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 23:18:51 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. Hooligan vs The Chancery was actually a suit against the SoS. He was acting in the office as the Seneschal, bringing suit against the SoS's interpretation of the Orglaw. In that the Cort has never rendered judgement on that case, we can't use that as an example / precedent.
|
|
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 23:20:09 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. Please quote where in the OrgLaw or Statutory Law this is allowed?
|
|
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 23:23:15 GMT -6
Last I checked... that pertained to Acts/ Laws. Not to Legislative Bodies.
|
|
|
Post by Béneditsch Ardpresteir, O.SPM. on Aug 23, 2013 23:56:11 GMT -6
It is true that a person may be human or juristic entities. This is so understood by majority of the nations of the world. Hence body corporates and governmental bodies can sue and be sued against.
However, equally true is the concept of Separation of Powers which is an age old concept under Administrative Laws (Droit Administratif) arguably started by none other than Machiavelli. In fact the westminister form of government have a concept of 'parliamentary priviledges' too...
~ BenArd, the citizen
|
|
|
Post by Eðo Grischun on Aug 24, 2013 0:15:07 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. Hooligan vs The Chancery was actually a suit against the SoS. He was acting in the office as the Seneschal, bringing suit against the SoS's interpretation of the Orglaw. In that the Cort has never rendered judgement on that case, we can't use that as an example / precedent. I'm not even close to being an expert on the Judiciary, but, I thought the court passed judgement on the case. Either way, Don't we have to very pretty specific when reading the words of these things though? In Hooligan v Chancery the court's finding was this: "We find that the challenged e-mail ballots received by the Chancery on 13 July 2006 and purporting to have been cast by S:reu John McGarry and S:reu Albrec'ht Mananséir, were not cast by said citizens and were therefore cast illegally. The Chancery shall adjust the final vote tally to disregard the invalid votes, as required by section 3 of the Election Law Act, 33RZ15." In that the court stated 'CHANCERY' and not 'Secretary of State', does this not mean the Chancery got sued? (In effect it would have been the SoS, but, the ruling was against the OFFICE of the CHANCERY). And surely, if the Chancery did not adjust the final vote tally as instructed it could have been held in contempt of the court? (Not arguing, asking for clarification so I can, myself, better understand our judicial system).
|
|
|
Post by Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun on Aug 24, 2013 2:26:18 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. No, no. That was not, what I meant. In my opinion, the Ziu should be protected from a lawsuit because of the laws it passes - since that would strike fear into every MC and they would never pass a law, if somebody said they were to sue the body. However, a c:xh could be able to move to the Courts against laws they see inorganic or violating something else. If the Court agreed, she would ask the Ziu to immediately offer relief. If the Ziu does not abide (either by proposing or even passing a law), he can be regarded in contempt of court. Either that, or the Ziu has its own jurisdiction, but that need be formalised by Organic Law. Sir Preston, in fact I have studied the Organic and Digest of Laws thoroughly and also the Laws of Case Conductions, since it was so required by the Chancelloress of the Royal Talossan Bar, in order to pass the bar examination. As a result, I stumbled upon many many irregularities and flaws and things I have not understood. These have been reported to the Dame Chancelloress. I do not claim to be cery cognizant about the Common Law system, but I know one thing or the other about the German law and can thus deduce some facts.
|
|
Óïn Ursüm
Posts: 1,032
Talossan Since: 3-10-2009
|
Post by Óïn Ursüm on Aug 24, 2013 5:13:07 GMT -6
Corporate entities have been parties to cases before (cf Government v. Chancery), and I see S:reu da Lhiun's point that even the Ziu should be accorded juridical personhood.
|
|
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 24, 2013 8:31:30 GMT -6
Corporate entities have been parties to cases before (cf Government v. Chancery), and I see S:reu da Lhiun's point that even the Ziu should be accorded juridical personhood. Those were individual Office Holders suing each other.
|
|
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 24, 2013 8:40:32 GMT -6
In that the court stated 'CHANCERY' and not 'Secretary of State', does this not mean the Chancery got sued? (In effect it would have been the SoS, but, the ruling was against the OFFICE of the CHANCERY). And surely, if the Chancery did not adjust the final vote tally as instructed it could have been held in contempt of the court? (Not arguing, asking for clarification so I can, myself, better understand our judicial system). That was Hooligan suing Preston, for Preston's interpretation of the event. There was no judgement on that case. Hooligan was acting as an Officer of the Ziu, not as the Ziu. Preston was an Officer of the King's Royal Household, not the actual King's Household. That's why I maintain that a Governmental body can not bring suit against another - who pays the penalty, if found "guilty"? I present the wording of Government v. Chancery: Domnul Ma la Mha, Baron Tepistà, Seneschal of His Majesty's Government, has filed a civil complaint alleging unlawful official actions on the part of Mick Preston, His Majesty's Secretary of State, and seeking injunctive relief.
|
|
Óïn Ursüm
Posts: 1,032
Talossan Since: 3-10-2009
|
Post by Óïn Ursüm on Aug 24, 2013 8:50:51 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Aug 24, 2013 9:36:36 GMT -6
Sovereign immunity is not a concept that has been tried in Talossan court, as far as I am aware. There is no precedent or law either way, folks. However, since Talossan law relies heavily on American and British law, I'd suggest that the fact that the OrgLaw directs the Cort pu Inalt to rely on international precedent implies that any suit brought against the Ziu to hold them criminally accountable for an error would be rightly dismissed. Whether this would encompass contempt is blurrier, but I'd suggest that the Ziu probably could not be held in contempt, because the Cort's rulings are not binding on the Ziu. The Cort could not, after all, find that the Ziu "shall not pass any further laws to this effect" - it can only rule that a law doesn't past Organic muster. And since the Ziu cannot be restrained, being coequal, it implies that the Ziu does not fall under Cort authority and cannot be held in contempt of that authority.
|
|
|
Post by Antaglha Xhenerös Somelieir on Aug 24, 2013 12:27:28 GMT -6
I would disagree on the point which you raised on the Ziu not being restricted. I would say it is restricted by the will of the general populace and its members. Which the Ziu itself is ultimatly accountable to therefore should be able to have suits against it in the Cort if the curcumstances allow for it. Otherwise how else can the Ziu be regulated under the current state of Tallosan law, where there is no bodylike the British parlementry commision (or something like that) to keep the Ziu in line if it goes too far. Unless we get such an authority the only way they can be kept in check as a body, is through the Ziu. As elections only control who is allowed to have what seats in Ziu, not neccarsarily hold the Ziu as a body to account. (Im just commenting on a specific point as i see it, and its just my opinion)
|
|
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 24, 2013 17:29:49 GMT -6
I would disagree on the point which you raised on the Ziu not being restricted. I would say it is restricted by the will of the general populace and its members. Which the Ziu itself is ultimatly accountable to therefore should be able to have suits against it in the Cort if the curcumstances allow for it. Otherwise how else can the Ziu be regulated under the current state of Tallosan law, where there is no bodylike the British parlementry commision (or something like that) to keep the Ziu in line if it goes too far. Unless we get such an authority the only way they can be kept in check as a body, is through the Ziu. As elections only control who is allowed to have what seats in Ziu, not neccarsarily hold the Ziu as a body to account. (Im just commenting on a specific point as i see it, and its just my opinion) Actually, if the citizens are fed up with the Ziu and feel it's out of line - they can do more than vote out one person. They can vote out a whole block of people by not voting for a party. No need to take them to Cort. Take them to the unemployment line.
|
|
|
Post by C. Carlüs Xheraltescù on Aug 24, 2013 17:43:27 GMT -6
I would disagree on the point which you raised on the Ziu not being restricted. I would say it is restricted by the will of the general populace and its members. Which the Ziu itself is ultimatly accountable to therefore should be able to have suits against it in the Cort if the curcumstances allow for it. Otherwise how else can the Ziu be regulated under the current state of Tallosan law, where there is no bodylike the British parlementry commision (or something like that) to keep the Ziu in line if it goes too far. Unless we get such an authority the only way they can be kept in check as a body, is through the Ziu. As elections only control who is allowed to have what seats in Ziu, not neccarsarily hold the Ziu as a body to account. (Im just commenting on a specific point as i see it, and its just my opinion) Actually, if the citizens are fed up with the Ziu and feel it's out of line - they can do more than vote out one person. They can vote out a whole block of people by not voting for a party. No need to take them to Cort. Take them to the unemployment line. Presently, that's not strictly possible though, is it? So long as someone votes for their own party they can pretty much guarantee that party will have enough seats for them in the Cosa.
|
|
|
Post by Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun on Aug 24, 2013 18:31:31 GMT -6
In that the court stated 'CHANCERY' and not 'Secretary of State', does this not mean the Chancery got sued? (In effect it would have been the SoS, but, the ruling was against the OFFICE of the CHANCERY). And surely, if the Chancery did not adjust the final vote tally as instructed it could have been held in contempt of the court? (Not arguing, asking for clarification so I can, myself, better understand our judicial system). That's why I maintain that a Governmental body can not bring suit against another - who pays the penalty, if found "guilty"? Penalties for regulatory/executive bodies are mostly composed of heavy fines and some restrictions. Since most institutions have their own treasuries, guilty institution A would either pay the Court a fine or indemnity to party B. If plaintiff B is an institution itself and entitled to obtain damages by verdict, institution A would pay to their treasury. Thus, government fundings many official institutions in Talossa need, would be gone due to damages, and projects would come to stagnate, which would have severe impact on the respective Minister's office, etc.
|
|