Brad Holmes
Cunstaval to Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Atatürkey, and flying by the seat of my RUMP
Posts: 1,014
Talossan Since: 3-16-2006
|
Post by Brad Holmes on Dec 29, 2013 20:21:02 GMT -6
While humble apologies for the delay. (The petitioner is correct in assuming the reason for the delay - I was on a boat.)
The Uppermost Cort of Talossa December 7, 2013 In the matter of: T.M. Asmourescu (pro se) versus The Chancery Background In July 2013, Admiral T.M. Asmourescu issued a public statement to renounce his citizenship in the Kingdom of Talossa. On July 21, 2013, the Attorney-General, Béneditsch Ardpresteir, Esq. posted the following statement in the courthouse in relation to the appeal of case 13-01: "Article XVIII: Citizenship and Rights Section 9 Talossans may voluntarily renounce their own citizenship. This may be done by publicly issuing a written Declaration of Renunciation. It shall take immediate effect upon its acknowledgement by the Secretary of State through issuance of a Writ of Termination of Citizenship, which shall be published under the seal of the Chancery."
I believe that Adm. Tim's may have voluntarily renounciated his own citizenship , by publicly issuing a written Declaration of Renunciation. However the same would have taken immediate effect upon its acknowledgement by the Secretary of State through issuance of a Writ of Termination of Citizenship, which was required to be published under the seal of the Chancery and I believe that the same has not been done.
Further, the said citizen has been 'notified and charged' under the penal provisions of extant statutory laws. In such a situation, it would not be apt for the Chancery to allow his removal through a Writ. Hence I have already requested the Office and the officers of the Chancery not to take any such step without consulting the Attorney General, for it will give scope for unnecessary complications. On November 24, 2013, Admiral Asmourescu approached the Ministry of Immigration seeking readmittance to the Kingdom of Talossa as a citizen and stated that, as no writ of termination of citizenship had been issued, he believed himself to still be a citizen. On December 7, 2013, Attorney General Ardpresteir, acting in his capacity as Deputy Secretary of State, issued the following writ of termination after Admiral Asmourescu had filed a brief with the Magistrate's court seeking clarification on his citizenship: "WHEREAS Adm.T.M. Asmourescu had completed all the legal requirements for renunciaton of Citizenship from the Kingdom of Talossa, and had satisfied the nation and us of his dis-interest in Talossan citizenship (the Best Thing Money Can’t Buy), of his intention and desire to no longer participate in our national life, we were displeased and remorsed to actually admit that Admiral Awsomesauce (as he was lovingly referred to) was no longer a NATURALISED CITIZEN OF THE KINGDOM OF TALOSSA.
All his rights, privileges, and duties thereunto is deemed to have been revoked from the date his application for renunciation as the same is deemed to have been received and granted from the said date.
An application of re-induction, if any, may be sent/ forwarded to the Immigration Ministry or the Minister/ Dy. Minister in charge of the Ministry at the earliest in respect of the said citizen. The said former citizen is allowed to restart his account/ seek necessary permission in respect of the same from Witt Admins if he desires to seek a re-induction.
Done by my hand in the name of King John and under his Royal Seal this 7th day of December in the year of the common era 2013, in the 7th year of the reign of our gracious sovereign King John, and of the independence of Talossa the 34th.
BenArd, USoS" Application of Law The Attorney-General appears greatly confused. He originally states that the appeal of 13-01 must be placed on hold due to pending criminal charges. However, 13-01 was a civil matter unrelated to the later alleged charges against Admiral Asmourescu which were never filed. However, the Attorney-General publicly states that he directed the SoS to violate Article XVIII: Citizenship and Rights Section 9 Talossans may voluntarily renounce their own citizenship. This may be done by publicly issuing a written Declaration of Renunciation. It shall take immediate effect upon its acknowledgement by the Secretary of State through issuance of a Writ of Termination of Citizenship, which shall be published under the seal of the Chancery." The Organic Law does not give the SoS discretion to ignore or indefinitely postpone the issuance of a writ of citizenship. Nor does it give the Attorney-General the right to unilaterally block such a writ on the basis of pending charges against a citizen desirous of renouncing. This position is further buttressed by the fact that the Attorney-General never filed criminal charges against Admiral Asmourescu within the allotted timeframe permissible under current law. Additionally, "BenArd" issued a backdated writ of termination of citizenship. However, the relevant Organic Law States: "It (renunciation) shall take immediate effect upon its acknowledgement by the Secretary of State through issuance of a Writ of Termination of Citizenship, which shall be published under the seal of the Chancery" In stating that the renunciation takes "immediate effect upon its acknowledgment", we hold that the authors of the Organic Law never intended to grant to the SoS (or his deputies) the ability to retroactively issue a Writ of Termination. BenArd attempts to issue a writ on December 7, 2013 and backdate it to the date of the original statement of renunciation without possessing that authority under the law. Furthermore, as this writ was issued after Admiral Asmourescu stated he was desirous of returning to Talossa, the action was completed in bad faith. The Chancery had nearly 6 months to issue a writ after Admiral Asmourescu renounced and before he stated his desire to return. In issuing the writ only after he publicly stated his desire to return, the Attorney-General is attempting to correct an administrative error committed five months prior due to his own violation of Admiral Asmourescu's Organic Rights. Therefore, we pray that the Uppermost Cort will find that the writ issued by the Deputy Secretary of State on December 7, 2013 to be invalid and enjoin the Chancery and all government ministries from its enforcement.
==================================================
Since he was the first one to reply with availability, this petition is assigned to Puisne Justice Ián Munditenens Tamorán
|
|
Ián Tamorán S.H.
Chief Justice of the Uppermost Court
Proud Philosopher of Talossa
Posts: 1,401
Talossan Since: 9-27-2010
|
Post by Ián Tamorán S.H. on Jan 1, 2014 5:31:48 GMT -6
The Uppermost Cort is now considering this matter. Despite the use of the word "Emergency" in the request to the Cort, we shall take a short time to consider the facts of the case. This Cort will respond with a judgement within 48 hours from the time of posting this acknowledgement, which is 11:30 GMT 1 January 2014/xxxv
Puisne Justice Ián Munditenêns Triesourêt Tamorán
|
|
Ián Tamorán S.H.
Chief Justice of the Uppermost Court
Proud Philosopher of Talossa
Posts: 1,401
Talossan Since: 9-27-2010
|
Post by Ián Tamorán S.H. on Jan 2, 2014 16:56:18 GMT -6
The Law is concerned only with the facts; the Corts are concerned with both the Law and with Justice. The Law, being a human production, is liable to be fallible, to be incomplete, and to be inconsistent. The Corts are also human, and have to consider not just the Law but also the intentions of the Law (if stated by the legislators at the time of passing of Acts), Natural Justice, and how a reasonable (but merciful) man might interpret doubtful passages.
Law, in and of itself, is not inherently merciful; but true Justice is merciful – not necessarily lenient, but merciful: consider the well-known speech by Portia in The Merchant of Venice (“The quality of mercy is not strained...”) and note how that legal analysis states that Mercy is an inherent Good in the practice of Law (albeit in a different nation state from ours). It is my considered opinion that this Goodness of Mercy holds true for Talossan justice also.
In this case, re. the citizenship of Admiral T. M. Asmourescu (hereinafter referred to as TMA) the facts are simple, but their legal interpretation is not.
In July 2013/xxxiv TMA publicly stated his wish to renounce his citizenship of the Kingdom of Talossa. No official acknowledgement of this renunciation was immediately made by the then SoS. Prior to the 24th November 2013/xxxiv TMA, in private communications, stated that he wished to withdraw his renunciation, and become once more a citizen of the Kingdom of Talossa (the best thing that money can’t buy). A Prime Dictate was issued on 24th November 2013/xxxiv at 4:01 p.m. by the Seneschal, stating that TMA was restored to citizenship, and acknowledging that the recognition of TMA’s renunciation was uncertain. That Prime Dictate has not yet been signed by the Monarch. On 7th December 2013/xxxiv the apparently then Acting SoS Béneditsch Ardpresteir, Esq. (hereinafter referred to as BenArd) made acknowledgement of the (July) renunciation wish in issuing a backdated Writ of Termination of Citizenship.
Several questions must now be addressed to determine first the Legal and then the Just situation. These questions include: 1) In that the first official acknowledgement of the July renunciation wish was not made until after that wish had been withdrawn, was it legally possible to issue a Writ of Termination of Citizenship against it? 2) Did the acting SoS BenArd have the legal power, under any circumstance, to issue a Writ of Termination. 3) Is backdating a public document (e.g. a Writ of Termination) legal? 4) Is backdating a public document (e.g. a Writ of Termination) prima facie evidence of bad faith? 5) Can the Seneschal legally, by Prime Dictate, confer citizenship? 6) Can the Seneschal legally, by Prime Dictate, not confer citizenship but instead restate for public clarity that a prior citizenship has not lapsed but it still in force? 7) Is a Prime Dictate made by the Seneschal but not subsequently signed by the Monarch in any way active? Much hangs upon the way in which these questions are answered.
I shall give my answers to these questions in reverse order, and then state my initial judgment. I shall subsequently issue detailed supplementary notes which explain the reasoning by which I come to my conclusions, and containing further judgement.
Question: Is a Prime Dictate which has been made but not signed by the Monarch in any way active? Answer: According to my reading of Talossan Law, No it is not. I shall be issuing supplementary notes to this judgement to say why it is not.
Question: Can the Seneschal legally, by Prime Dictate restate for public clarity a citizen’s citizenship? Answer: Yes – but this presupposes that the citizenship was already valid. Again, please see the (following) supplementary notes for details.
Question: Can the Seneschal legally, by Prime Dictate, confer citizenship? Answer: No – this is specifically forbidden by active law. (See the supplementary notes)
Question: Is backdating a public document prima facie evidence of bad faith? Answer: This is not possible to answer, as stated. It is normally considered, however, in most jurisdictions in most democratic states that public documents should be dated close to the real date. The meaning of “close to” will vary, according to circumstance, and according to the jurisdiction.
Question: Is backdating a public document legal? Answer: No, not in Talossa. There can be some laxity here, in that the length of a Talossan day can be taken (in extreme circumstances) to be fifty hours and two seconds. But it cannot, under any circumstances, be taken to be in excess of seventy-two hours. And it certainly cannot be taken to be more than three months.
Question: Did the Acting SoS BenArd have the right to issue any Writ of Termination? Answer: This is not easy to answer, and I reserve my judgement on this, pro tem. I shall, in my subsequent supplementary notes, make a full consideration of this.
Question: Was it legally possible to issue a Writ of Termination against the withdrawn renunciation wish? Answer: This is a key question here, and is relevant only if the Acting Sos BenArd did indeed have the rights to issue any Writ of Termination (WoT) for any other renouncing citizen, other than TMA. If for the moment we assume that Acting SoS BenArd did indeed have those rights (of which I am not yet fully convinced in law), then it may be that a WoT could have been issued, legally. Again, I am not yet fully convinced that this is the case, and will make a more detailed statement in my subsequent notes.
Judgement: Although not all of the questions considered have yet been fully answered, there are several reasons whereby I am moved to say that: 1) No Writ of Termination has been correctly issued in consideration of the withdrawn July renunciation wish. The putative Write of Termination was invalid by reason of its wildly incorrect dating. 2) Since no Writ of Termination has been correctly issued, and since there are many legal and procedural questions still to consider in this case, I direct all Talossan citizens and government departments to take no further actions, in the short term, against the citizenship of TMA arising from the withdrawn July renunciation wish. 3) I further state that, in my opinion, for the moment TMA is still a full citizen of the Kingdom of Talossa (the best thing that money can’t buy).
Note that further supplementary judgements will follow within the next forty-eight hours, with deeper consideration of the reasoning of my statements already made.
Signed at 22:55 GMT 2 January 2014/xxxv
Puisne Justice Ián Munditenêns Triesourêt Tamorán
|
|
|
Post by Béneditsch Ardpresteir, O.SPM. on Jan 4, 2014 16:02:10 GMT -6
Your Lordship,
The Court should have borne in mind that in an injunction proceeding, it does not 'judge' but only gives 'injunctive relief' pending final determination.
Further, since I have been named herein in my various capacites, no 'judgement' regarding my actions can be made without hearing me (audi alteram partem).
The Court in its present InOrganic structure should thus refrain from giving any further relief and 'supp. judgement'.
BenArd In Person
|
|
|
Post by Adm. T.M. Asmourescu, O. Ben. on Jan 4, 2014 17:14:26 GMT -6
With respect to the magistrate, the determination as to the organic composition of the Uppermost Cort is left to the Uppermost Cort, not to the Attorney-general. Further, there is judicial precedent for the UC operating with fewer than three members. The organic law provides for single Justices to provide court orders and injunctive relief. Further, His Worship received consent from the other Justice to hear this matter as required by Organic Law.
If it please the court, the matter of judging the reprehensible, illegal actions of S:reu Ardpresteir has been filed before the magistrate's court and is awaiting assignment by the clerk.
|
|
|
Post by Béneditsch Ardpresteir, O.SPM. on Jan 5, 2014 2:51:19 GMT -6
Your Lordship,
In the name of Injunctive relief, no court can sit in rendering an ex-parte judgement, especially regarding someone's 'alleged' action. I'm before the Uppermost Court as such an individual, not as a Magistrate or AG; unlike the Petitioner herein who is probably trying to influence the proceeding by showing he is a former Justice of the CpI. Hence I would request the Court to decide upon the same as if it is an impleadment application. Further, the injunctive relief claimed is in effect seeking relief which takes care of the Petitioner alleged final relief too. This total circumvention of the law and legal procedure established has been masterminded by the Petitioner in order to seek a relief ex-parte which would in turn buttress his case, and that too without hearing the other side.
Further while technically the other side is the Chancery, by naming me in person in the case, any judgement rendered in the case is a direct indicator of my actions. Further since I am no longer in my office, the present officer(s) may or may not present a reasonable defense in favour of the Chancery, or on my behalf. Thus I should be heard before any action be taken.
If the Talossan Courts cannot give me this basic right of mine, then I am sorry to say that I would be compelled to say that I would loose faith in the Talossan legal system. I'm in fact thankful to providence that the former judge is actually a former judge now.
BenArd In person (as mentioned earlier also)
|
|
Sir Tamorán dal Navâ
Shackamaxon man/Can you tell me where you stand?
Posts: 772
Talossan Since: 2-21-1998
Motto: Cedo nulli.
|
Post by Sir Tamorán dal Navâ on Jan 5, 2014 10:59:48 GMT -6
Wait -- I thought you quit.
|
|
|
Post by Béneditsch Ardpresteir, O.SPM. on Jan 5, 2014 12:25:33 GMT -6
Wait -- I thought you quit. Justice Tamoran, I believe this was being attended to you - if the other judge is to have any say or decide (or be part of it), I would request a replacement Justice to hear in his place because of evidenced animosity between us. I have not quit the Kingdom. Why should I quit the Kingdom fearing a few former quitters? I have only quit from the Witt Board and do not propose to visit Talossa on a regular basis except for attending the Courts and the Cabana.
|
|
Sir Tamorán dal Navâ
Shackamaxon man/Can you tell me where you stand?
Posts: 772
Talossan Since: 2-21-1998
Motto: Cedo nulli.
|
Post by Sir Tamorán dal Navâ on Jan 5, 2014 13:14:09 GMT -6
Sorry, I didn't hear anything in what you said beyond "waaaaah". Dry your tears and try again.
|
|
Ián Tamorán S.H.
Chief Justice of the Uppermost Court
Proud Philosopher of Talossa
Posts: 1,401
Talossan Since: 9-27-2010
|
Post by Ián Tamorán S.H. on Jan 6, 2014 17:34:13 GMT -6
Order in Cort.
I wish to make several points:
Firstly, I apologise for the continued delay in my issuing the previously promised posting concerning my reasoning and giving further decisions, which will become available when some procedural actions have been clarified: mea culpa for the delay.
Secondly, we are here in a Cort of Law, in which dignified and controlled behaviour is mandatory. We are very fortunate that in the Kingdom of Talossa we have freedom of speech, but there are some limits upon where that speech can be made. In particular, here in the Cort the only comments permitted are those which relate directly to the case in hand, and which must have been either invited by the Justice in charge, or be applications to present further statements or evidence, to which the Justice in charge will respond by giving (or withholding) permission. You are warned that any other discussion here in the body of the Cort runs the risk of being interpreted as Contempt of Cort, which will be dealt with severely. If any person wishes to raise any matter in this Cort, then permission must be sought in the standard and formal way. There are many other places on this board for open discussion. I also am open for any discussion, in private chambers (i.e. by PM or directly by Skype, where I am iandkkelly) insofar as permitted by my office and this case. To repeat: the body of this Cort is not a place for open discussion.
Thirdly a (non-authorative) linguistic observation: in British English "to judge" is the precisely correct verb for the issuance of the opinion of a Justice, which opinions are precisely correctly called "judge(e)ments": I refer you to any Oxford English Dictionary published since 1930 for clarification. Here we speak Talossan English, which is not exactly the same as British English, nor as American English, nor as Indian English. But we proudly retain in Talossa the subtlety and flexibility of the full English tongue, as well as the glories of el bel Glheþ, and I would be saddened were I to be informed that the meanings of “to judge” and “judg(e)ment” had been reduced and impoverished since the mid 1960s, when I left university.
I shall wait until 23:59 GMT on Wednesday 8th January 2014/xxxv before taking any further public action on this case, to allow time (slightly over 48 hours) for any applications to speak to or in the Cort.
Statement made at 23:34 GMT Monday 6th January 2014/xxxv
Puisne Justice Ián Munditenêns Triesourêt Tamorán
|
|
|
Post by Béneditsch Ardpresteir, O.SPM. on Jan 7, 2014 3:56:50 GMT -6
Justice Tamoran,
I would like to present myself before the CpI in the case as the same concerns be directly as a person apart from those that have been mentioned as official designations.
Since the elections have been held and the new government is about to be formed, it would be wrong of me to present myself in the capacity of the Attorney General. However, there are certain factors which the Courts needs to look into before rendering a judgement. [Judgement may mean an opinion or conclusion; OR decision of the court or judge (OED)] That is my very objection that instead of an AD-INTERIM ORDER in an Emergency Petition if the Court goes on to render an Opinion in the form of a JUDGEMENT, then it would become binding of the Courts and Kingdom despite the fact that InOrganic present composition of the CpI. Further it may be pointed out the OrgLaw allows a single judge to go
Article XVII, Section 8 states : No court shall issue any authoritative decision without the fullest opportunity for all members assigned to a case to consider the case in question. However, a single Justice of the Uppermost Cort may hear a case on his own if this is acceptable to the other two members of the Cort. He shall be appointed to do so by unanimous vote of the entire three-person Cort. If, after every reasonable attempt is made to contact a member of the Cort, and three weeks (21 days) has passed since initial contact without any response, their silence shall be read as consent that an individual Justice may hear the case in question on his own. The duly nominated (either by active agreement or silence) Justice shall render a decision on the case as if he were a majority of the whole Cort. His decision becomes that of the Cort itself and may not be appealed.
So while the present proceedings and pronouncement by the Court in whatever name and title be, only an Injunctive Order and not an authoritative decision in the the form of a Judgement.
Hence my humble request before the CpI's Judge is to limit its Order to giving an Injuctive Relief if so required and desired to take care of 'emergency' requirements, rather than speaking out his mind in the form of the Order/Opinion/Judgement which may cause further confusion at the appeal stage, if the same arises.
I refuse to send a PM to the Judge specially when I appear in person and not in any official capacity. Further if such a PM is insisted upon, I would be sending a copy to the other parties as well. However the problem remains, who are the other parties; and should I be the one to call upon them?
BenArd (again in person)
|
|
Dame Litz Cjantscheir, UrN
Puisne Justice; Chancellor of the Royal Talossan Bar; Cunstaval to Florencia
Dame & Former Seneschal
Posts: 1,157
Talossan Since: 4-5-2010
Dame Since: 9-8-2012
|
Post by Dame Litz Cjantscheir, UrN on Jan 7, 2014 11:14:29 GMT -6
Justice Tamoran,
May it please this Honourable Court that I humbly request that your Lordship extend the deadline of 23:59 GMT on Wednesday 8th January 2014 for any applications to speak to or in the Cort. This request is made to allow for the incoming Government to appoint a new Attorney General, for him/her to fully consider this ruling and make any applications based on such considerations to the Cort.
I strongly believe that it is in the public's interest that the incoming Attorney General and/or his duly appointed agents and not the outgoing, be given ample opportunity to study your ruling above and present to this Cort a challenge/application to the above ruling. Given the tight deadline this is not currently possible and I would ask that Your Lordship considering postponing the deadline to allow this to take place.
Humbly requested this day the 7th of January 2014 at 17:10 (GMT) by,
Litz Cjantscheir, Solicitor-General
|
|
Ián Tamorán S.H.
Chief Justice of the Uppermost Court
Proud Philosopher of Talossa
Posts: 1,401
Talossan Since: 9-27-2010
|
Post by Ián Tamorán S.H. on Jan 10, 2014 14:45:27 GMT -6
The Cort thanks the interested parties for their requests.
The Cort has noted the points made by sreu. Béneditsch Ardpresteir, Esq., and will reply to them in full after due consideration and consultation. If sreu. Béneditsch Ardpresteir, Esq. wishes to address this Cort further directly concerning this case, he is still invited to do so.
Concerning the request of Dame Litz Cjantscheir, UrN, the Cort is willing to extend the said deadline until 23:59 GMT on Tuesday 14th January 2014/xxxv. If Dame Litz Cjantscheir, UrN, wishes to address this Cort further directly concerning this case, prior to that deadline, she is invited to do so.
Should any interested parties, including the two who have already addressed this Cort, wish to make any further applications to address this Cort, they have until the above stated deadline of 23:59 GMT on Tuesday 14th January 2014/xxxv to do so.
Response made at 20:45 GMT Friday 10th January 2014/xxxv
Puisne Justice Ián Munditenêns Triesourêt Tamorán
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Jan 10, 2014 15:59:53 GMT -6
Your Honour:
I have a few clarifying questions about procedure, if you will entertain them. I ask as a member of the Office of the Attorney-General, so that we can best assess our future actions.
Your Honour was presented with a request for an emergency injunction on Dec 29 2013, requesting that a writ of termination of citizenship be overturned and not enforced. This injunction was preliminary to the larger case of T.M. Asmourescu (pro se) versus The Chancery, if I understand matters correctly.
Your Honour ruled on that request for an emergency injunction in the affirmative. However, your Honour also also appended to your grant of an injunction what appears to be a much larger judgment on several questions of fact and law. Among other conclusions, your Honour declared that:
"No Writ of Termination has been correctly issued in consideration of the withdrawn July renunciation wish. The putative Write of Termination was invalid by reason of its wildly incorrect dating. 2) Since no Writ of Termination has been correctly issued, and since there are many legal and procedural questions still to consider in this case, I direct all Talossan citizens and government departments to take no further actions, in the short term, against the citizenship of TMA arising from the withdrawn July renunciation wish. 3) I further state that, in my opinion, for the moment TMA is still a full citizen of the Kingdom of Talossa."
However, at no point has the Chancery, or the Government (on the Chancery's behalf) had the opportunity to present any arguments with regard to these many conclusions. I wonder if this was an oversight by this Cort, since typically both sides are allowed to present their arguments on the matters under consideration. The necessity of quick decision on the injunction might have precluded allowing the Ministry of Justice any opportunity to argue that the injunction should be issued, but shouldn't your Honour allow counsel to present arguments on these expansive other issues?
I note, also, that any immediate response has been forestalled by your Honour's promise of 2 Jan 2014 of "further supplementary judgements will follow within the next forty-eight hours, with deeper consideration of the reasoning of my statements already made," a promise renewed on 6 Jan 2014, on which date you stated that these "supplementary judgements" "will become available when some procedural actions have been clarified." Any possible response the Chancery or Government might have made would have to wait until after your Honour had actually finished rendering "supplementary judgements," would it not?
In this case, then, when your Honour calls for "any interested parties" to address the court before the 14 Jan 2014, does this mean that if the Ministry of Justice or Chancery fails to do so, that neither of these two parties will at any point be allowed to make arguments before the cort?
I note, too, that the election results have not yet been certified by either of the two sitting members of the Cort pu Inalt. Because His Majesty is loathe to appoint a Seneschal before the votes have been certified, this means that the new Government cannot yet be formed. And even if the results were certified and a Seneschal appointed and a new Attorney-General nominated and then appointed by His Majesty within the next several days, could the Attorney-General be reasonably expected to respond with such a brief opportunity to consider?
In summary, then, and with apologies for verbocity: -Will the Chancery or Ministry of Justice be given the opportunity to present arguments on the matters your Honour has already decided, such as the validity of S:reu Asmourescu's citizenship? -Is four additional days enough time for the election results to be certified, a Seneschal appointed, a new Attorney-General nominated, his/her appointment to be confirmed by His Majesty, and for him/her to consider and decide the incoming government's response?
|
|
|
Post by Béneditsch Ardpresteir, O.SPM. on Jan 11, 2014 14:05:50 GMT -6
I as the Attorney General fully support and believe in the statements made by my Deputies and the officers of the Ministry of Justice viz. the Solicitor General and the Deputy Attorney General.
Although am also a named party in the case, it would be premature for me to present the case on my behalf until and unless an official response of His Majesty's Government is put forth.
It would thus be in the interest of the 'Rule of Law' to give an adequate time to the said Respondents. While justice delayed may be justice denied, justice hurried is justice buried.
BenArd the AG as well as the individual
|
|