|
Post by E.S. Bornatfiglheu on Aug 1, 2014 13:30:56 GMT -6
Your honor, I plead guilty to all charges.
|
|
Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă
Puisne (Associate) Justice of the Uppermost Court
Fraichetz dels punts, es non dels mürs
Posts: 4,063
Talossan Since: 9-23-2012
|
Post by Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă on Aug 1, 2014 13:38:45 GMT -6
The defendant having pled guilty on 17 misdemeanor charges of violating 36RZ10 and 15 misdemeanor charges of violating Wisconsin Code 947.0125, the court hereby finds the defendant, Eric Kildow, guilty as charged. Seeing that the government has indicated its desired sentence, does the defense wish to present arguments on how the defendant should be sentenced?
|
|
Owen Edwards
Puisne Justice
Posts: 1,400
Talossan Since: 12-8-2007
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Aug 3, 2014 5:00:24 GMT -6
Yes your Honour. May I have the remainder of this week to prepare my remarks on sentencing?
|
|
|
Post by Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H. on Aug 3, 2014 7:19:09 GMT -6
As I was not a member of the chancery at the time these actions occurred and I am fully able to remain impartial, the court sees no reason why it should recuse itself. As to the request for an injunction against the chancery, the court is concerned as to how that office will be represented in this proceeding. Is it the intention of the Attorney General's office to represent the Chancery? Considering that the Chancery is currently preparing an election, can someone explain in an clear message what the injunction is about? The case is between the People and ESB and from my understanding, in the case betwen the People and ESB, there is an included injunction request. Shouldn't the Chancery receive official notification of the injunction request in a seperate thread and with only the relevant information about the Injunction? As Secretary of State, I do not currently have the time to read all of the details of the ESB court case and would like to be notified officially of only the part related to the Chancery itself. Until then, the Chancery REFUSES to acknowledge the existence of such an injunction and will go to the UC for a injunction against such actions. I want to make it clear and official that it is NOT the Chanceries's responsability to monitor all court cases which may or may not implicate the Chancery UNLESS officially summoned to do so in a brief which explains clearly the context of such summons. Otherwise, all court cases might, considering that the Chancery is central to the operation of the Kingdom, have the Chancery somewhat involved in the proceeding. Furthermore, it is the policy of this SoS, until otherwise noted, to ignore ALL court cases as their opposition nature by design are incompatible with the impartial nature of the Chancery duties and values. In short, if the Chancery is implicated, SUMMARIZE IT.
|
|
Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă
Puisne (Associate) Justice of the Uppermost Court
Fraichetz dels punts, es non dels mürs
Posts: 4,063
Talossan Since: 9-23-2012
|
Post by Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă on Aug 3, 2014 10:20:15 GMT -6
Thank you Mr. Secretary of State for your comments. The court has issued no injunction and has been waiting on the Attorney General to answer its questions in regards to representation of the Chancery. The injunction request, in brief, is a request by the government that the writs of termination of citizenship for the defendant and his sock puppets be blocked, thereby restoring the citizenship of the defendant and his numerous personas.
|
|
Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă
Puisne (Associate) Justice of the Uppermost Court
Fraichetz dels punts, es non dels mürs
Posts: 4,063
Talossan Since: 9-23-2012
|
Post by Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă on Aug 3, 2014 10:20:35 GMT -6
Yes your Honour. May I have the remainder of this week to prepare my remarks on sentencing? Granted.
|
|
|
Post by Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun on Aug 3, 2014 10:26:58 GMT -6
Your Honour,
it is with regret that the prosecution notes the erratic and aggressive behaviour of the chancery. We have sent the Chancery an e-mail on, or about, Friday night, explaining the nature of the injunction, and explaining that a lawyer to hire would be Sir C.M. Siervicül.
We have also explained to the chancery, that they may ask us any questions regarding the nature of the injunction, and that they may request that we clarify any situation regarding the requested injunction. This has, to this time, not happened.
The prosecution thus prays that a subpoena be issued, forcing the Chancery to appear in this court case, so that it may be wrapped up in a quick manner.
|
|
Owen Edwards
Puisne Justice
Posts: 1,400
Talossan Since: 12-8-2007
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Aug 3, 2014 11:31:23 GMT -6
Defence counsel notes that if the Chancery does not want to turn up then this Cort can make judgment on the proposed injunction in absentia.
|
|
Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă
Puisne (Associate) Justice of the Uppermost Court
Fraichetz dels punts, es non dels mürs
Posts: 4,063
Talossan Since: 9-23-2012
|
Post by Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă on Aug 3, 2014 13:17:03 GMT -6
A subpoena is hereby issued ordering the Chancery to appear before the court so that it may make a ruling on the injunction. The Chancery has until Wednesday, August 6 to notify the court as to its counsel so that a hearing may commence on the matter.
NOTE: The court has sent the subpoena via PM to the Chancery.
|
|
|
Post by Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H. on Aug 4, 2014 5:36:59 GMT -6
Your Honour, it is with regret that the prosecution notes the erratic and aggressive behaviour of the chancery. We have sent the Chancery an e-mail on, or about, Friday night, explaining the nature of the injunction, and explaining that a lawyer to hire would be Sir C.M. Siervicül. We have also explained to the chancery, that they may ask us any questions regarding the nature of the injunction, and that they may request that we clarify any situation regarding the requested injunction. This has, to this time, not happened. The prosecution thus prays that a subpoena be issued, forcing the Chancery to appear in this court case, so that it may be wrapped up in a quick manner. The Chancery would like to express that said email cannot seem to be found anywhere, and as such, the tone of the Chancery is considered appropriate as it was left in the dark while an injunction is prepared. I was issued a subpena but not the documents explaining why I am summoned to appear. Can I hear officially the case of the injunction so that I may prepare a response? Please note that my aggressive tone is entirely proportional to the lack of good faith in the actions of however is attempting to get an injuction. I was told, by a private individual of an injunction but until I was summoned to appear, not ever officially notified of said injunction and still, at this point,. was NOT served with the text of the injunction. If I am to defend an injunction, I refuse to appear in front of a court without having received the text of the injunction in advance to prepare my statement. I believe that anyone being summoned in a court of law should be notified officially and personally why in advance. Someone did contact me to explain to me the injunction, but in his own words. I have yet to receive an actual PDF document of the injunction itself sent by a clerk, the person issuing it, or a judge and will NOT react in any way, shape or form before having such a document. I hereby ask the cort to postpone any deadlines on my appearance until I am officially informed of what I have to reply on. I was given 48 hours to appear in front of the court, I hereby ask that this 48 hours only start from the moment that I will have received the official text of the injunction. If my tone is aggressive, imagine a person accused of a crime and asked to defend from said accusation, WITHOUT having been notified of the accusations in question. Now, I heard in the corridor someone explain to me in his words the nature of the injunction, but that is JUST hearsay!
|
|
|
Post by Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H. on Aug 4, 2014 5:39:09 GMT -6
A subpoena is hereby issued ordering the Chancery to appear before the court so that it may make a ruling on the injunction. The Chancery has until Wednesday, August 6 to notify the court as to its counsel so that a hearing may commence on the matter. NOTE: The court has sent the subpoena via PM to the Chancery. I have received the subpoena, but I still haven't received the text of the injunction and as such, refute the order to appear and ask for a stay on that order until I have officially received the text of the injunction. If the court has a copy of the injunction, it may send it to me within the next few hours and as such, I would have time to prepare to appear by the mentioned deadline. But until I have the test of the injunction, I am not able to prepare adequately to appear.
|
|
|
Post by Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H. on Aug 4, 2014 5:41:22 GMT -6
Defence counsel notes that if the Chancery does not want to turn up then this Cort can make judgment on the proposed injunction in absentia. The chancery WANTS to appear, but NOT without knowledge of what the injunction is about so it can prepare its testimony.
|
|
|
Post by Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H. on Aug 4, 2014 6:39:04 GMT -6
Your Honour, it is with regret that the prosecution notes the erratic and aggressive behaviour of the chancery. We have sent the Chancery an e-mail on, or about, Friday night, explaining the nature of the injunction, and explaining that a lawyer to hire would be Sir C.M. Siervicül. We have also explained to the chancery, that they may ask us any questions regarding the nature of the injunction, and that they may request that we clarify any situation regarding the requested injunction. This has, to this time, not happened. The prosecution thus prays that a subpoena be issued, forcing the Chancery to appear in this court case, so that it may be wrapped up in a quick manner. The Chancery would like to express that said email cannot seem to be found anywhere, and as such, the tone of the Chancery is considered appropriate as it was left in the dark while an injunction is prepared. To clarify, I did receive a transcript of the FULL case, but this is the same thing as presented in this thread. I do not have a document listing the injunction itself.
|
|
|
Post by Magniloqueu Épiqeu da Lhiun on Aug 4, 2014 10:46:52 GMT -6
The Chancery would like to express that said email cannot seem to be found anywhere, and as such, the tone of the Chancery is considered appropriate as it was left in the dark while an injunction is prepared. To clarify, I did receive a transcript of the FULL case, but this is the same thing as presented in this thread. I do not have a document listing the injunction itself. The injunction is part of the FULL case. I'm afraid you will have to read it thoroughly, or hire one of the fine lawyers that our Kingdom has to offer you. You have no need, S:reu Furxheir, to behave aggressively. As you say, I have sent you the transcript of the full case, and what I explained is not, as you put it, hearsay, since I am the moving party, therefore fully equipped to explain you the nature of the injunctive relief, that is crucially important for this case. I have also made it clear, from the beginning, that I was writing you in my capacity as the prosecution, and as the Attorney-General. I am looking my e-mails again, and I cannot find any request from the Chancery to clear up any additional questions. You must see that I, too, cannot give you a bogus document of some injunction, since that would be forgery. The injunction is, as said before, incorporated in the complaint. A brief summary of the nature of the injunction can be found in the document itself, under the title "Conclusions, Punishments and Injunctions". If the court wishes so, I can send, privately to the defence and the court, the e-mails I have written unto the Chancery, to prove that the prosecution has tried to be as clear as possible
|
|
Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă
Puisne (Associate) Justice of the Uppermost Court
Fraichetz dels punts, es non dels mürs
Posts: 4,063
Talossan Since: 9-23-2012
|
Post by Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă on Aug 4, 2014 10:56:45 GMT -6
The court wishes that the Secretary of State would actually read its order to appear: "A subpoena is hereby issued ordering the Chancery to appear before the court so that it may make a ruling on the injunction. The Chancery has until Wednesday, August 6 to notify the court as to its counsel so that a hearing may commence on the matter."
This court did not give 48 hours notice to file a response, it gave closer to 3 days notice to appoint an attorney and make that attorney known to the court.
Additionally, the Secretary of State is bordering on contempt of court in his continual refusals to follow the courts simple order. Do not walk into my courtroom Mr. Secretary of State and "refuse" to do anything.
|
|