Office of the Commissioner of Justice

[unmerged(1522)]

Mr. O'Floinn,

while we aware that the issue of seat redistribution has already been moved to the High Court, the CRO office feels that clarifying the question of ETE-seats here may be fruitful to avoid future complications.

The fact that Mr. Mediverri joined the CC after the ETE was dissolved is irrelevant if the redistribution of seats consequent on the reduction in size of the Assembly is to proceed based on the results of the last elections. Specifically, Mr. Mediverri crossing the floor does not entitle the CC to any seats the ETE may be allocated in the redistribution process. Had the ETE merged with another party, that party would be legally entitled to any such seats. However, the ETE was dissolved; therefore, there is no legal successor to the ETE, and its claims to representation in the Assembly did not devolve to another organization.

Sincerely,
Yvette Montand
CRO

 

[Erc]

*Mutters under his breath*

Seat redistribution...bloody communists...

You know, perhaps this whole thing would be easier if they just left well enough alone...

 

[Josephus I]

Per,

I need two issues that need clarification from you.

1. Electoral Reform Bill that was recently approved by the NA. Is that a Constitutional Amendment or not.

2. In the same vain, is the Bill of Rights a constitutional amendment. Note, the earlier Workers Bill of Rights was not a constitutional amendment.

Await a quick and speedy resolution.

Yours,

Josephus Locke Sergei, acting as Speaker of the NA

 

[unmerged(10397)]

I will bring this to the Court in the morning, but first I intend to seek the counsel of Mr. Tilly.

(OOC: Dead tired at the moment, but fear not, I'm on it!)

 

[The_Hawk]

Gentlepers,

I can make no statements about the Election Reform Bill, as I haven't been involved with it. However, the Charter of Rights has clearly been intended as an amendment from its inception (and indeed, to have real effect it would most definitely need to be passed as such, lest successive National Assemblies simply rescind the rights given to the people by the document.)

I would further contend that this should not be in dispute. I quote the record of the National Assembly, specifically myself on introducing the Charter:

Good Assemblypers, each of your parties made promises to amend our constitution this term to guarantee these fundamental rights. This is your opportunity to make good those promises. I call on you to pass the Eutopian Charter of Rights as an amendment to our constitution, to guarantee the basic rights and freedoms of each and every Eutopian.

This should make apparent that I conceived of the Charter as an amendment from the fore, and introduced it as such. Though the technical introduction was conducted by then-Speaker Lundgren, he did not contest the characterization as an amendment, and indeed, no one has done so since. Thus, I see little dispute about its intended character. Indeed, since six votes have now been cast and our recently-suspiciously-revised Constitution makes clear that this is the minimum necessary, I believe the Charter is now formally an amendment.

 

[unmerged(10397)]

Thank you, Mr. Tilly. Josephus, I think this clears up the doubt on the Charter. I would think that if the Electoral Reform Bill was not introduced clearly as an amendment, it wasn't one. If you still want me to take this to the Court, I will, but otherwise I think you can settle this yourself.

 

[Josephus I]

Thanks for your help, Per Attorney General. I'll take your recommendations.

Josephus

 

[unmerged(24249)]

Mr. Attorney, we want to bring to you our petition, signed by people in Buen Puerto (OOC: Heag, could you put in some amount of signature) demanding veto of Tobacco Bill proposal, unfortunately, it's little bit too big (OOC: I guess), where should we deliver it?

 

[unmerged(4271)]

Per Attorney General,

I have been wrongfully terminated from my post as Superior Court Judge (OOC: Let us say that this is a level between the High Court and the lower midemeanor courts, that hears high crimes and low court appeals). This is a grave injustice and creates a severe financial hardship for me as I am but 8 years away from retirement and being vested in the national employees pension system.

I have been given no cause for termination. I suspect that I have been terminated for political reasons. Such termination in not only unfair, but I believe creates a constitutional question of power sharing between the branches of our government.


The law is not about popularity, the law is about the law, and it must remain steadfast and unwavering. To fire judges based on their rulings is not only unfair to those individuals serving the public in this capacity, but threatens the promise of fairness and impartiality to citizens for which the courts are often the last refuge.

The courts must be independent of the other branches of government. The threat of coercion and retribution by the national assembly or by the president over the judiciary is not only a challenge to judicial independence, but to the very integrity of our judicial system.

There is a reason our judges are not elected and subject to popular whim and trendy politics. Our system creates and preserves a system where judges can exercise their best descretion based on their interpretation of the law, free from public reprimand if their decision, based on the law, happens to be unpopular.

If I have committed any err, the court system has a defined process for appeals. Perceived judicial error, as you know, should be appealled to a higher court. In this case the High Court should hear and decide if I have made any error in my judgement of cases before me.

However this has not been done. There has been no appeal.

There have been no formal complaints against me in the past. I have performed my duty with due diligence. I have not had any cases, popular or unpopular, appealled, let alone overturned.

My dismissal by the president was wrong and I believe illegal. I would submit this to you as a violation of our separation of powers and may also file my own lawsuit for wrongful termination. However, due to the unconstitutional nature of the president's actions, I am formally submitting this for your review and recommendation to the High Court.

Respectfully,

Superior Court Judge Cesar Anton

 

[Estonianzulu]

Mr. Attorney General,

I would like to defend my actions taken against Judge Anton.

Firstly, Per Anton states that there is an appeal process which would have led to the High Court. While this is true, I wonder did Per Gonzaga have the option to appeal to the High Court? If so, then I want to know why the high court refused to look over a case of a man being put to death for throwing a stone.


Now, onto my defense. I am the Minister of Immigration and Law Enforcement, as you are well aware. And, while I do support the seperation of powers, I also realize that the branches can not be isolated, there are always checks and balances. In this case, I am head of the department of Justice in our country (if you have a question about this, I again point to the Constitution: Part A, Section IV, in which it states that the purvue of the MILE includes Justice. No other mention is made of the power of the executive over the judicial. Therefore I am well within my power to remove a judge who I deem has overstepped his boundaries or acted outside the standards of legal practice. In this case it was putting a man to death for an unjusifiable cause, unless you consider throwing stones in the general direction of the President and giving him a lump the same as an attempted assassination.

Per Anton was removed because he has proven himself to be hasty and over-eager in giving the death sentance. Some how Per Anton was able to bipass the usual long process of death-row and put the man to death very very quickly. This is why I removed him from the bench. I will be launching a deeper investigation, but I can not allow him to remain on the bench if there is a question that he is acting outside his bounds.

I hope the information I have provided gives you some help in considering this case,

Konstantin Vilms. MILE.

 

[unmerged(4021)]

*From the Office of the President of Eutopia*

The President of Eutopia asks for permission to appear before the high court in support of the actions of its predecssor administration. It hopes to point to legal justification for the removal of Mr. Anton.

Should the High Court agree to hear from the President it is asked to contact this office to schedule a mutually agreeable time.

Sincerely,
Liza Paley
Chief of Staff to the President of Eutopia

 

[unmerged(1522)]

Sir,

on behalf of our clients, Mssrs. Siegfried and Roy de la Vegas, our firm wishes to file a constitutional complaint under Article XXVIII of the Third Amendment regarding Eutopia's current adoption laws.

Mssrs. de la Vegas, who joined a civil union under the terms established by the Homosexual Equality Bill, submitted an application to Eutopia's National Office of Child Welfare and Adoptions (ENOCWA) for consideration as adoptive parents six months ago. Mssrs. de la Vegas, while measuring up favourably to all criteria that are usually applied to evaluate such applications, were nonetheless rejected as potential adoptive parents on the grounds that Eutopia's current adoption laws do not allow for adoption by couples joined in a civil union, reserving such privilege for married couples.

Article 3 of the Homosexual Equality Bill states that civil unions "shall impart the same legal status as marriage (including but not limited to: inheritence, taxation, co-ownership of property, child custody, etc.) upon any couples, regardless of gender, so joined." This suggests that civil unions such as those of Mssrs. de la Vegas are to enjoy the same rights and privileges as traditional married couples in all particulars, including the right to adoption.

At the same time, the Homosexual Equality Bill implies that recognition of marriages (as opposed to civil unions) is to be left to the discretion of religious communities ("the government will not mandate any change of church doctrine concerning their recognition of marriages"). Given that most religious communities still refuse to confer marriage status on same-sex couples, this effectively bars gay and lesbian couples, as well as individuals who do not belong to a religious community, from marriage status.

Since marriage status is a prerequisite for couples to be considered as adoptive parents under Eutopia's adoption laws, and since gays and lesbians as well as non-religious individuals do not have equal access to said status, we submit that Eutopia's adoption laws are in violation of the Eutopian Charter of Rights which holds that no "right or privilege, whether granted publicly or privately, by statute, code, regulation, common law, practice, or other means, shall be denied, abridged, or otherwise altered on the basis of race, color, ethnicity, sex, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, or indicia of those" (Article XXVIII).

We would welcome a speedy resolution of this issue, and in hopes that Eutopia's discriminatory adoption laws will be found unconstitutional by the High Court we remain yours sincerely,

Jean de Generes
De Generes, O'Donnell & McKellen
124 Hudson Boulevard
Gilford

 

[The_Hawk]

Per Attorney General,

As you know, the Ministry of Immigration and Law Enforcement is presently pursuing the criminal prosecution of Judge Cesar Anton in regard to the death of one Per Luis Gonzaga. In preparing our prosecution, we have been given reason to believe that this case touches upon at least two questions of Eutopian law which have been unresolved to date, specifically:

1) The extent to which the death penalty may lawfully be applied in this nation; and,

2) The extent to which judicial immunity is available.

We believe that the significance of these questions will necessitate an appeal if the case is conducted in the Superior Courts. Since the case will thus be resolved in the High Court eventually, we therefore request permission to present our case in chief directly to it.

I understand, of course, that it is highly irregular for the High Court to hear a criminal case on the merits, though the MILE has little doubt of its ability to do so in compliance with the Constitution. However, failing that option, we would like to request an advisory opinion on the above questions, and ask permission to brief them for the Court's benefit.

Respectfully,
~Hawkton J. Tilly, Esq., MILE

 

[The_Hawk]

Per Attorney General,

Given the High Court's rejection of our previous request, the MILE would like to request that you sit in judgment on the case People v. Anton. The power of the Attorney General to do so in criminal cases is well-established by Eutopian caselaw.

 

[unmerged(10397)]

I accept. I take it you'll be sending someone to represent the prosecution?

 

[jacob-Lundgren]

would you please provide a better indept description of precisly what the recent high-court ruling around marraige equats to?

 

[unmerged(10397)]

All it really says it that Eutopian laws will not deny the rights of married couples to couples joined by a civil union.

For example, adoption has until now been limited to married couples. Marriage being a religious ceremony, and most religions not accepting homosexuals, they have been barred from adoption. Laws like that must no longer use marriage as a requirement or standard, as it is not available to all citizens.

The Court's ruling does not take away from the rights of the married or infringe upon the rights of the Church. All it has done is ensure that those who cannot be married in a Church can still enjoy the privilages of being joined as husband and wife.

 

[Erc]

Mr. O'Floinn,

Especially in context, wouldn't "all laws to disregard marriage or other union certificates from non-state entities, foreign or domestic, and to accept only certificates of union, or equivalent documentation, from state entities, domestic or recognized foreign." seem to expressly indicate that church-issued marriage licenses are not valid before the State, and could not be valid in any event, since they are not issued by a 'state entity,' which the church, by the Third Amendment, could never constitutionally be?

 

[unmerged(10397)]

O'Floinn mutters under his breath about his interns.

Looking over the Court Ruling again, I find that this is half-truth. Those certificates of union issued by the Church are still valid for binding a couple in Holy Matrimony. However, now they do not enable the privilages of union (such as adoption) any longer.

 

[unmerged(24249)]

I'd like to file a complain about illegal behavior of Bram Borgman, speaker of NA, he voted on the bill after the deadline.