentially portrays the honorable Avocat-Xheneral as a liar. It further reminds the Cort that the Crown's statements as to matters of fact have been influenced by the initial petition and are clouded by the King's defensive stance. To put it another way, upon information and belief, the King made out-of-court statements that he didn't remember the specifics of the phone conversation. Any statement he makes in Cort to the contrary that is not in the official record will be perjury. He can't just remember what was said or whether he did or did not threaten a citizen of Talossa. His statements are incredible as a matter of law, and the fact that we're even debating this further underscores the contempt of the Crown for the independent judiciary that doesn't bow to his will. The AG continuously objects to the King's current attempt at, as he has done in the past, morphing this into some kangaroo court.
|
|
King John
King of Talossa
Posts: 2,415
Talossan Since: 5-7-2005
Knight Since: 11-30-2005
Motto: COR UNUM
King Since: 3-14-2007
|
Post by King John on Jan 22, 2018 17:26:58 GMT -6
My Lord, we have several accusations here. I am accused of portraying the Attorney General "as a liar", when actually I suspect he has merely been credulous in listening to other people's lies. I am accused of changing my "statements as to matters of fact" based on my "defensive stance" — vague, but rather insulting. I am accused ahead of time of "perjury" if I should make any statement "not in the official record", which is plain absurdity. I am accused of not being able to remember whether I threatened a citizen of Talossa. (I do remember, and I did not threaten him.) I am accused of making statements "incredible as a matter of law", which is an interesting concept to say the least. I am accused of "contempt for the independent judiciary" — simple nonsense. And finally, piling absurdities atop one another, of trying to "morph this into some kangaroo court".
This is very intemperate language. I would suggest, without actually knowing, that the Attorney General is letting personal or political animosity run away with him. I think this ongoing public assault on me and my motives and my veracity is below the dignity of the Attorney General's office, and below the level of discourse one expects, or at least should be able to expect, in this honourable Cort.
— John Regeu
|
|
|
Post by Avocat-Xheneral on Jan 23, 2018 0:08:13 GMT -6
My Lord Chief Justice, Upon registering my continued objection to the King commenting in this proceeding, I stated, “upon information the King made out-of-court statements that he didn’t remember the specifics of the phone conversation.” In response, the King posted, "I am accused of not being able to remember whether I threatened a citizen of Talossa. (I do remember, and I did not threaten him.)" It behooves me to bring to the Cort's attention that the King has, in fact, perjured himself. On or about January 13, 2014, the King posted that, to the best of his recollection, when he conversed with defendant via telephone, he stated, “I think some of the things you did may have criminal consequences outside of Talossa.” He then stated, “The conversation in question took place over a year ago, and my memory of it isn't likely to be any fuller or more accurate today than it was back then. I am quite certain that I neither recommended that he renounce, or threatened legal action, but I can see how he might have read more into my words than I intended them to convey.” (see talossa.proboards.com/post/110408/thread) My Lord Chief Justice, the King unequivocally stated in January 2014 that his memory was would likely be no more accurate or “fuller.” And he conceded that he informed defendant that, at the very least, he believed and conveyed to defendant that the King believed defendant “may have criminal consequences outside of Talossa.” He further conceded that he could understand how his words, that he then recollected, under the qualifying statement that his memory was not likely to be any better a year after the fact, would be understood as a threat. The King now categorically claims that he did does remember and that he did not threaten defendant. These statements are simply irreconcilable and are, without a doubt, tantamount to perjury. The King further takes exception to my proper assertion that he is incredible as a matter of law, which he claims “is an interesting concept to say the least.” If the Cort will indulge me. “Incredibility as a matter of law may result when all of the evidence of guilt comes from a single prosecution witness who gives irreconcilable testimony pointing to both guilt and innocence, because in that event the jury is left without a basis, other than impermissible speculation, for its determination of either” (see People v Calabria, 3 NY3d 80, 82 [2004] [internal quotation marks, brackets and citations omitted]). The Supreme Court of the State of Wisconsin, in 1975, from which Talossa inherited persuasive judicial authority, explained, “To be incredible as a matter of law, evidence must be in conflict with the uniform course of nature or with fully established or conceded facts” (see Chapman v State, 69 Wis 2d 581, 583 [1975] [internal quotation marks, ellipsis and citations omitted]). The established and/or conceded facts are as follows: the King, without any authority, contacted defendant by telephone and informed him that he may face criminal consequences outside of Talossa; that he can understand how his words would be construed as such; and that his memory was no more fuller a year after the fact than it was previously. The King now claims that he does remember (i.e., his memory is suddenly more full) and that he did not threaten defendant. The King cannot have it both ways. His current statements to the Cort are in direct conflict with established and conceded facts, and as such, he is incredible as a matter of law. Further, considering that the King now affirmatively claims he did not threaten defendant, having previously affirmatively claimed he could not fully remember and that he was, at best, "certain" he didn't, renders his statements nothing short of perjury. Compounded with the fact that the King initially accused me of levying false accusations, when the evidence presented herein clearly support the assertions made, and that the King was, in fact, not a party, any attempt by the King to pervert the course of justice by intervening in this case cannot be permitted, either through testimony, filing an amicus curiae, or any other means. Quite frankly, the record is complete and the Cort need not look beyond it to render its determination.
|
|
King John
King of Talossa
Posts: 2,415
Talossan Since: 5-7-2005
Knight Since: 11-30-2005
Motto: COR UNUM
King Since: 3-14-2007
|
Post by King John on Jan 23, 2018 10:52:52 GMT -6
My Lord, this strikes me as an unseemly exchange. Briefly then, since I was never a "prosecution witness", the Attorney General's first definition of "incredibility as a matter of law" simply fails. As to "fully established or conceded facts", there have been none in this whole matter that I know of, except the defendant's guilty plea.
The Attorney General surely knows as well as I do (and if he doesn't, a Law Dictionary is only a couple of clicks away) that for a statement to be "perjury" it must be made under oath (or the equivalent). I've made no statements under oath in this entire affair. The Attorney General must know this. Ruling out gross stupidity or gross ignorance, as I think we must, I don't know how to characterise his repeated assertions that I am committing perjury, except (perhaps) as deliberate falsehood.
Could we stop this grandstanding? I'd be happy to testify to what I remember and what I don't, if this honourable Cort so please. Since I've never testified in the matter, it's rather difficult to see how the Attorney General can claim that "the record is complete".
— John Regeu
|
|
|
Post by Avocat-Xheneral on Jan 23, 2018 12:11:40 GMT -6
My Lord Chief Justice, the King misunderstands perjury, as he does the law. He made an official statement in open Cort to assert a fact that contradicts other statements he made elsewhere. No oath was required.
The King's lack of legal training is not only obvious, but the proof is before the Cort that the statement he made to you, in this official proceeding, is a direct contradiction of his statements made elsewhere. This Cort should admonish the King to know his place in the State and refrain from intervening in the Judiciary. Further, the King should be admonished that his lack of legal training and misunderstanding of the law is not tantamount to gross stupidity on the part of the Attorney General, but indicative of his attempt to pervert the course of Justice.
|
|
|
Post by Avocat-Xheneral on Jan 23, 2018 12:22:15 GMT -6
For further clarification, if it pleases the King, as he so desired that the Judiciary exist under his auspice, and we are to assert that an oath is required to constitute perjury, then the Attorney General moves that this Cort find the King in contempt of Cort for making false declarations before the Cort and, thus, perverting the course of Justice.
|
|
King John
King of Talossa
Posts: 2,415
Talossan Since: 5-7-2005
Knight Since: 11-30-2005
Motto: COR UNUM
King Since: 3-14-2007
|
Post by King John on Jan 23, 2018 12:48:00 GMT -6
My Lord, for your convenience, and that of the Attorney General, here is the definition of "perjury" from Black's Law Dictionary:
"Made by a witness ... as part of his evidence".
Or the somewhat different definition from the Wisconsin statues, 946.31:
Again, "under oath or affirmation", but in this case requiring that the statement in question be "oral", and omitting the requirement that the perjurer intend to mislead the court.
I think the Attorney General is correct that lying to the Cort (by anyone) might well constitute contempt. He has moved that I be found in contempt. I would suggest — if it please the Cort — that the Cort consider whether the Attorney General's repeatedly stated misdefinitions of "perjury" might constitute such a lie, made (as they were) by someone who understands the law and has "legal training".
— John Regeu
|
|
|
Post by Avocat-Xheneral on Jan 23, 2018 13:13:10 GMT -6
The King addressed this Cort openly and on his own volition, and now that he has been caught lying to the Cort, he is claiming that he was not under oath and therefore not subject to perjury. To his first definition, I point the Cort's attention to the phrase "or in any form allowed by law to be substituted for an oath".
My Lord Chief Justice, you invited outside commentary, and as such, allowed others to address this Cort without the administering of an oath. Further, to the best of my knowledge, Talossa does not require an oath to address Corts. Therefore, under the standard practice of Talossa, as well as this Corts invitation, coupled with the definition provided by the King himself, it is submitted that the statements made by the King were done in "a form allowed by law to be substituted for an oath". That is to say, by addressing this Cort as the King did, it is implied that he was under a substitution of an oath as allowed by this Cort, and therefore, perjured himself. Furthermore, this does not negate that he still misled the Cort.
As to the King's claim that I have misled the Cort on perjury, based on the above citations by the King, I have not misstated perjury. In fact, as seen above, I went so far as to say if this Cort were to require an affirmative oath as a dispositive element of perjury, then the King should be held in contempt for making false declarations to the Cort. In any event, at this point, as the King has made it quite evident that, as he is not under oath, he feels he can continue to lie to this Cort, until such an oath is taken, I move that he be barred from any such further commentary in this proceeding.
|
|
King John
King of Talossa
Posts: 2,415
Talossan Since: 5-7-2005
Knight Since: 11-30-2005
Motto: COR UNUM
King Since: 3-14-2007
|
Post by King John on Jan 23, 2018 13:23:48 GMT -6
My Lord, I would be happy to (continue to) refute the Attorney General's "arguments" and aspersions. Would the Cort like me to do so?
— John Regeu
|
|
|
Post by Avocat-Xheneral on Jan 23, 2018 13:40:15 GMT -6
In breaking with decorum, as the King continues to do, I shall address him directly. The Chief Justice already ruled that this is not the appropriate forum and, if you feel false accusations were levied, to file an appropriate case. In any event, to that order, I registered a continued objection for preservation purposes. You, as a non-party, possess no legal right to be heard regarding my objection. Nevertheless, you continue to assert yourself in this proceeding and have now caused the Cort to potentially delay addressing the merits of the underlying proceeding and expend its finite resources addressing a collateral issue because you couldn't follow a simple direction to seek recourse by filing a separate action. Finally, you want the ability to address this Cort to defend yourself, when you have no right, when you have failed to take an oath or even acknowledge that, by officially addressing the Cort, you did so under an implied oath of honesty. Sir, notwithstanding that this Cort should also find you in contempt for disobeying an order by continuing to address it without permission, you must either concede one of three following: (1) you are/were under an affirmative oath; (2) by addressing this Cort and according it the deference warranted, you were under an implied oath; or (3) as you assert you are not under oath, nothing you have said and will say can be considered reliable and therefore should have no impact in the underlying proceeding.
|
|
Ián Tamorán S.H.
Chief Justice of the Uppermost Court
Proud Philosopher of Talossa
Posts: 1,401
Talossan Since: 9-27-2010
|
Post by Ián Tamorán S.H. on Jan 24, 2018 5:07:50 GMT -6
This Cort must reprimand both of our citizens who have just spoken in open Cort without having asked permission of the Cort to speak. No doubt some of the content of what has been spoken relates to this case – but it has not been requested, and will not be considered in full until restated formally.
Moreover, this is a Cort of Law, in which Justice and Law and matters of Fact and Procedure are taken into careful consideration: it is not, in any way, a theatre for interpersonal interaction. These unrequested comments must cease immediately. Permission to address open Cort must always be requested in the formal manner.
All persons are also reminded that this Justice is still acquiring the full base knowledge of all of that which must be considered. When that base knowledge has been gathered then, and only then, will open Cort comments be invited. Response will shortly be given to formal requests (prematurely) so far made to address the Court.
This Justice acknowledges that requests were invited for instructive comments arising from his earlier document , but from that invitation it should have been clear that comments are to be addressed to this Justice alone. It was also made clear that such comments having been made, would not be published if this Justice were informed that they were given in camera, but did not say that they would otherwise be published, but that they could be published: that is, publication is not mandatory but optional.
This Cort reminds both His Majesty and the Avocat-Xheneral and every other citaxhién that no further unpermitted intrusions will be tolerated.
|
|
|
Post by Avocat-Xheneral on Jan 24, 2018 13:54:50 GMT -6
My Lord Chief Justice, as Attorney General and petitioner in this matter, I am entitled to address this Cort. Further, I am entitled to register objections and make motions.
As such, the Attorney General, as a party in this matter, objects to your honor's classification as to the objections and motions as "intrusions" and further reminds the Cort that due process demands that a party in a case be afforded the opportunity to be fully heard on an issue concerning the case.
If, however, your honor wishes to provide a procedure for proper motion practice, he may do so. But that does not mean I forfeit the right to object to any portion of this proceeding at any time.
|
|
|
Post by Avocat-Xheneral on Feb 25, 2018 5:57:15 GMT -6
May it please the Cort, Please find attached the Attorney General's Reply to the first discussion: In the Matter of ESB - Response to First Di....pdf (110.45 KB) Respectfully Submitted _______/S/_________ Viteu Marcianüs Attorney-General Ministry of Justice Kingdom of Talossa
|
|