Emergency Petition for a Temporary Restraining Order
Feb 22, 2019 15:24:27 GMT -6
Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN likes this
Post by Munditenens Tresplet on Feb 22, 2019 15:24:27 GMT -6
To the Uppermost Cort:
King John's actions have directly impacted V's ability to file an immediate public petition seeking redress. Accordingly, he has asked that I file this petition on his behalf.
Respectfully,
M. Tresplet
------------
Emergency Petition for Temporary Restraining Order
In the Matter of
VITEU MARCIANÜS
PETITIONER,
v
HIS MAJEST REGEU IAN, as MONARCH
OF TALOSSA, and INDIVIDUALLY,
RESPONDENT.
To the Clerk of the Cort and the Esteemed Justices of the Uppemost Cort of the Kingdom of Talossa:
I, Viteu Marcianüs (“petitioner”), do hereby petition this august Cort to enter a temporary restraining order enjoining His Majesty Regeu Ian (“King John”) from intervening in the Organically protected debate occurring in any forum functioning as an Organ of the State under the Organic Law.
To wit, the Organic Law mandates that, "administer[] a public venue for the inspection of legislative proposals before they become bills, 'The Hopper'" (Org.L.IX1). Accordingly, the official legislative forum known as the “Ziu,” operated on the internet-based forum known as “Wittenberg” functions as the only means by which legislators may engage in speech and debate regarding proposed or voted upon legislation. Apropos of the foregoing, the only means by which petitioner may seek judicial redress is by accessing the aforementioned forum.
Further, the First Covenant enumerates that "(n)o law shall exist abridging the freedom of thought, belief, opinion(,) and expression, including ... other media of communication(.) Censorship shall never exist in Talossa, every person may freely speak, write(,) and publish his (or her) sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the libelous abuse of that right" (Org.L.IX.I).
It is well-settled law across common-law States, as well as civil-law States, that Parliamentarians enjoy certain parliamentary immunity, which, among other things, bars State action against all speech made during debate in the State's Legislature (see e.g. German Constitution Art. 46 ["At no time may a Member be subjected to court proceedings or disciplinary action or otherwise called to account outside of the Bundestag for a vote case or for any speech or debate in the Bundestag or in any of its committees(.)"); United Kingdom Parliamentary Privilege, 1689 Bill of Rights, R v Chaytor, CTB v News GRoup Newspapers Ltd, (2011) EWHC 1232 QB; U.S. Const. art. I, § 6, clause 1 ("(F)or any or Debate in either House (of Congress), (the Congressperson) shall not be questioned"; Franch Constitution, article 26).
Whereas, in a LAWFUL debate on the Hopper or in the Ziu, petitioner engaged in parliamentary debate with another member of the Ziu pursuant to the rights protected under the Organic Law, and pursuant to long-established legal doctrines the world over. King John has taken inorganic and extraordinary measure by suspending my account based on that debate. The protections to engage in speech and debate in the only forum afforded to legislators contemplate not the nature, civility, or type of speech and debate, nor can it in a developed parliament that is protected under the rule of law. King John has engaged in censorship based on speech and debate that he finds offensive irrespective of different cultures or approaches to same, thereby imposing his individual beliefs on a coequal branch of government. To put it another way, King John attempts to breach the separation of powers enshrined in our Organic Law.
Further, King John’s proposed “24-hour” or “48-hour” cooling-off is inexcusable as it seeks merely to silence those who oppose this tyrannical approach. Merely withdrawing suspension will not undo the harm suffered by petitioner and would not resolve the serious nature of the Organic issue presented herein. Petitioner filed a similar petition in September 2018 regarding the exact same issue (see talossa.proboards.com/thread/12963/petition-emergency-injunction-matter?page=1&scrollTo=160038). Hence, this issue is likely to repeat based on King John’s actions and the actions of the Secretary of State in September 2018. These are merely misguided understandings that they hold some type of authority to silence opposing opinion. Moreover, the Organic issue presented herein is likely to evade judicial scrutiny because the offenders can simply unsuspend the account prior to the Cort having an opportunity to address the issue.
It is also pointed out that any perceived “uncouth” or “uncivilized” speech and debate occurred solely within the confines of the Hopper and Ziu. King John simply has no authority, and in fact is in direct violation of the Organic Law, by suspending my account for engaging in protected speech. Also of note, King John has directly impeded petitioner’s ability to seek direct redress of the Cort by denying him access to Wittenberg, requiring petitioner to file this petition through a third-party.
Petitioner also requests that the Hon. Dame Litz Cjantscheir be recused from hearing this matter on account of prior public statements that she has made speaking directly to the merits of this issue. Petitioner does not question the Hon. Cjantscheir’s ability to be impartial, but only that her prior comments impede petitioner’s right to a fair and impartial hearing on the subject matter.
Therefore, I request that this Cort enjoin King John from suspending my Wittenberg account so that I may resume engaging in speech and debate. Further, I demand that this Cort award monetary damage for King John’s gross violation of my Organic rights, and for other such equitable remedies this Cort may deem appropriate.
Respectfully,
_____/s/________
Viteu Marcianüs
Petitioner
King John's actions have directly impacted V's ability to file an immediate public petition seeking redress. Accordingly, he has asked that I file this petition on his behalf.
Respectfully,
M. Tresplet
------------
Emergency Petition for Temporary Restraining Order
In the Matter of
VITEU MARCIANÜS
PETITIONER,
v
HIS MAJEST REGEU IAN, as MONARCH
OF TALOSSA, and INDIVIDUALLY,
RESPONDENT.
To the Clerk of the Cort and the Esteemed Justices of the Uppemost Cort of the Kingdom of Talossa:
I, Viteu Marcianüs (“petitioner”), do hereby petition this august Cort to enter a temporary restraining order enjoining His Majesty Regeu Ian (“King John”) from intervening in the Organically protected debate occurring in any forum functioning as an Organ of the State under the Organic Law.
To wit, the Organic Law mandates that, "administer[] a public venue for the inspection of legislative proposals before they become bills, 'The Hopper'" (Org.L.IX1). Accordingly, the official legislative forum known as the “Ziu,” operated on the internet-based forum known as “Wittenberg” functions as the only means by which legislators may engage in speech and debate regarding proposed or voted upon legislation. Apropos of the foregoing, the only means by which petitioner may seek judicial redress is by accessing the aforementioned forum.
Further, the First Covenant enumerates that "(n)o law shall exist abridging the freedom of thought, belief, opinion(,) and expression, including ... other media of communication(.) Censorship shall never exist in Talossa, every person may freely speak, write(,) and publish his (or her) sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the libelous abuse of that right" (Org.L.IX.I).
It is well-settled law across common-law States, as well as civil-law States, that Parliamentarians enjoy certain parliamentary immunity, which, among other things, bars State action against all speech made during debate in the State's Legislature (see e.g. German Constitution Art. 46 ["At no time may a Member be subjected to court proceedings or disciplinary action or otherwise called to account outside of the Bundestag for a vote case or for any speech or debate in the Bundestag or in any of its committees(.)"); United Kingdom Parliamentary Privilege, 1689 Bill of Rights, R v Chaytor, CTB v News GRoup Newspapers Ltd, (2011) EWHC 1232 QB; U.S. Const. art. I, § 6, clause 1 ("(F)or any or Debate in either House (of Congress), (the Congressperson) shall not be questioned"; Franch Constitution, article 26).
Whereas, in a LAWFUL debate on the Hopper or in the Ziu, petitioner engaged in parliamentary debate with another member of the Ziu pursuant to the rights protected under the Organic Law, and pursuant to long-established legal doctrines the world over. King John has taken inorganic and extraordinary measure by suspending my account based on that debate. The protections to engage in speech and debate in the only forum afforded to legislators contemplate not the nature, civility, or type of speech and debate, nor can it in a developed parliament that is protected under the rule of law. King John has engaged in censorship based on speech and debate that he finds offensive irrespective of different cultures or approaches to same, thereby imposing his individual beliefs on a coequal branch of government. To put it another way, King John attempts to breach the separation of powers enshrined in our Organic Law.
Further, King John’s proposed “24-hour” or “48-hour” cooling-off is inexcusable as it seeks merely to silence those who oppose this tyrannical approach. Merely withdrawing suspension will not undo the harm suffered by petitioner and would not resolve the serious nature of the Organic issue presented herein. Petitioner filed a similar petition in September 2018 regarding the exact same issue (see talossa.proboards.com/thread/12963/petition-emergency-injunction-matter?page=1&scrollTo=160038). Hence, this issue is likely to repeat based on King John’s actions and the actions of the Secretary of State in September 2018. These are merely misguided understandings that they hold some type of authority to silence opposing opinion. Moreover, the Organic issue presented herein is likely to evade judicial scrutiny because the offenders can simply unsuspend the account prior to the Cort having an opportunity to address the issue.
It is also pointed out that any perceived “uncouth” or “uncivilized” speech and debate occurred solely within the confines of the Hopper and Ziu. King John simply has no authority, and in fact is in direct violation of the Organic Law, by suspending my account for engaging in protected speech. Also of note, King John has directly impeded petitioner’s ability to seek direct redress of the Cort by denying him access to Wittenberg, requiring petitioner to file this petition through a third-party.
Petitioner also requests that the Hon. Dame Litz Cjantscheir be recused from hearing this matter on account of prior public statements that she has made speaking directly to the merits of this issue. Petitioner does not question the Hon. Cjantscheir’s ability to be impartial, but only that her prior comments impede petitioner’s right to a fair and impartial hearing on the subject matter.
Therefore, I request that this Cort enjoin King John from suspending my Wittenberg account so that I may resume engaging in speech and debate. Further, I demand that this Cort award monetary damage for King John’s gross violation of my Organic rights, and for other such equitable remedies this Cort may deem appropriate.
Respectfully,
_____/s/________
Viteu Marcianüs
Petitioner