|
Post by HM Chief Justice King John I on Feb 13, 2016 10:28:53 GMT -6
The Supreme Court will pose any questions for the defence below. Look in the Shoutbox for status information.
|
|
|
Post by HM Chief Justice King John I on Feb 13, 2016 11:02:10 GMT -6
Conference has been interrupted, these questions are for the defence in regards to Amicus Curiae #2;
1. The court sees that in the latter part of the brief wherein it states "[...] unless Mr. Langford entered the House on a pretence outside of his official duties [...]". Can the defence please clarify as to what, in their legal opinion, the remedy would be if Langford did enter the House on a pretence outside of his official duties as Head of State of the DRCC.
2. The court will ask the defence to clarify as to the meaning of "current state of play" in the same clause.
It is in consideration that the defence rests and may not supply answers to these queries. Because of this the court is still continuing conference.
|
|
|
Post by Sol. Horatio Eden on Feb 13, 2016 12:38:04 GMT -6
If it pleases the court, Your Honour, the defence's response to these questions are thus:
1) It is the legal opinion of defence counsel that the charge of treason is levied for two key reasons. A) By his seizure of the DRCC-Loquntian consulate (which was not Loquntian property, but rather property of the government of the DRCC as it was not legally Loquntian territory) and B) he owes loyalty to the crown due to his membership of the Loquntian House of Lords. As the former was an entirely legal move, the latter is irrelevant as he was exercising his role as DRCC Head of State, which is irrelevant to any loyalty he holds to the Loquntian crown. To put it another way, since he was acting outside of Loquntian jurisdiction, his membership of the House of Lords is irrelevant to any false charge of treason against my client.
2) If Mr. Langford became a Lord in the House of Lords as a result of the LTDAA, then his Lordship is invalid as it was appointed to him under a false pretense, i.e., that the DRCC was a Loquntian territory. Thus, the "state of play" - my client's membership of the House of Lords - should be void.
|
|
|
Post by HM Chief Justice King John I on Feb 13, 2016 12:46:10 GMT -6
1. I challenge, there is no DRCC-Loquntian Consolate, the diplomatic mission in question is the old KUR-Loquntian Consolate, and as such it is not subject to the real property remedies to which you refer; but rather it is a secure area designated under treaty, the disbandment of the state to the treaty does not void the treaty nor the entitlements to the other party; but on that note the court doesn't want to hear anything else on this question.
2. Allow me to rephrase the question, let's say Langford's lordship has existed since July, 2015, as a member of the Order of the Blue Banner; then, in the legal opinion of the defence; what would that mean as far as the indictment of treason? (to wit, not at all a residue of the LTDAA)
|
|
|
Post by Sol. Horatio Eden on Feb 13, 2016 12:49:17 GMT -6
1) In response to your challenge, the mission to which it refers no longer exists and, therefore, I hold that it is purely a building belonging to the government of the DRCC, in which event Loquntia cannot claim to have possession of it.
2) Langford's actions as leader of the Democratic Republic of Cinnamon Creek are not relevant to the Loquntian government and - considering the invalidity of the LTDAA - cannot be used as real evidence of any sort of legal charge. As such, my client's membership of the House of Lords is not relevant.
|
|
|
Post by HM Chief Justice King John I on Feb 13, 2016 12:52:14 GMT -6
2. Where do you draw this "irrelevence"? You're claiming that he is immune to the rule of law--explain where that is derived.
|
|
|
Post by Sol. Horatio Eden on Feb 13, 2016 12:55:28 GMT -6
2: My claim is not that he is immune to the rule of law, but that no crime has been committed. The charge of treason is derived, primarily, from the fact that he seized the former KUR-Loquntian consulate. Since no mission attached to the building exists anymore, this is not treason against the Loquntian crown but rather an action that is ultimately administrative, and whether or not he is a member of the Loquntian House of Lords is irrelevant to the question of whether his seizure was legal or not, which it was.
|
|
|
Post by HM Chief Justice King John I on Feb 13, 2016 13:01:29 GMT -6
Thank you.
I have two more questions, and then I believe I may be done.
3. Do you believe that, concurrent to the Constitution of the DRCC, that the General-Secretary (the office, and agents thereof) has sovereign power over the DRCC, or do you believe that their power is expressly limited by the DRCC constitution to limit them beyond autonomous sovereignty?
This is important because if either one or both of them be sovereign, then they both declared Cinnamon Creek a territory of Loquntia; and as per sovereignty it must be so.
4. Answer the previous question but with the Assembly in place of the General-Secretary.
|
|
|
Post by Sol. Horatio Eden on Feb 13, 2016 13:13:27 GMT -6
I can answer both of your questions. The Constitution specifically and expressly limits the power of the General-Secretary; they hold merely executive power over the government, with the Assembly required to pass bills and enact laws. In answer to your implied question, the Assembly is the only body that has the authority to make the DRCC a territory of Loquntia, and they failed singularly to get the six vote majority necessary to make it happen, whether my client approved of it at the time or not.
|
|
|
Post by HM Chief Justice King John I on Feb 13, 2016 13:18:20 GMT -6
Thank you for your time, the court will now recess.
|
|