Petition for Emergency Injunction re: Provincial Merger

[Cresti Nouacastra-Läxhirescu]

MINISTRY OF JUSTICE
FROM THE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL

---

King John,
Upon reviewing your comments, and the "Merger Constitution approved by Fiova" thread, I would like to again share my thoughts.

Fully understanding your concerns of "the Florencian Nimlet may not have dotted the i's and crossed the t's," I would like to point out that the Cunstaval of Florencia, after clarifying her misinterpretations, withdrawing her argument, then fully agreeing with the Provincial Merger, stated that "the Nimlet will still need to approve the proposed constitution as outlined above if the referendum passes," which it did. Spencer Kerfoot put this to the Florencian Nimlet (which was met with no opposition from either side), and the Merger Constitution was then approved by Governor Mximo Carbonèl. It is important to also note that this action did not require a constitutional amendment in Florencia, which was also completely understood by Cunstaval. The merger of Fiova and Florencia was approved by the Ziu as 53RZ1, which you, King John, did not veto. Therefore, it became active upon the passing referendum in Florencia.

Now, the concern arises that there was no voting period specified, however reading Spencer Kerfoot's resolution proposal, he stated "...the various ballots of Florencians at the aforesaid referendum be submitted in good faith not later than the fourteenth day following the effectuation hereof, or not later than the sixth of June in the year 2019, whichever may be sooner." This clearly defines the voting period, and should anyone not understand the language used by Spencer, I will respectfully request his presence in this Cort to clarify.

Thank you

[King John]

May it please the Cort,

Your Honour, I'm somewhat at a loss here. Would the Cort like me to respond directly to the Attorney General's remarks addressed to me? Or to address the Cort regarding the points he raises? Or wait for the Cort to ask me? I'm at your Honour's disposal.

— John R

[Cresti Nouacastra-Läxhirescu]

My apologies, and to you as well, Your Majesty. The duties and responsibilities of this office are still somewhat new to me. I meant to address the Cort. With the Cort's discretion, I will edit the prior post to reflect such.

I also object to further commentary without leave of the Cort. The parties have each been heard as it relates to the preliminary injunction. This ad hoc fashion of briefing the Cort is prejudicing the Government's ability to produce a single brief to address all arguments on the date certain set by the Cort.

[Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă]

The Cort is reviewing all the arguments presented and reminds all parties that they are to address the Cort and not other parties to this suit. The Cort will make a determination shortly.

Additionally, NO PART OF THIS CASE MAY BE EDITED. The Cort is already angered by the apparent deletion of a posting by Senator Gödafrïeu Válcadác’h as referenced by the former Attorney General. Deleting or editing posts constitutes contempt of this Cort and will be dealt with. The only edits this Cort should see are from its own postings.

[Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă]

Jul 30, 2019 14:56:19 GMT -6 Cresti Nouacastra-Läxhirescu said:

My apologies, and to you as well, Your Majesty. The duties and responsibilities of this office are still somewhat new to me. I meant to address the Cort. With the Cort's discretion, I will edit the prior post to reflect such.

I also object to further commentary without leave of the Cort. The parties have each been heard as it relates to the preliminary injunction. This ad hoc fashion of briefing the Cort is prejudicing the Government's ability to produce a single brief to address all arguments on the date certain set by the Cort.

The objection is overruled. 

[Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă]

Jul 30, 2019 14:40:53 GMT -6 King John said:

May it please the Cort,

Your Honour, I'm somewhat at a loss here. Would the Cort like me to respond directly to the Attorney General's remarks addressed to me? Or to address the Cort regarding the points he raises? Or wait for the Cort to ask me? I'm at your Honour's disposal.

— John R

All parties to this case should address only the Cort. 

[Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă]

Additionally, the Cort reminds all who present themselves as Counsel in this Cort should make themselves aware of the Rules of Evidence, Rules of the Courtroom, and Hearing Rules and Procedures ESPECIALLY if the Counsel has not been admitted to the Royal Bar. Ignorance of these rules is not an excuse by anyone. The Rules are clearly posted in the outer halls of this Court.

[Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă]

Order in the Cort. The Honorable Txec dal Nordselvă presiding.

The Cort has reviewed all the arguments presented to date and it finds itself ready to rule on the petition without further argument. The Cort does not find it to be anti-democratic to seal the results of an election simply because the result itself has the potential to cause irreparable harm should this Cort rule in favor of the plaintiff or order a new referendum.

The Cort is also unpersuaded by the arguments that the database administrator's schedule should be a reason to conduct this referendum and allow the results to be public. The Cort understands and sympathizes that Talossa is not the only area of concern for all parties involved and all parties have lives outside of our digital realm. Nevertheless, the Cort cannot allow the rule of law and the just pursuit of it therein to be solely influenced by settings in a database. It concerns this Cort that the database as it is currently constructed is the only viable alternative to conducting free, open, and fair elections.

Nevertheless, the greater issue at hand is the Organicity and Constitutionality of the entire merger and referendum. Has the Nimlet of Florencia actually enacted legislation to allow for the merger? Has the Constable given consent to the merger? 

So, once again, this Cort finds itself in the unenviable position of both protecting our democratic institutions while preventing undue burden on its citizens. The Cort originally suspended the referendum until the case had been settled and then modified that order to attempt to prevent undue burden. The Chancery's argument that preventing undue burden and protecting our democratic institutions (i.e. allowing the referendum to take place) are the only answer while the case winds through the Cort. The Plaintiff argues that by suspending the referendum the Cort has protected the institutions and prevented undue burden.

The Chancery has also argued that if this referendum is postponed or suspended, the Government's planned referendum on changes to the Organic law will also be affected unduly. Therefore, the Chancery and The Government suggest that the only viable solution is status quo.

Upon serious consideration and review of the evidence (the Nimlet merger thread), the Constitution of Florencia, The Organic Law and El Lex., the issue here is really quite simple. Three conditions must be met before a referendum is authorized: Did the Nimlet approve the merger? Did the Governor sign the bill and forward it to the Constable? Did the Constable give assent or veto the bill?

Applicable law under the Constitution of Florencia states:

Resolutions to be considered by the Nimlet may be proposed by any member thereof, who is also responsible for establishing the deadline for a vote on the question. The said deadline must be no later than the scheduled end of the session of the Nimlet and no earlier than two weeks from the date of the introduction of the resolution.

Each seat in the Nimlet allows to its holder one equal vote on questions before the Nimlet. All resolutions of the Nimlet shall pass on approval by a simple majority of participating voters, and shall fail if half or more than half of the participating voters disapprove of the resolution. A quorum is not required on any vote on resolutions before the Nimlet.

When the passage of a resolution by the Nimlet is secured, the Governor (or, in the case of a resolution appointing a Governor, the sponsor of the resolution) shall sign its instrument and shall deliver it, with his own comments and recommendation, to the Constable for approval or veto. Should the Constable fail to act upon the resolution within a period of two weeks after the said delivery, the resolution shall be considered approved by the Constable, and, if legislative, shall be considered law. Should the Constable or Crown disapprove of the resolution within that time, this veto shall be final, and the act shall not pass into law and any appointment or appointments indicated in the resolution shall not be deemed made.

Based on a review of the readily available evidence, the Cort finds the following to be facts in this case:

1. The Nimlet DID approve the merger. While only one member of the Nimlet voted per, under the Constitution of Florencia no quorum is required and no other member of the Nimlet voted within the clearly defined two week period.

2. The Governor DID NOT sign the bill and DID NOT forward said bill to the Constable. Indeed, the Governor voted per on June 26, well OUTSIDE the allotted two-week voting period.

3. The Constable DID NOT consent or veto the bill. She simply agreed with the interpretation of the Seneschal after initially misunderstanding.

Therefore, it is the ORDER of this Cort that the injunction be GRANTED and the referendum delayed until such time as the proper constitutional procedures be followed as precisely outlined.

Cort is adjourned.

[Cresti Nouacastra-Läxhirescu]

MINISTRY OF JUSTICE
FROM THE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL

---

Your Honor, if I may,

I would like to ask for clarification as to whether this is the final action taken by the Cort? Or if this is merely a preliminary action. 

If this is merely a preliminary action, I would like to guide your attention to this thread: talossa.proboards.com/post/165972

Governor Mximo Carbonèl did indeed approve the Merger Constitution, belatedly, but nonetheless, it was approved. There is nothing stated in the Constitution of Florencia that places a time restraint on the Governor's consent (http://wiki.talossa.com/Constitution_of_Florencia).

It is also noteworthy that the King’s principal procedural objection is that he himself was not consulted on the matter, in the person of his Constable. To begin, it does appear that the Constable was involved in the process and withdrew her objections, and did so after the Governor voted in favor of the bill; I suppose it could be argued either way whether this "counts" as the Governor presenting the bill to the Constable. But more importantly, the King already was given the prerogative to veto the merger if he so desired when the Ziu passed it on the May 2019 Clark.

To summarize, the King is attempting to halt the referendum on the basis of a procedural error he probably knew about beforehand and that, if corrected, would only give him a power he already had (and therefore would demonstrably not change the outcome).

Furthermore, I would add that the Cort could have limited the effect of its ruling by only enjoining enforcement of the result, not the referendum, so as to mitigate the irreparable harm Talossa could potentially suffer as it concerns a completely unrelated referendum.

[Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă]

Mr. Attorney General, this is an injunction, not a ruling on the overall matter. The petitioner asked for an emergency injunction and it was granted. To clarify for you, should the Nimlet, Governor, and Constable of Florencia follow the established procedure then this Cort will lift the injunction.