|
Post by Martì Prevuost on Jan 7, 2013 9:28:09 GMT -6
Recess having ended, Cort is again in session. Petitioner Doug Earnest: The Cort is prepared to hear your plea. You have 5 days and submit your request for injunction along with your reasoning and justification for such request. M.A.G. Prevuost God Save Talossa and this Not-Quite-So-Dignified-Cort. Please take your seats. Previously filed motions to dismiss are overruled. Petitioner Doug Earnest: The Cort is again prepared to hear your plea. By this posting and with private message to the petitioner, the Cort provides until 15 January 2013/xxxiv for the petitioner to post his opening statement, reasoning for injunction, and points of law upon which it relies. So ordered. M.A.G. Prevuost Magistrate
|
|
|
Post by Martì Prevuost on Jan 15, 2013 17:08:13 GMT -6
The time granted by the Cort for petitioner to respond having elapsed with no response, the case is dismissed.
We are adjourned.
M.A.G. Prevuost Magistrate
|
|
Doug Earnest
Talossan since 9-1-2011
Citizen of Talossa
Posts: 512
|
Post by Doug Earnest on Mar 10, 2013 0:45:52 GMT -6
You understand my participation in these forums is vehemently opposed by a number of government officials whom I've pointed out have committed criminal acts under color of their offices, and since none of them have been held to account, then I'm more than happy to not be a part of this big happy free exchange of information and ideas. I'm only here now to send a PM to someone for whom I didn't have a non-Talossan way to contact him. With that in mind, it was perhaps not entirely reasonable to expect me to receive notification by this route.
Also, I'm curious as to why the Clerk did not post my petition in its entirety -- as was done in other cases. That would have provided all the information needed for the court (had there been one at the time) to make a timely decision based on all relevant facts.
Granted, the Attorney General did notify me via another route, but said notification did not permit me sufficient time to respond. Generally, a respondent is required to respond within a certain amount of time from receipt of the notification, not from the beginning of the attempt to notify him.
I did find it interesting that the Secretary of State was the one who recommended the case be dropped. He really is a piece of sh work, isn't he?
And yes, this long after the initial request, it may have become a moot point ... I just wanted to see it done because if I couldn't get the answer I deserved in a timely manner, I deserved an answer eventually.
Lacking a ruling from a court of competent jurisdiction, I suppose the SoS's well thought out "I guess so" will be sufficient. Since he's been wrong about everything else, I'll take that to mean the seat in question was not legally awarded to the CSP, and as usual, I did the right thing.
Thank you.
|
|
|
Post by Martì Prevuost on Mar 16, 2013 9:30:03 GMT -6
S:r Earnest:
Although the case has been dismissed, I thank you for your commentary.
For the record, this forum was not the only notification made to you of the re-starting of the judicial clock. Please note the copy of said private message posted below.
" Your Request For Injunction « Message sent on Jan 7, 2013, 10:36am » [Reply]
|
|
Doug Earnest
Talossan since 9-1-2011
Citizen of Talossa
Posts: 512
|
Post by Doug Earnest on Mar 25, 2013 13:16:25 GMT -6
Thank you, Your Honor.
For the record, I appreciate the Court's indulgence and willingness to hear this case, and all the extra work taken on to decide on various points of law, etc. I'm sure no judicial malfeasance was intended on the part of the current Court, so therefore none was committed. Any denial of my rights as petitioner were committed by either (a) a previous Court, (b) the Clerk of the Court, or (c) both a. and b. -- and like the request for the injunction itself, I don't expect anyone to actually do anything about it at this late date other than to acknowledge what should have happened.
Second, allow me to clarify that by "this route" I was referring to the Witt in general, both by private message and within this thread. Since the Witt is now infested with ungentlemanly behavior on the part of men dripping with titles and postnomials, it holds little appeal for me. If I want obnoxious immature behavior, I have an obnoxious immature crackhead drama queen niece to whom I can turn. I therefore will not be signing on regularly unless I have a specific reason -- such as an ongoing court case that I actually know about.
As for the case itself, I had no intention or desire to present arguments one way or the other. I was simply asking the Court to decide a question, not trying to advocate for one position or another. On September 10, 2012 (and again on January 13, 2013) the Court stated it was prepared to hear my plea and gave me the opportunity to submit my request, along with my reasoning and justification. I had already done so, through the Clerk, in accordance with applicable law and court procedure. Why the Clerk did not forward my request to the Court is anyone's guess. The intent of the original petition to the court was not to establish an adversarial plaintive/defendant relationship with anyone, but simply to determine in a timely (there's that word again) manner a question which needed a timely answer. My original plea contained all the information (reasoning and justification) I felt was needed for the Court to issue a timely injunction, or at least to ask for a timely clarification of anything in the petition - you know, the petition I submitted to the Clerk, like I was supposed to do, those many months ago.
|
|