Capt. Sir Mick Preston
Capitán of the Zouaves
Posts: 6,511
Talossan Since: 9-21-2006
Knight Since: 10-12-2010
Motto: Cuimhnichibh air na daoine bho'n d'thainig sibh
|
Post by Capt. Sir Mick Preston on Aug 23, 2013 17:58:21 GMT -6
May I humbly ask when and where the WTD-Act has been tried before the Magistrate's Court? Have changes or a serious attempt thereunto been made? If not, has the aforementioned Cort found the Ziu guilty of Contempt of the Court? It has not been argued in front of a Cort. No case was ever brought to be heard. And... you can't find a Legislative body in Contempt of the Cort.
|
|
|
Post by Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun on Aug 23, 2013 18:14:05 GMT -6
Oh, but of course you can. Any person or body that receives duly verdict can also be found guilty of Contempt of Court. At least, this is so in Germany. Any official body can be regarded as "juristische Person öffentlichen Rechts" (legal person of public law), as it possesses rights and thus obligations. Since the Ziu possesses no own jurisdiction according to the OrgLaw, it can be tried before Court and even found guilty of contempt thereof. In reality, when found guilty, a heavy fine is imposed. The Courts would determine a satisfactory sentence for Talossan purposes, I am sure.
|
|
|
Post by Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun on Aug 23, 2013 18:16:40 GMT -6
Oh and by the way I did amend What's the Difference in response to the findings of the magistrates court. Also, this good sire talks of "findings of the Magistrate's Court". What am I to make of it, if it has not been tried?
|
|
Capt. Sir Mick Preston
Capitán of the Zouaves
Posts: 6,511
Talossan Since: 9-21-2006
Knight Since: 10-12-2010
Motto: Cuimhnichibh air na daoine bho'n d'thainig sibh
|
Post by Capt. Sir Mick Preston on Aug 23, 2013 19:19:44 GMT -6
Oh, but of course you can. Any person or body that receives duly verdict can also be found guilty of Contempt of Court. At least, this is so in Germany. Any official body can be regarded as "juristische Person öffentlichen Rechts" (legal person of public law), as it possesses rights and thus obligations. Since the Ziu possesses no own jurisdiction according to the OrgLaw, it can be tried before Court and even found guilty of contempt thereof. In reality, when found guilty, a heavy fine is imposed. The Courts would determine a satisfactory sentence for Talossan purposes, I am sure. Oh, no you can't. It's called "Separation of Powers". The Cort can rule on the specific laws, but not on the Legislative Branch.
|
|
Capt. Sir Mick Preston
Capitán of the Zouaves
Posts: 6,511
Talossan Since: 9-21-2006
Knight Since: 10-12-2010
Motto: Cuimhnichibh air na daoine bho'n d'thainig sibh
|
Post by Capt. Sir Mick Preston on Aug 23, 2013 19:24:27 GMT -6
Oh and by the way I did amend What's the Difference in response to the findings of the magistrates court. Also, this good sire talks of "findings of the Magistrate's Court". What am I to make of it, if it has not been tried? That was an injunction: talossa.proboards.com/thread/8252/case-13-01?page=1
|
|
|
Post by Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun on Aug 23, 2013 19:27:42 GMT -6
But, since in the Kingdom, organically, no such explicit separation and liberation of the Ziu from the jurisdiction has been made, the Courts can!
|
|
Capt. Sir Mick Preston
Capitán of the Zouaves
Posts: 6,511
Talossan Since: 9-21-2006
Knight Since: 10-12-2010
Motto: Cuimhnichibh air na daoine bho'n d'thainig sibh
|
Post by Capt. Sir Mick Preston on Aug 23, 2013 19:30:54 GMT -6
But, since in the Kingdom, organically, no such explicit separation and liberation of the Ziu from the jurisdiction has been made, the Courts can! Then show me in the OrgLaw it supports your stance!
|
|
Capt. Sir Mick Preston
Capitán of the Zouaves
Posts: 6,511
Talossan Since: 9-21-2006
Knight Since: 10-12-2010
Motto: Cuimhnichibh air na daoine bho'n d'thainig sibh
|
Post by Capt. Sir Mick Preston on Aug 23, 2013 19:34:10 GMT -6
Article XVI: The Courts
Section 10. The Cort shall try persons for all offences under law, such as a person doing something he should not, or not doing something he should. The Cort shall inflict such punishment as the law provides.
Not Branches of the Government, or groups. The Cort has no jurisdiction over the Cosa.
|
|
|
Post by Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun on Aug 23, 2013 19:35:09 GMT -6
But, since in the Kingdom, organically, no such explicit separation and liberation of the Ziu from the jurisdiction has been made, the Courts can! Then show me in the OrgLaw it supports your stance! Your request is unfair, since you want me to show you the ABSENCE of separate jurisdiction of the Ziu.
|
|
Capt. Sir Mick Preston
Capitán of the Zouaves
Posts: 6,511
Talossan Since: 9-21-2006
Knight Since: 10-12-2010
Motto: Cuimhnichibh air na daoine bho'n d'thainig sibh
|
Post by Capt. Sir Mick Preston on Aug 23, 2013 19:37:20 GMT -6
Then show me in the OrgLaw it supports your stance! Your request is unfair, since you want me to show you the ABSENCE of separate jurisdiction of the Ziu. No, I'm asking you to show me where in the OrgLaw it says that the Cort can hold the Legislature in contempt. If you can't, and it doesn't exist, then you are mistaken.
|
|
|
Post by Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun on Aug 23, 2013 19:47:02 GMT -6
Tell me: Is it possible to sue the Crown or find it in contempt - that is, the Kingdom, with all its offices, ministries, and stuff - and not solely the King? If so, the Crown is tacitly considered to be a "legal person", which then, also, applies to the Ziu, as an entity, representing a "legal person", for it has rights and duties.
I believe the problem to be the Kingdom of Talossa having no legal definition of "person". However, if it is possible to sue the Crown, I don't see the Ziu exempt therefrom.
|
|
Capt. Sir Mick Preston
Capitán of the Zouaves
Posts: 6,511
Talossan Since: 9-21-2006
Knight Since: 10-12-2010
Motto: Cuimhnichibh air na daoine bho'n d'thainig sibh
|
Post by Capt. Sir Mick Preston on Aug 23, 2013 19:50:09 GMT -6
Tell me: Is it possible to sue the Crown or find it in contempt - that is, the Kingdom, with all its offices, ministries, and stuff - and not solely the King? If so, the Crown is tacitly considered to be a "legal person", which then, also, applies to the Ziu, as an entity, representing a "legal person", for it has rights and duties. I believe the problem to be the Kingdom of Talossa having no legal definition of "person". However, if it is possible to sue the Crown, I don't see the Ziu exempt therefrom. No, one cannot sue the Crown or the Kingdom, or find it in contempt. Please find where it states that you can do that , either in the OrgLaw, or Statutory Law. I believe the problem is that you haven't read our laws, so you know not of what you are asking.
|
|
|
Post by Eðo Grischun on Aug 23, 2013 21:17:57 GMT -6
Mick, I'm fairly certain someone could sue the Crown or some other office as an entity. Correct me if I'm wrong, but, isn't there precedence for this in those cases vs the Chancery? Hooligan vs Chancery was a valid case where one person brought action against an office/entity.
The OrgLaw does indeed say "person", but, the world over there are many countries were a "person" can be an "entity". MEdL is correct, our law has never defined what a person is for legal purposes.
|
|
Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN
Seneschal
the new Jim Hacker
Posts: 6,635
Talossan Since: 6-25-2004
Dame Since: 9-8-2012
Motto: Expulseascâ, reveneascâ
Baron Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
Duke Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
|
Post by Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN on Aug 23, 2013 22:00:56 GMT -6
I'm pretty sure it is - or should be - possible to sue the Executive power of the Kingdom of Talossa for illegal acts or violations of rights. Since we are a monarchy where everything happens in the name of the Crown, then such a suit would be "Ián Bloggseu vs. R" (R standing for Régeu).
But I'm fascinated by the idea that if the Ziu passes a law that someone doesn't like, they can be sued for it. I'm tempted to encourage someone to do it for the lulz.
|
|
|
Post by Eðo Grischun on Aug 23, 2013 22:10:35 GMT -6
|
|