CLARIFICATION re: assignment of cases

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

I am posting here as the Seneschál, substituting for the Attorney-General on a manner of urgency.

I am raising the question as to whether the hon. Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă has taken up this case inappropriately, because not assigned legally.

El Lexhatx G.5 specifies that the Clerk of Courts is in charge of assigning cases to courts, giving docket numbers etc. He - because I assume that Brad Holmes still holds the office - has done no such thing.

I am informed by impeccable sources that the hon. Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă stepped up to take this case because the King, one of the Parties, messaged him on Facebook and asked him personally to do so. For someone who prides himself on being a "stickler for rules", I am distressed by this circumvention of rules and regulations to make sure his attempt to "parachute in" to destroy a Government initiative was effective. To be honest, it would be unremarkable (even acceptable) - except that the King's whole case is that the Florencian Nimlet may not have dotted the i's and crossed the t's on the F-F merger resolution.

I note that the former Attorney-General's petition of June 22 was totally ignored by the Cort. Is that because the King didn't go behind the scenes to find a Justice willing to step up and take the case? Is that how you get the Cort to come out of hibernation in Talossa - personal, ex parte appeals to justices?

Let me specify that I do not object to Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă's current ruling, which seems fair enough. But the brokenness of the Clerk of Courts' office, the fact that the June 22 petition was ignored while this petition was accepted because the King personally appealed to a Judge, is distressing.

In conclusion, can I request that another Justice take up the June 22 petition?

[Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă]

Madam Seneschal,

It was not only a notification from the King that drew my attention to this case. It was also a message you sent me via Facebook Messenger that initially drew my attention.

With that said, in my entire tenure as a member of the Uppermost Cort I cannot recall any instance when the Clerk has called the justices attention to a case.

[Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă]

To set the record straight, King John sent me a private message in Wittenberg and not Facebook.

[Lüc da Schir]

I fired Brad Holmes in 2014. The sitting Clerk is Marcel Tafial.

[King John]

To correct the record, my Witt message to Dr. Nordselva said, in full:

Your Honour, I draw your attention to my Petition for an Emergency Injunction to delay any referenda on the proposed merger until *after* Florencia has approved the proposed Constitution.

Respectfully,

— John R

It is NOT that case that, as the Seneschal says, "the King, one of the Parties, messaged him [Dr. Nordselva] on Facebook [or Witt] and asked him personally to" take up the case. I asked no such thing; I asked nothing. I was concerned that perhaps the Uppermost Cort was unaware of my Petition.

The Seneschal's fulminations on my actions and their motivations are misinformed.

— John R

[King John]

And on the issue itself, I note that by G.5.7.3., prolonged inactivity of the Clerk renders his office vacant. So we have, currently, no Clerk of Court. It's up to the Seneschal, if she wants to, to nominate a Clerk, at which point the King appoints the nominee.

Since this isn't a trial, civil or criminal, but simply a Petition for an Injunction, the governing law is the OrgLaw XVI.13: "Any judge or justice may issue court orders or injunctions according to the generally accepted principles of Anglo-American law." The Cort isn't handcuffed by the absence of a Clerk.

Hoping these clarifications meet the Cort's approval,

— John R

[Ian Plätschisch]

As Clerk of Courts - designate, I’ll take leave to post here that the Seneschal has in fact nominated a new Clerk, that being me.

[King John]

May it please the Cort,

I would like to request that the Cort instruct the Seneschal, who is here acting as Attorney General, to avoid making political speeches in Cort — especially speeches that both accuse me of wrong-doing in a forum where I can't defend myself very well, and which would seem to impugn the dignity of the Cort itself? Thank you.

— John R

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

Jul 30, 2019 5:54:21 GMT -6 Lüc da Schir said:

I fired Brad Holmes in 2014. The sitting Clerk is Marcel Tafial.

Just noting that I couldn't find a reference to this anywhere. It doesn't matter now, but link to announcement for the historical record?

[Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă]

The Cort strongly advises that political speech and grandstanding by ANY party diminishes not only the integrity of the Cort but borders on disrespect. Proceed with caution.

[Viteu Marcianüs]

Because we are going strictly by the rules now--I do not know if the request by King John for the Cort to instruct the Senechal, Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN, to refrain from making political speeches in Cort concerned a speech in this thread or if she made one in a proceeding, but, if the former, I would point out that this thread is technically not in a "Cort."

The "Rules of the Courtroom" (est. 2006) are the only somewhat relevant rules that I could find ( perhaps there are some elsewhere I don't know about?) that offer some guidance. But they only address conduct in a courtroom.  They do use broad "in this board" but that would always require an invitation by the Cort, but that was abrogated with the "Process for Filing Legal Business" rules posted by in 2012. So those rules recognize that not every thread is a "courtroom" per se, and that posts there are in the virtual "Clerk's office."  So the Rules of the Courtroom are not applicable. 

With the forums taking the place of physical buildings that exist in other countries, sometimes it's good to visualize where a post would have been made if done in an actual brick and mortar building.

On one hand, we can say that the post was made on the courthouse steps, which, depending on the court, one can do outside of Talossa.  On the other hand, one could view this thread as being made in the clerks office, for which we have no rules as to what can and cannot be said. But given that the rules only allow those invited by the cort to post in the courtrooms, and the rules permit a person to file their complaint in a thread in this board, then it is safe to say that the rules recognize the difference between threads that are virtual courtrooms and threads that aren't. 

Accordingly, this thread was not started in any particular "Cort" (i.e. the Uppermost Cort or the Magistrate Cort). So I do not believe that the King's request is appropriate. Further, Justice dal Nordselvă's "proceed with caution" is out of place and is an unenforceable threat. There's no rules, statutory or otherwise (unless they're somewhere else), that says that the Senechal (or anyone else for that matter) cannot make a speech in a thread on this board, and there's no authority for a judge to impose some penalty. 

Do not confuse my post--I am supportive of updated rules to preclude political or all non-case-related speeches anywhere in the courthouse, which other courts have.  Rather, being as we are going to go by the exact letter of the rules (or the law), Miestra did not breach any rule or law and the Justice lacks any authority to punish her (or even me for this post). 

[Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă]

I equated the rhetoric in my own mind to walking in the hallways and hearing heated discussions about a case. Perhaps I was wrong but. no threat was intended, naturally, in the hallway.