This incident occurred twenty four years ago. With no leads and going as far to say zero cooperation from Cillian O’Rourke over the years, we will be closing the case. All investigations and arrest on sight orders shall be shut down first and foremost. The conclusion  of this case being, Anton d’Amato-Orlov shall be presumed dead. With due regard for the d’Amato Orlov Family, this will be James Madrons final case as an officer of the law. However if anyone has information on this please step forward to the Ministry Of Justice.

Signed, Sir James ‘The Enforcer’ Madron

                   

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW

CESAR.A.P.KOMNENOS

As Represented by KOMNENOS AT LAW

DESIRES TO SEE THE LEGAL CONTEXT OF THE FOLLOWING REVIEWED

Section I Article I of the The Newly changed Charter of New Providence:

1. Any man of patrician stock has the right to hunt within the city’s forests and properties.

ON THE BASIS OF THE FOLLOWING PRINCIPLE(S), DOCTRINE(S), EDICT(S) OR ARTICLES OF LAW:

03.02D - The owner of a plot of land is the owner of the surface and that beneath it.

03.02F - Game (as in, wild animals) that pass from their respective breeding place to lands owned by a different owner shall be the property of the latter, unless found to have been attracted through fraud, artifice or lure.

The Rightful Ownership Principle; “A human with uncontested physical ownership of a good, legal tender or produce, with an absent pretext of criminality, is assumed to be the rightful legal owner.” 

DESIRES TO SEE THE LEGAL CONTEXT OF THE FOLLOWING REVIEWED

Section I Article I of the The Newly changed Charter of New Providence:

2.Any man of clerical stock has the right to be tried. 

May no one lay judgment onto a cleric unless of the same or higher rank and privilege.

2B.May no one trial a cleric on the precepts of faith other than the cleric’s home institution

ON THE BASIS OF THE FOLLOWING PRINCIPLE(S), DOCTRINE(S), EDICT(S) OR ARTICLES OF LAW:

THE RIGHT TO TRIAL, so no man will ever be wrongly accused when not charged by a trial of their peers

DESIRES TO SEE THE LEGAL CONTEXT OF THE FOLLOWING REVIEWED

Section I Article I of the The Newly changed Charter of New Providence:

3..Any man of patrician stock has the right to carry out Private Law against another man.

3B.May neither the state nor the church intervene in a matter of Private Law.

3C.May the matter of Private Law stay between two individuals, and not their families lest it become public.

 ON THE BASIS OF THE FOLLOWING PRINCIPLE(S), DOCTRINE(S), EDICT(S) OR ARTICLES OF LAW:

THE RIGHT TO TRIAL, so no man will ever be wrongly accused when not charged by a trial of their peers

DESIRES TO SEE THE LEGAL CONTEXT OF THE FOLLOWING REVIEWED

Section I Article I of the The Newly changed Charter of New Providence:

4. VI. The City Clerk has been instructed to pay wages, pay for supplies, and pay for the arms of any militia raised from municipal coffers.

ON THE BASIS OF THE FOLLOWING PRINCIPLE(S), DOCTRINE(S), EDICT(S) OR ARTICLES OF LAW:

204.014 - On Unauthorized Military Organizations 

204.014A - When an individual intentionally or negligently operates as a part of an organization that meets the definition of a private military organization and is operating under an expired authorization, this shall be an Unauthorized Military Organization in the second degree, an infraction.

 204.014B - When an individual intentionally or negligently operates as a part of an organization that meets the definition of a private military organization and has not received proper authorization, this shall be an Unauthorized Military Organization in the first degree, a misdemeanor. 

1. it's clearly stated in ORC that game that’s is on another person's private land belongs to that person, and under no other right does anyone have the right to hunt set game as it does not belong to them nor the wild

 2.It is clear by the right of man that every man within the empire has the right to be trialed, no one expect the crown itself falls out of that right, thus hindering a group of subjects from trial goes against the very nature of law and this empire

 3.It is clear by the right of man that every man within the empire has the right to be trialed, no one expect the crown itself falls out of that right, thus every trial goes to the court of law may it be local or national, for switch a ruling must be passed by either magistrate or C.C Judge and added to records

 4..It is clear by national that no private military group may be formed without consent from the crown, however the charter hereby allows such a military group to be formed and even armed by behest of Lord Mayor which goes against national law

My party seeks the offending article stricken from the local law on the grounds of unconstitutionality and it goes against national law. And the new charter is to be rolled back until properly checked for further issues before getting resubmitted for voting

YOURS HUMBLY,

Komnenos At Law

The Crown v. Ed

15 of First seed, 1846

THE CROWN,

Represented by Jarad Munnel of the MINISTRY OF JUSTICE,

DESIRES TO SUMMON THE FOLLOWING PARTY TO COURT;

Ed Micheal Myers

ON THE BASIS OF THE FOLLOWING PRINCIPLE(S), DOCTRINE(S), EDICT(S) OR ARTICLES OF LAW:

207.05A - Where an individual intentionally and deliberately hinders or interrupts the common peace by embellished performance or immoral behavior, this shall be the crime of disturbing the peace, an infraction. 

Oren Revised Code, CH207.5'Disturbing the Peace'

was going on racist rants infront of the diet building after having been ordered to stop multiple times, it seems as if he was trying to incite a riot or violence

WITH THE PRESENCE OF THE FOLLOWING RELEVANT PARTY OR PARTIES:

James Mealstorm

ON THE DESIRED DATE OF:

PENDING DISCUSSION WITH DEFENDANT

YOURS HUMBLY,

Jarad Munnel on behalf of THE CROWN,

MINISTRY OF JUSTICE, BASRID CIRCLE COURTHOUSE, PROVIDENCE

Joshua#2340

The Crown v. Darkwood

20th of Malin’s Welcome, 1845

THE CROWN,

Represented by Jarad Munnel of the MINISTRY OF JUSTICE,

DESIRES TO SUMMON THE FOLLOWING PARTY TO COURT;

William Darkwood

ON THE BASIS OF THE FOLLOWING PRINCIPLE(S), DOCTRINE(S), EDICT(S) OR ARTICLES OF LAW:

202.04A - Where an individual intentionally commits such an act of violence upon another which brings about their death, with no premeditation, this shall be a murder in the second degree, a felony. 

202.02B - Where an individual intentionally commits upon another an unlawful act of violence which brings about lasting but not permanent injury, incapacitates for any length of time, or utilizes a dangerous weapon, this shall be battery of the second degree, a misdemeanor.

207.05A - Where an individual intentionally and deliberately hinders or interrupts the common peace by embellished performance or immoral behavior, this shall be the crime of disturbing the peace, an infraction.

209.03A - Where an individual actively attempts, but fails to commit, a crime, the individual shall be held liable with a mitigated punishment according to the crime which was attempted. 

Oren Revised Code, CH207.5‘Disturbing the Peace’

Oren Revised Code, CH202.02’Battery’

Oren Revised Code, CH202.04’Murder’

Oren Revised Code, CH209.03’On Attempt’

William Darkwood stabbed Charles Darkwood with an attempt to take his life and would have done so if not for the help of a medic who managed to save his life. William Darkwood also knocked Gerret Darkwood unconscious and made threats to kill a couple next time he saw them. 

WITH THE PRESENCE OF THE FOLLOWING RELEVANT PARTY OR PARTIES:

SER REINHARDT BARCLAY

Charles Darkwood

Garret Darkwood

ON THE DESIRED DATE OF:

PENDING DISCUSSION WITH DEFENDANT

YOURS HUMBLY,

Jarad Munnel on behalf of THE CROWN,

MINISTRY OF JUSTICE, BASRID CIRCLE COURTHOUSE, PROVIDENCE

[Joshua#2340]

6 of Sun's Smile, 1846

THE CROWN,

Represented by Jarad Munnel of the MINISTRY OF JUSTICE,

DESIRES TO SUMMON THE FOLLOWING PARTY TO COURT;

Shobolan

ON THE BASIS OF THE FOLLOWING PRINCIPLE(S), DOCTRINE(S), EDICT(S) OR ARTICLES OF LAW:

202.01A - Where an individual intentionally makes an unlawful attempt, coupled with a present ability, to commit a violent injury on the person of another, this shall be assault, a misdemeanor. 

202.02A - Where an individual intentionally commits upon another an unlawful act of violence which brings about no incapacitation or lasting injury, this shall be battery of the third degree, an infraction. 

206.01A - Where an individual intentionally and deliberately dresses in an immoral or obscene fashion, usually in a sexual manner, this shall be the crime of indecency, an infraction. 

202.08C - Where an individual disseminates false information about an individual, with intent to harm the reputation of that individual, in a public space or by distribution of printed materials, this shall be defamation in the first degree, a misdemeanor.

206.03A - Where an individual intentionally acts in unusual or unaccepted standards, especially in social or political behavior, this shall be the crime of deviancy, an infraction. 

207.05A - Where an individual intentionally and deliberately hinders or interrupts the common peace by embellished performance or immoral behavior, this shall be the crime of disturbing the peace, an infraction. 

204.03A - Where an individual intention to bring into hatred or contempt, or to incite disaffection against the person of His Majesty, his heirs or successors, or the government and constitution of the Holy Orenian Empire, as by law established, or the Imperial Diet, or the administration of justice, or to excite His Majesty's subjects to attempt otherwise than by lawful means, the alteration of any matter in Church or State by law established, or to incite any person to commit any crime in disturbance of the peace, or to raise discontent or disaffection amongst His Majesty's subjects, or to promote feelings of ill-will and hostility between different classes of such subjects, this shall be the crime of sedition, charged with the crime of treason.

Oren Revised Code, CH207.5'Disturbing the Peace'

Oren Revised Code, CH202.02'Battery'

Oren Revised Code, CH202.1'Assult'

Oren Revised Code, CH206.01'Indecency'

Oren Revised Code, CH202.08'Defamation'

Oren Revised Code, CH206.03'Deviancy'

Oren Revised Code, CH204.03'Sedition'

Resisted arrest after having thrown a potato, reinjured an isa officer, showed his *** in public, refused lawful orders to stop, slandered the Isa in the public in an attempt to harm there reputation to the public and screaming at oren citizens disturbing the peace.

WITH THE PRESENCE OF THE FOLLOWING RELEVANT PARTY OR PARTIES:

Duncan Vuiller

James Maelstorm

ON THE DESIRED DATE OF:

PENDING DISCUSSION WITH DEFENDANT

YOURS HUMBLY,

Jarad Munnel on behalf of THE CROWN,

MINISTRY OF JUSTICE, BASRID CIRCLE COURTHOUSE, PROVIDENCE

Joshua#2340

AZGRUL, represented by SIR CHARLES GALBRAITH and FATHER STOR VUILLER, does hereby file a

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF UNLAWFUL IMPRISONMENT

I. LEGAL BASIS

Pursuant to Section II of the Wrongful Imprisonment Act (1794):

"210.110 - A petition for a writ of unlawful imprisonment can be filed by or on behalf of a person in custody to the Central Circuit Court to dispute the legal basis for confinement.

210.111 - If the petition is accepted, the Central Circuit court will hold a hearing on the matter, where the person in custody and the Crown prosecution can both present evidence about a lawful basis for jailing the person. "

II. PARTICULAR SITUATION

Our client, Azgrul, has just been arrested by the Imperial State Army and is currently held in custody in the Bastion. 

Our client claims that he was discharged by Captain Vladrick Ruthern, a Captain of the Imperial State Army and that, as such, he is not subject to the Lex Kaedreni and cannot be Court Martialled.

Our client claims that, instead, he deserves to be tried before an Imperial Court of Law in accordance with the Lex Criminalis with all the rights inherent to the Right to Trial consacrated in the Nenzing Proclamation.

Our client claims that, considering that he is not a soldier and he is only subject to the Lex Criminalis like any other citizen, only the Ministry of Justice can file criminal charges on behalf of the Crown against him, which is something that has not happened yet.

III. PETITION TO THE COURT

For all the reasons mentioned above:

- We ask the Court to declare that the imprisonment of Azgrul has been unlawful and, as such, null and void. In consequence, we ask for his immediate release in that scenario.

IV. APPLICATION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

- We ask the Court to immediately release Azgrul from the ISA Bastion, pending the outcome of the litigation of this Petition for a Writ of Unlawful Imprisonment, on the basis that not accepting this injunctive relief would cause an irreparable damage to our client, as he is about to be Court Martialled and, if found guilty, executed immediately by the Imperial State Army.

Signed,

Sir Charles Galbraith

Father Stor Vuiller

THE CROWN v. COOPER

3rd of Harren's Folley, 1836

THE CROWN,

Represented by THUCYDIDES MELPHESTAUS of the MINISTRY OF JUSTICE,

DESIRES TO SUMMON THE FOLLOWING PARTY TO COURT;

ARLO COOPER

ON THE BASIS OF THE FOLLOWING PRINCIPLE(S), DOCTRINE(S), EDICT(S) OR ARTICLES OF LAW:

202.01A- Where an individual intentionally makes an unlawful attempt, coupled with a present ability, to commit a violent injury on the person of another, this shall be assault, a misdemeanor.

202.02A- Where an individual intentionally commits upon another an unlawful act of violence which brings about no incapacitation or lasting injury, this shall be battery of the third degree, an infraction.

209.03A- Where an individual actively attempts, but fails to commit, a crime, the individual shall be held liable with a mitigated punishment according to the crime which was attempted.

202.04B- Where an individual intentionally and with premeditation causes the death of another, this shall be murder in the first degree, a felony.

Oren Revised Code, CH202.02‘On Battery’

Oren Revised Code, CH202.04‘On Murder’

Oren Revised Code, CH209.03‘On Attempt’

ARLO COOPER ATTEMPTED TO CHOKE AND ATTACK FATHER BASIL WITH THAT OF A KNIFE, ATTEMPTING TO TAKE HIS LIFE.

WITH THE PRESENCE OF THE FOLLOWING RELEVANT PARTY OR PARTIES:

FATHER BASIL

MOTHER GUILIA

SISTER AUGUSTINE

ON THE DESIRED DATE OF:

PENDING DISCUSSION WITH DEFENDANT

YOURS HUMBLY,

THUCYDIDES MELPHESTAUS on behalf of THE CROWN,

MINISTRY OF JUSTICE, BASRID CIRCLE COURTHOUSE, PROVIDENCE

Salve#3641

APPEAL: THE CROWN V. TSECSAR

6th of Sun’s Smile, 1833

THE DAME, 

Represented by HENRIK KOMNENOS of the KOMNENOS AT LAW,

DESIRES TO APPEAL THE FOLLOWING RULING;

Ruling on the Crown v. Tsecsar

ON THE GROUNDS OF THE FOLLOWING PRINCIPLE(S), DOCTRINE(S), EDICT(S) OR ARTICLES OF LAW:

-MISTRAL:

The Dame, represented through Komnenos at law, does hereby file an Appeal against the Ruling on The Crown v. Tsecsar before the Supreme Court of the Holy Orenian Empire, on the basis of mistrial.

Firstly, it is the opinion of Komnenos at law and its client that the declaration of this Ruling made by the presiding Judge of this case was wholly illegal, as the charges brought forward were mislabeled, the punishment was wrongly issued, and there was no formal submission of evidence given to the lawyer of the Dame, as the law dictates during the Swift Justice Act and no opportunity for the defence to ever respond to the prosecution's wildly incorrect allegations regarding the evidence. And the Chief Justice had no legal right to enter the lower courts.  

Furthermore, it is the opinion of Komnenos at Law that the presiding Judge did not follow the Trial Procedure, as the presiding judge was in fact the chief justice, a member of the supreme court; it is not allowed by law for the Supreme Court to preside over the lower courts.

Also, Komnenos at law wishes to question the reason for why the victim himself was never brought up as a witness. The victim, Konstantin Baruch, was the main reason for the charges brought forward by the Crown.

The crown sought to press charges against the Damel

• 202.05B - Where an individual intentionally or negligently commits such an act as to bring about the crippling disfigurement of another, or the removal of multiple digits, this shall be mayhem in the second degree, a felony. 

• 202.02B - Where an individual intentionally commits upon another an unlawful act of violence which brings about lasting but not permanent injury, incapacitates for any length of time, or utilizes a dangerous weapon, this shall be battery of the second degree, a misdemeanor.

The chief justice issued the verdict:

Dame Viktoriya Tsecsar (henceforth; the defendant), is found guilty on the felony charge of mayhem in the second degree (205.05B), but found not guilty on the misdemeanor charge of battery in the second degree (202.02B) under the premise that evidence does not provide reason to believe that this act was intentional.

However, she was found guilty on mayhem in the second degree but was punished with first degree, which holds life time banishment but second degree does not, as seen here:

 201.03 - Of the offenses enumerated herein, each is classified according to its degree, of

which there exist three, and upon which culpability and just punishment shall be evaluated.

The applicable sanction for each crime and degree of injury are recorded within Title I. These degrees are:

201.03A - The third degree offense, of the least severity.

201.03B - The second degree offense, of middling severity.

201.03C - The first degree offense, of the greatest severity.

201.04C - Felonies, of great severity, include the appropriated sentences: monetary fine

up to fifty thousand mina, disbarring from public office for up to a lifetime,

confinement to prison for up to a lifetime, banishment up to a lifetime, conscription up

to a lifetime, designated service to faith up to a lifetime, flogging up to sixty lashes,

birching up to sixty lashes, pillory up to three hours, branding by hot iron on a limb,

chest, buttocks, or face, execution by hanging.

Komnenos at law also wishes to state that based on the law,

202.05 - On Mayhem

202.05A - Where an individual intentionally or negligently commits such an act as to

bring about the superficial disfigurement of another, or the removal of a single digit,

this shall be mayhem in the third degree, a misdemeanor.

202.05B - Where an individual intentionally or negligently commits such an act as to

bring about the crippling disfigurement of another, or the removal of multiple digits,

this shall be mayhem in the second degree, a felony.

202.05C - Where an individual intentionally or negligently commits such an act as to

bring about the dismemberment of another, the destruction of an eye, castration, or

other irreparable loss of an appendage or organ, this shall be mayhem in the first

degree, a felony.

the Dame was issued the wrong punishment.
However as it has been proven by letters between the Dame and the family of Lord Baruch,

that he was in fact not hit with any of the tropes that would state it should be in the second degree. It should have been in the third degree, meaning a misdemeanor, which means that the banishment of the Dame shouldn't even have happened in the first place.

-LEGAL ERRORS IN THE CHIEF JUSTICE’S DECISION IN SUMMARY:

• The Dame was punished with a first degree felony where it should have been a third degree.

•  The Chief Justice had no legal right to lower himself to the lower courts and handle this case.
  
   

IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE THE FOLLOWING:

-Komnenos at Law, on behalf of the Dame does hereby ask the Supreme Court to overturn the Ruling on the Crown v. Tsecsar and to declare and order that the Dame’s life time is banishment lifted and is welcome back into the Empire, and that the Chief Justice himself
offers a written Amende Honorable as a form of compensation to the Dame.

YOURS HUMBLY,

Henrik Komnenos on behalf of KOMNENOS AT LAW,

KOMNENOS AT LAW, PROVIDENCE

[[KamikazeReaper#6108]]

`

The Crown v. Cooper

6th of Harren’s Folley, 1831

THE CROWN,

Represented by Odette Sophia de Rendois of the MINISTRY OF JUSTICE,

DESIRES TO SUMMON THE FOLLOWING PARTY TO COURT;

Arlo Cooper

ON THE BASIS OF THE FOLLOWING PRINCIPLE(S), DOCTRINE(S), EDICT(S) OR ARTICLES OF LAW:

202.01 - On Assault 

202.01A - Where an individual intentionally makes an unlawful attempt, coupled with a present ability, to commit a violent injury on the person of another, this shall be assault, a misdemeanor. 

202.02 - On Battery 

202.02A - Where an individual intentionally commits upon another an unlawful act of violence which brings about no incapacitation or lasting injury, this shall be battery of the third degree, an infraction. 

209.03 - On Attempt

209.03A - Where an individual actively attempts, but fails to commit, a crime, the individual shall be held liable with a mitigated punishment according to the crime which was attempted. 

202.04 - On Murder 

202.04B - Where an individual intentionally and with premeditation causes the death of another, this shall be murder in the first degree, a felony. 

Oren Revised Code, CH202.01 ‘On Assault’, CH202.02 ‘On Battery’, 209.03 ‘On Attempt’ and CH202.04 ‘On Murder’

The Crown, through the Ministry of Justice, wishes to pursue legal action against Arlo Cooper and therefore he be presented on trial for the crimes listed in this subpoena.

Arlo Cooper has been alleged of trying to choke the defendant, Father Basil, with the intent to swipe at the victims throat with a dagger  in the confession booth of The Abbey of St. Catherine in Providence. 

WITH THE PRESENCE OF THE FOLLOWING RELEVANT PARTY OR PARTIES:

Father Basil

Mother Guilia

Sister Augustine

ON THE DESIRED DATE OF:

[PENDING DISCUSSION WITH DEFENDANT]

YOURS HUMBLY,

Odette Sophia de Rendois  on behalf of  THE CROWN,

MINISTRY OF JUSTICE, PROVIDENCE

[spiritedaway#6673]

The Crown v. Khan

21 of Godfrey’s Triumph, 1830

THE CROWN,

Represented by Aurora of the MINISTRY OF JUSTICE,

DESIRES TO SUMMON THE FOLLOWING PARTY TO COURT;

Khan

ON THE BASIS OF THE FOLLOWING PRINCIPLE(S), DOCTRINE(S), EDICT(S) OR ARTICLES OF LAW:

202.04A - Where an individual intentionally commits such an act of violence upon another which brings about their death, with no premeditation, this shall be a murder in the second degree, a felony. 

203.04A - Where an individual intentionally deprives an owner of his moveable property through violence or threat of violence, this shall be robbery, a felony. 

Oren Revised Code, 202.04A, 203.04A

The Crown, through the Ministry of Justice, wishes to pursue legal action against Khan and therefore he be presented on trial for the crimes listed in this subpoena.

WITH THE PRESENCE OF THE FOLLOWING RELEVANT PARTY OR PARTIES:

Hieran
Legolas Neldor

 

ON THE DESIRED DATE OF:

DATE/PENDING DISCUSSION WITH DEFENDANT

YOURS HUMBLY,

Aurora  on behalf of THE CROWN,

MINISTRY OF JUSTICE, PROVIDENCE

[FANG]AuroraPolaris#5932

`

The Crown v. Kia’Sei

2nd of Harren’s Folley, 1831

THE CROWN,

Represented by Odette Sophia de Rendois of the MINISTRY OF JUSTICE,

DESIRES TO SUMMON THE FOLLOWING PARTY TO COURT;

Kia’Sei

ON THE BASIS OF THE FOLLOWING PRINCIPLE(S), DOCTRINE(S), EDICT(S) OR ARTICLES OF LAW:

202.03 - On Manslaughter 

202.03A - Where an individual in the commission of an unlawful act, not amounting to a felony; or in the commission of a lawful act which might produce death, in an unlawful manner, or without due caution, this shall be involuntary manslaughter, a misdemeanor.

202.01 - On Assault 

202.01A - Where an individual intentionally makes an unlawful attempt, coupled with a present ability, to commit a violent injury on the person of another, this shall be assault, a misdemeanor. 

209.03 - On Attempt 

209.03A - Where an individual actively attempts, but fails to commit, a crime, the individual shall be held liable with a mitigated punishment according to the crime which was attempted. 

Oren Revised Code, CH202.01 ‘On Assault’, CH202.03 ‘On Manslaughter’ and 209.03 ‘On Attempt’

The Crown, through the Ministry of Justice, wishes to pursue legal action against Kia’Sei and therefore he be presented on trial for the crimes listed in this subpoena.

WITH THE PRESENCE OF THE FOLLOWING RELEVANT PARTY OR PARTIES:

Bal

ON THE DESIRED DATE OF:

[PENDING DISCUSSION WITH DEFENDANT]

YOURS HUMBLY,

Odette Sophia de Rendois  on behalf of THE CROWN,

MINISTRY OF JUSTICE,  PROVIDENCE

[spiritedaway#6673]

KOMNENOS v. VITO

3rd of Sun’s Smile, 1831

The Plaintiff HENRIK KOMNENOS

Represented by PRO SE LITIGANT, of KOMNENOS AT LAW.,

DESIRES TO SUMMON THE FOLLOWING PARTY TO COURT;

VITO

ON THE BASIS OF THE FOLLOWING PRINCIPLE(S), DOCTRINE(S), EDICT(S) OR ARTICLES OF LAW:

 207.04 - On Vigilantism

207.04A - Where an individual intentionally apprehends, convicts, or punishes

another individual of a crime but is not an agent of the law or given permission by

the Imperial Office, this shall be the crime of vigilantism, a misdemeanor.

207.05 - On Disturbing the Peace

207.05A - Where an individual intentionally and deliberately hinders or interrupts

the common peace by embellished performance or immoral behavior, this shall be

the crime of disturbing the peace, an infraction.

CH 207 - On Injury against Order

203.06 - On Vandalism

203.06A - Where an individual intentionally or negligently damages or defaces the

property of another, and this damage is of small or moderate amounts, this shall be

vandalism in the second degree, an infraction.

CH 203 - On Injury against Property

202.08 - On Defamation

202.08B - Where an individual disseminates false information about an individual,

with intent to harm the reputation of that individual, this shall be defamation in the

second degree, an infraction.

202.01 - On Assault

202.01A - Where an individual intentionally makes an unlawful attempt, coupled

with a present ability, to commit a violent injury on the person of another, this shall

be assault, a misdemeanor.

CH 202 - Injury against the Person

204.010 - On Perjury

204.010A - Where an individual intentionally misleads, deceives, or withholds

pertinent information from an interrogating agent of the law, this shall be perjury in

the second degree, a misdemeanor.

CH 204 - On Injury against the State

The Plaintiff, Henrik Komnenos, henceforth referred to as the Plaintiff [alternatively Mr. Komnenos], as represented by Henrik Komnenos, henceforth referred to as Mr. Komnenos, Solicitor of Komnenos at law., has suffered multiple injuries and damages in relation to the events of the following document. It has been seen fit by the Plaintiff, as counseled and represented by Mr. Komnenos, to sue the Defendant, Vito, henceforth referred to as the Defendant for the injuries caused through the legal breachment of the above denoted articles of law, as presented within the Orenian Revised Code, henceforth referred to as the ORC; therein the Plaintiff, as represented by Mr. Komnenos  presents the following affidavit to the Circuit Court and the Defendant as an explanation of the charges presented within this document. 

The Plaintiff, as represented by Henrik Komnenos, claims that during one day he were just sitting in office located within The Victory Pub, which lays in the basement level of the NGS building it is there  the Defendant along with an ISA officer Jacker had entered The Victory Pub, the defendant then first knocks once on the office door before shortly starting to kick down the door, upon that The Plaintiff, Henrik Komnenos, opened both of his doors

to react to the ordeal happening within his pub upon opening the doors he was meet with the defendant whom then pointed out The Plaintiff, Henrik Komnenos to Officer Jacker
The defendant along with ISA officer Jacker then accused The Plaintiff, Henrik Komnenos of being a drug dealer based on the words of the defendant only. Which after an debate about the ordeal lead to an minor forceful pat down of The Plaintiff, Henrik Komnenos and an raid lead by the ISA and the MoJ upon The Victory Pub, looking for the so called drugs for which the The Plaintiff, Henrik Komnenos supposedly should had tried to sell the defendant, which came up with nothing. a few saint days later the defendant walked up to The Plaintiff, Henrik Komnenos while he was attending his locally small time business, an minor heated debate happened leading to the defendant first knocking The Plaintiff, Henrik Komnenos cane away

then leading to the defendant striking The Plaintiff, Henrik Komnenos

AS A RESULT OF SUCH, THE PLAINTIFF WISHES: 

It is the opinion of the Plaintiff, as represented by Mr. Komnenos, that the damages caused within the events described in the above paragraphs shall be returned in form of monetary remittance, as determined by the Judge presiding over the case, as well as a document, noted within the final verdict of the Court, which offers a written amende honorable, as a form of compensation to the multiple injuries, which will be listed beneath this section, and a restraining order against the defendant cannot be within 30 meters of the The Plaintiff, Henrik Komnenos and cannot be within 15 meters of any Komnenos Enterprise owned or supported businesses or holdings

The Plaintiff, as represented by Komnenos, has suffered the following injuries or damages, in reference to the initial confrontation between the parties, as well as the scenario which followed: 

(i) The Plaintiff has been publicly compromised (Social Damage)

(ii) The Plaintiff has been threatened with Court trial, which could result in heavy damages to The Plaintiff’s business ventures (Social and Financial Damage) 

WITH THE PRESENCE OF THE FOLLOWING RELEVANT PARTY OR PARTIES:

PATRICK O’ROUKE

ON THE DESIRED DATE OF:

[[DATE OF TRIAL / PENDING DISCUSSION WITH DEFENDANT]

YOURS HUMBLY,

PRO SE LITIGANT on behalf of HENRIK KOMNENOS,

KOMNENOS AT LAW., PROVIDENCE

[[KamikazeReaper#6108]]

`

The Crown v. John Rosewood

1st of Owyns Flame, 1829

THE CROWN,

Represented by Joseph Warrick of the MINISTRY OF JUSTICE,

DESIRES TO SUMMON THE FOLLOWING PARTY TO COURT;

John Rosewood

ON THE BASIS OF THE FOLLOWING PRINCIPLE(S), DOCTRINE(S), EDICT(S) OR ARTICLES OF LAW:

Burglary 203.02B - Where an individual unlawfully enters an inhabited property, this shall be burglary in the first degree, a felony. 

Oren Revised Code, CH203.02B ‘Burglary’

The Crown, through the Ministry of Justice, wishes to pursue legal action against John Rosewood and therefore he be presented on trial for the crimes listed in this subpoena.

WITH THE PRESENCE OF THE FOLLOWING RELEVANT PARTY OR PARTIES:

Legolas Neldor

Sir Edwin De Henry De Sarkozy

ON THE DESIRED DATE OF:

PENDING DISCUSSION WITH DEFENDANT

YOURS HUMBLY,

Joseph Warrick on behalf of THE CROWN,

MINISTRY OF JUSTICE, BASRID CIRCLE COURTHOUSE, PROVIDENCE

MrTurtleGod#2648

`

The Crown v. Yusuf
2nd of Tobias’s Bounty, 1829

THE CROWN,

Represented by Aurora of the MINISTRY OF JUSTICE,

DESIRES TO SUMMON THE FOLLOWING PARTY TO COURT;

Kartal Yusuf

ON THE BASIS OF THE FOLLOWING PRINCIPLE(S), DOCTRINE(S), EDICT(S) OR ARTICLES OF LAW:

Burglary 203.02B - Where an individual unlawfully enters an inhabited property, this shall be burglary in the first degree, a felony. 

Oren Revised Code, CH203.02B ‘Burglary’

The Crown, through the Ministry of Justice, wishes to pursue legal action against Kartal Yusuf and therefore he be presented on trial for the crimes listed in this subpoena.

WITH THE PRESENCE OF THE FOLLOWING RELEVANT PARTY OR PARTIES:

Octavia De Sarkozy
Borys Jazloveiki

ON THE DESIRED DATE OF:

DATE/PENDING DISCUSSION WITH DEFENDANT

YOURS HUMBLY,

Aurora  on behalf of THE CROWN,

MINISTRY OF JUSTICE, PROVIDENCE

[FANG]AuroraBorealis#5932

COOPER v. IRWYS

22nd of Harren’s Folley, 1827

The Plaintiff ARLO COOPER,

Represented by DEMITRIYUS WILLIAM AUBERT of AUBERT LEGAL CO.,

With co-counsel GWYNEVERE COLBORN of AUBERT LEGAL CO.,

DESIRES TO SUMMON THE FOLLOWING PARTY TO COURT;

                TINNIAN IRWYS

ON THE BASIS OF THE FOLLOWING PRINCIPLE(S), DOCTRINE(S), EDICT(S) OR ARTICLES OF LAW:

206.03A - Where an individual intentionally acts in unusual or unaccepted standards, especially in social or political behavior, this shall be the crime of deviancy, an infraction. 

Orenian Revised Code, CH206 ‘On Injury against Morality’

207.05A - Where an individual intentionally and deliberately hinders or interrupts the common peace by embellished performance or immoral behavior, this shall be the crime of disturbing the peace, an infraction. 

Orenian Revised Code, CH207 ‘On Injury against Order’

209.02A - Where an individual intentionally incites or encourages another individual into committing a crime, this shall be the crime of incitement, and is subject to the same class of punishment of the crime which incitement is caused for. 

Orenian Revised Code, CH209 ‘On Inchoate Offenses’

(i) An Imperial subject may submit a Petition for Summons to the Court to summon another entity with legal personality, including governmental agencies of the Crown but not the Crown itself, on civil charges;

(iA) All civil charges shall be based within the three civil damages, wherein one of the three is required to be present within the civil charges, these damages shall be;

(iAiii) Social Damages, to the reputation and standing of the individual;

(iB) All laws of the Orenian Revised Code are allowed to be pursued within a civil case, including those of Lex Criminalis, are one of the three damages present within the charges presented; 

Orenian Revised Code, CH614 ‘Legal Procedure Act’

    The Plaintiff, Arlo Cooper, henceforth referred to as the Plaintiff [alternatively Mr. Cooper], as represented by Demitriyus W. Aubert, henceforth referred to as Mr. Aubert, Solicitor of Aubert Legal Co., has recently suffered multiple injuries and damages in relation to the events of the following document. It has been seen fit by the Plaintiff, as counseled and represented by Mr. Aubert, to sue the Defendant, Tinnian Irwys, henceforth referred to as the Defendant [alternatively Miss Irwys] for the injuries caused through the legal breachment of the above denoted articles of law, as presented within the Orenian Revised Code, henceforth referred to as the ORC; therein the Plaintiff, as represented by Mr. Aubert, presents the following affidavit to the Circuit Court and the Defendant as an explanation of the charges presented within this document. 

    The Plaintiff, as represented by Demitriyus W. Aubert, claims to have strolled into the Novellen, which is clarified as the center tavern of the Providence District, wherein the Defendant had been within discussion with other individuals of the denoted tavern. The Defendant is seen to have been, in methods of incitement, gawking directly towards the Plaintiff in which the Plaintiff had queried as to the reason for this noticeable stare. In return, the Defendant insulted and thereafter smirked towards the Plaintiff in a similar mannerism of incitement as denoted within the above section. 

    Whereas, the Plaintiff, as represented by Demitriyus W. Aubert, recognizes for his own misdeeds within the confrontation with one another, as well as the Plaintiff belief that such action should be denoted within the discussion of the verdict from the honourable judge on this case; it is the belief of the Plaintiff that the incitement utilised from the Defendant, as well as the methods found to disturb the current calm within the tavern, not to mention the unacceptable social standard utilised in the situation, and the lack of attention which the Ministry of Justice has denoted towards the Defendant, that this case deserves to the reach the Circuit Courts as to show the nature and effects of civil rights and civil laws within our Imperial lands.  

AS A RESULT OF SUCH, THE PLAINTIFF WISHES: 

It is the opinion of the Plaintiff, as represented by Mr. Aubert, that the damages caused within the events described in the above paragraphs shall be returned in form of monetary remittance, as determined by the Judge presiding over the case, as well as a document, noted within the final verdict of the Court, which offers a written amende honorable, as a form of compensation to the multiple injuries, which will be listed beneath this section, caused to the Plaintiff. 

The Plaintiff, as represented by Demitriyus W. Aubert, has suffered the following injuries or damages, in reference to the initial confrontation between the parties, as well as the scenario which followed: 

(i) The Plaintiff has been publicly compromised (Social Damage)

(ii) The Plaintiff has been threatened with Court Martial, which results in dischargement from the Imperial State Army (Social and Financial Damage) 

WITH THE PRESENCE OF THE FOLLOWING RELEVANT PARTY OR PARTIES:

    DAME VIKTORIYA I

    EDWIN DE SARKOZY

    ADRIAN DE SARKOZY

    ON THE DESIRED DATE OF:

    [[DATE OF TRIAL / PENDING DISCUSSION WITH DEFENDANT]

YOURS HUMBLY,

    DEMITRIYUS W. AUBERT on behalf of ARLO COOPER,

    AUBERT LEGAL CO., PROVIDENCE & KAROSGRAD

    [[MCVDK#9258]]

YOURS HUMBLY,

    GWYNEVERE COLBORN on behalf of ARLO COOPER,

    AUBERT LEGAL CO., PROVIDENCE & KAROSGRAD

    [[Rae#3015]]

The Crown v. Nina and Mark

12th of Sigismund’s End, 1826

THE CROWN,

Represented by Attorney-General George Hartcold-Rourke of the MINISTRY OF JUSTICE,

DESIRES TO SUMMON THE FOLLOWING PARTY TO COURT;

Mark

Nina

ON THE BASIS OF THE FOLLOWING PRINCIPLE(S), DOCTRINE(S), EDICT(S) OR ARTICLES OF LAW:

202.02 - On Battery - 202.02B - Where an individual intentionally commits upon another an unlawful act of violence which brings about lasting but not permanent injury, incapacitates for any length of time, or utilizes a dangerous weapon, this shall be battery of the second degree, a misdemeanor.

205.01 - On Blasphemy - 205.01A - Where an individual intentionally speaks sacrilegiously or in contrary to the teachings or dogma of God or the heavens, this shall be the crime of blasphemy, a misdemeanor.

205.04 - On Atheism - 205.04A - Where an individual intentionally rejects the existence of God or the heavens, this shall be the crime of atheism, a misdemeanor.

Nina began preaching against the Canonist faith, calling God "not real," and a murderer.  A crowd grew around her blasphemy. James Madron attempted to arrest her, and she escaped him by throwing a potato at his face, which fractured his nose. He thereafter left to recover.  Mark entered at this point, claiming they were exiting in an attempt to elude arrest. Aleksi arrests Nina anyway, and in retaliation, Mark (a self proclaimed atheist) threatens Edwin de Sarkozy with an axe. They were both detained, despite the intention to attempt assault, or even murder.

WITH THE PRESENCE OF THE FOLLOWING RELEVANT PARTY OR PARTIES:

Elisabeth Halcourt

Joseph d'Arkent

Aleksi Raven

Edwin Sarkozy

Fa’dul

ON THE DESIRED DATE OF:

[[DATE OF TRIAL / PENDING DISCUSSION WITH DEFENDANT]

YOURS HUMBLY,

Attorney-General George Hartcold-Rourke on behalf of THE CROWN,

MINISTRY OF JUSTICE

Kaiser Jacob II#1965

THE CROWN V. CARRION AND DE ROSIER

12th of Harren’s Folly, 1826

THE CROWN,

Represented by ROBERT BOURDON of the MINISTRY OF JUSTICE,

DESIRES TO SUMMON THE FOLLOWING PARTY TO COURT;

ARTEM CARRION

GISELLE DE ROSIER

ON THE BASIS OF THE FOLLOWING PRINCIPLE(S), DOCTRINE(S), EDICT(S) OR ARTICLES OF LAW:

-CHARGES AGAINST ARTEM CARRION:

202.04 - On Attempted Murder - 202.04B - Where an individual intentionally and with premeditation causes the death of another, this shall be murder in the first degree, a felony.

202.04A - Where an individual intentionally commits such an act of violence upon another which brings about their death, with no premeditation, this shall be a murder in the second degree, a felony.

209.03A - Where an individual actively attempts, but fails to commit, a crime, the individual shall be held liable with a mitigated punishment according to the crime which was attempted.

204.05 - On Obstruction - 204.05A - Where an individual interferes with, obstructs the progress of, or otherwise hinders government officials and prosecutors during the apprehension or investigation of a criminal or criminal activity, this shall be the crime of obstruction in the first degree, an infraction.

-CHARGES AGAINST GISELLE DE ROSIER:

202.04 - Criminal Association On Attempted Murder - 202.04B - Where an individual intentionally and with premeditation causes the death of another, this shall be murder in the first degree, a felony.

202.04A - Where an individual intentionally commits such an act of violence upon another which brings about their death, with no premeditation, this shall be a murder in the second degree, a felony.

209.03A - Where an individual actively attempts, but fails to commit, a crime, the individual shall be held liable with a mitigated punishment according to the crime which was attempted.

404.01A - Where an individual maintains personal connections or relationships with an offender or enemy entity and is deemed to have aided or abated an offense. The individual shall be held liable with a mitigated punishment according to the crime which was committed.

204.05 - Criminal Association On Obstruction - 204.05A - Where an individual interferes with, obstructs the progress of, or otherwise hinders government officials and prosecutors during the apprehension or investigation of a criminal or criminal activity, this shall be the crime of obstruction in the first degree, an infraction.

404.01A - Where an individual maintains personal connections or relationships with an offender or enemy entity and is deemed to have aided or abated an offense. The individual shall be held liable with a mitigated punishment according to the crime which was committed.

PERPETRATORS OF THE CRIME:

Father Artem Carrion, henceforth described as the defendant, is suspected as the perpetrator of the mutilation and attempted murder of Inui Ba’ikana and Diona Fleurglass.

 Additionally, Madam De Rosier and an unidentified pale man are suspected to be accomplices of Father Artem Carrion for the same crimes.

This aforementioned unidentified individual is not being prosecuted in these proceedings due to the fact that the Crown has not been able to identify and find him so far, but he shall be also prosecuted when that occurs, with the additional charge of absconding. 

FACTUAL BACKGROUND:

Inui Ba’ikana was found in an evening alleyway in Providence. All of her limbs, apart from her right arm, had been removed. Additionally, her mouth was sewn shut. Prior, her and Diona Fleurglass had been brought to an address (Adria 5,) and Diona had managed to escape. Inui had thereafter disappeared underground to a secret tunnel system, and was found as aforementioned. 

The defendant did not do this alone, as he was alongside an accomplice group of men all masked and armored, apart from Giselle de Rosier and an unidentified, pale man. 

Artem later claimed his group as a “respected religious order” when in reality if these facts are true they may presumably be a criminal organization.

Later on, a decapitated head was discovered in Father Basil’s chamber, after the defendant suggested he should be investigated. This evidence was afterwards stolen from the Ministry of Justice’s custody. 

It is the opinion of the Prosecution that only the perpetrators of this crime would have an interest to specifically steal this evidence from this case (the decapitated head) as no other evidence was stolen in the Ministry of Justice, only the one belonging to this case, which constitutes an obstruction to our imperial justice system.

WITH THE PRESENCE OF THE FOLLOWING RELEVANT PARTY OR PARTIES:

Anton d’Amato-Orlov, Witness

Geoff Turgon, Witness

Inui Ba’ikana, Witness

              Diona Fleurglass, Witness

Artem Carrion, Defendant

Giselle de Rosier, Defendant

WITH THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE:

Book of Evidence of the Prosecution

ON THE DESIRED DATE OF:

[DATE OF TRIAL : PENDING DISCUSSION WITH DEFENDANT]

YOURS HUMBLY,

ROBERT BOURDON  on behalf of THE CROWN,

MINISTRY OF JUSTICE, PROVIDENCE

Tiresiam#8849

24th of TOBIAS BOUNTY, 1824

THE CROWN,

Represented by Simon Bastille d’Arkent of the MINISTRY OF JUSTICE,

DESIRES TO SUMMON THE FOLLOWING PARTY TO COURT;

Inkursa

ON THE BASIS OF THE FOLLOWING PRINCIPLE(S), DOCTRINE(S), EDICT(S) OR ARTICLES OF LAW:

ON ASSAULT (O.R.C. 202.01A) - Where an individual intentionally makes an unlawful attempt, coupled with a present ability, to commit a violent injury on the person of another, this shall be assault, a misdemeanor. 

ON THEFT (O.R.C. 203.01B) - Where an individual intentionally deprives another of moveable property without the consent of its owner, and this property totals greater than fifty minas but less than five hundred minas in value, this shall be theft in the second degree, a misdemeanor. 

ON ROBBERY (O.R.C. 203.04A) - Where an individual intentionally deprives an owner of his moveable property through violence or threat of violence, this shall be robbery, a felony. 

ON PERJURY (O.R.C. 204.010A) - Where an individual intentionally misleads, deceives, or withholds pertinent information from an interrogating agent of the law, this shall be perjury in the second degree, a misdemeanor. 

ON ATTEMPT (O.R.C. 209.03A) - Where an individual actively attempts, but fails to commit, a crime, the individual shall be held liable with a mitigated punishment according to the crime which was attempted. 

The crown, through the Ministry of Justice, seeks to pursue legal action against the defendant for multiple accounts of robbery and theft of varying degrees. Assault is also assumed from the investigation of the Ministry of Justice.

WITH THE PRESENCE OF THE FOLLOWING RELEVANT PARTY OR PARTIES:

George O’Rourke 

Anton d’Amato-Orlov

Bernat Alboín de Vesne 

Helena de Sarkozy 

ON THE DESIRED DATE OF:

[PENDING DISCUSSION WITH DEFENDANT]

YOURS HUMBLY,

Simon Bastille d’Arkent on behalf of THE CROWN,

MINISTRY OF JUSTICE, PROVIDENCE

[Jcbeno#6694]

The Crown v. Othaman, Amaricus and Moores

10th of The Grand Harvest, 1822

THE CROWN,

Represented by Duncan The Fearsome of the MINISTRY OF JUSTICE,

DESIRES TO SUMMON THE FOLLOWING PARTY TO COURT;

Erik Tarcell Othaman

Mary Amaricus

Ezekiel Moores

ON THE BASIS OF THE FOLLOWING PRINCIPLE(S), DOCTRINE(S), EDICT(S) OR ARTICLES OF LAW:

Perjury 204.010A - Where an individual intentionally misleads, deceives, or withholds pertinent information from an interrogating agent of the law, this shall be perjury in the second degree, a misdemeanor. 

Defamation: 202.08A - Where an individual disseminates false information about an individual, without intent to harm the reputation of that individual, this shall be defamation in the third degree, an infraction.

Oren Revised Code, CH204.010A ‘On Perjury’

Oren Revised Code, CH202.08A ‘On Defamation

The Crown, represented through the Ministry of Justice, wishes to pursue legal action against the Defendants due to the horrendous crimes committed against his person. The MoJ’s investigations have found that the Defendant is a prime suspect in the matter of the charges of  Perjury and Defamation.

WITH THE PRESENCE OF THE FOLLOWING RELEVANT PARTY OR PARTIES:

Brandt Halcourt

ON THE DESIRED DATE OF:

TBD

YOURS HUMBLY,

Duncan The Fearsome on behalf of THE CROWN,

MINISTRY OF JUSTICE, PROVIDENCE

[[Sapamyrat Turkmenbasy#8194]]

THE CROWN V. D'ARKENT

20th of Tobias Bounty, 1824

THE CROWN,

Represented by Duncan the Fearsome of the MINISTRY OF JUSTICE,

DESIRES TO SUMMON THE FOLLOWING PARTY TO COURT;

WILHELM LUCIUS D’ARKENT

ON THE BASIS OF THE FOLLOWING PRINCIPLE(S), DOCTRINE(S), EDICT(S) OR ARTICLES OF LAW:

PERJURY (O.R.C. 204.010A) - Where an individual intentionally misleads, deceives, or withholds pertinent information from an interrogating agent of the law, this shall be perjury in the second degree, a misdemeanor. 

DEFAMATION (O.R.C. 202.08C) - Where an individual disseminates false information about an individual, with intent to harm the reputation of that individual, in a public space or by distribution of printed materials, this shall be defamation in the first degree, a misdemeanor. 

FORGERY (O.R.C. 203.05A) - Where an individual, with the intent to defraud, knowing that he or she has no authority to do so, signs the name of another person or of a fictitious person, this shall be forgery, an infraction. 

The Crown, through the Ministry of Justice wishes to pursue legal action against the Baron of Carrington, Wilhelm Lucius d’Arkent whom of which appeared in a hearing at the House of Lords where he had accused his younger brother Simon Bastille d’Arkent of being a bastard, of where he committed the aforementioned crimes listed in this subpoena.

WITH THE PRESENCE OF THE FOLLOWING RELEVANT PARTY OR PARTIES:

The Rt. Hon. Lord Speaker var Ruthern, Witness

              His Eminence Cardinal Gawain, Witness

              The Rt. Hon. Duke of Cathalon, Witness

              His Imperial Excellency the Archancellor Sir Ledicort d’Azor, Witness

Simon Bastille d’Arkent, Witness

ON THE DESIRED DATE OF:

[PENDING DISCUSSION WITH DEFENDANT]

YOURS HUMBLY,

Duncan the Fearsome on behalf of THE CROWN,

MINISTRY OF JUSTICE, PROVIDENCE

[Sapamyrat Turkmenbasy#8194]

THE CROWN V. ADALINA

4th of Sigismund’s End, 1820

THE CROWN,

Represented by SOLICITOR-GENERAL SIR CHARLES GALBRAITH of the MINISTRY OF JUSTICE,

DESIRES TO SUMMON THE FOLLOWING PARTY TO COURT;

ADALINA

ON THE BASIS OF THE FOLLOWING PRINCIPLE(S), DOCTRINE(S), EDICT(S) OR ARTICLES OF LAW:

I. CHARGES:

BURGLARY (O.R.C. 203.02B) - Where an individual unlawfully enters an inhabited property, this shall be burglary in the first degree, a felony. 

VANDALISM (O.R.C. 203.06B) - Where an individual intentionally or negligently damages or defaces the property of another, and this damage is of great amounts, this shall be vandalism in the first degree, a misdemeanor. 

THEFT (O.R.C. 203.01C) - Where an individual intentionally deprives another of moveable property without the consent of its owner, and this property totals greater than five hundred minas in value, this shall be theft in the first degree, a felony. 

DISTURBING THE PEACE (O.R.C. 207.05A) - Where an individual intentionally and deliberately hinders or interrupts the common peace by embellished performance or immoral behavior, this shall be the crime of disturbing the peace, an infraction. 

SEDITION O.R.C. 204.03A) - Where an individual intention to bring into hatred or contempt, or to incite disaffection against the person of His Majesty, his heirs or successors, or the government and constitution of the Holy Orenian Empire, as by law established, or the Imperial Diet, or the administration of justice, or to excite His Majesty's subjects to attempt otherwise than by lawful means, the alteration of any matter in Church or State by law established, or to incite any person to commit any crime in disturbance of the peace, or to raise discontent or disaffection amongst His Majesty's subjects, or to promote feelings of ill-will and hostility between different classes of such subjects, this shall be the crime of sedition, charged with the crime of treason.

WITCHCRAFT (O.R.C. 206.05A) - Where an individual intentionally partakes and practices the dark arts, such as blood magic, or other sacrilegious activities, this shall be the crime of witchcraft, a felony.

ABSCONDING (O.R.C. 204.07A) - Where an individual fails or intentionally avoids surrendering oneself to the custody of Imperial officials at the appropriate time, this shall be the crime of absconding, and in the case of the awaiting trial immediately confirms guilt, dismissing the need for lawful hearing. 

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND:

Madam Adalina, henceforth referred to as the Defendant, unlawfully entered the Basilica of the Ascent of Exalted Godfrey in the Imperial City of Providence --which is inhabited by the monastics who live therein-- and stole the corpse of the High Pontiff Jude II in the Basilica of the Ascent of Exalted Godfrey --which only belongs to the Holy Mother Church and to GOD himself and whose value is incalculable-- from the Basilica and brought the same with her. The Defendant then carried the corpse of His Holiness through the streets of the capital --which can only be described as a sacrilegious activity-- and damaging the same over time while raising discontent amongst His Imperial Majesty’s subjects, disturbing the peace and inciting others to disturb the peace. 

Afterwards, the Defendant managed to leave the capital with the corpse of the Holy Pontiff and, most likely, fled our Country to avoid any consequences. As soon as the Ministry of Justice heard about this the Solicitor-General issued an Imperial Order of Arrest against the Defendant, but so far she has not appeared or been found and, thus, she has failed to surrender herself to the custody of Imperial officials at the appropriate time.

III. ANNOUNCEMENT FROM THE PROSECUTION:

It is the opinion of the Crown, represented through the Ministry of Justice, that the desecration and public exhibition of the corpse of the Holy Pontiff is not merely a sacrilegious activity that constitutes the crime of sedition and others in accordance with the imperial law, but it is also a crime against GOD himself and against Our Holy Mother Church, as the Holy Pontiff is the Vicar of Our Lord GOD and represents the leadership of Our Holy Mother Church. As such, the Ministry of Justice shall forward the content of this Subpoena and all the evidence attached in the same to the Auditor of the Tribunal in order to petition to additionally hold an Ecclesiastical Trial against the Defendant --which shall be held separately from the upcoming secular trial that shall be held before the Imperial Courts in accordance with this Subpoena--.

IV. PENALTY REQUEST:

For all the above reasons, the Crown, represented through the Ministry of Justice, wishes to take legal action against the Defendant to have her answer for her crimes and requests the Court that, in the scenario that she is found guilty of sedition and other crimes contained with this Subpoena, she be sentenced to death by hanging in accordance with the Laws of Our Realm.

WITH THE PRESENCE OF THE FOLLOWING RELEVANT PARTY OR PARTIES:

Supervising Detective Anton d’Amato-Orlov, Witness

Chief Commissioner James Madron, Witness

Law-man Owyn Grace, Witness

Elias Asul'oon, Witness

Desmond O'Rourke, Witness

Iduna O'Rourke, Witness

WITH THE FOLLOWING WRITTEN EVIDENCE:

Classified Report from the Ministry of Justice, Document

ON THE DESIRED DATE OF:

[[DATE OF TRIAL / PENDING DISCUSSION WITH DEFENDANT]

YOURS HUMBLY,

SIR CHARLES GALBRAITH on behalf of THE CROWN,

MINISTRY OF JUSTICE, PROVIDENCE

[[Sergi#5457]]

THE CROWN v. BRANDT & D’EMYTH

3rd of Tobias’ Bounty, 1813

THE CROWN,

Represented by Valent de Rosius of the MINISTRY OF JUSTICE,

DESIRES TO SUMMON THE FOLLOWING PARTY TO COURT;

Brandt

Elijah Alexander  d’Emyth

ON THE BASIS OF THE FOLLOWING PRINCIPLE(S), DOCTRINE(S), EDICT(S) OR ARTICLES OF LAW:

Elijah Alexander d’Emyth

202.04A - On Murder: Where an individual intentionally commits such an act of violence upon another which brings about their death, with no premeditation, this shall be a murder in the second degree, a felony.

209.03A - On Attempt: Where an individual actively attempts, but fails to commit, a crime, the individual shall be held liable with a mitigated punishment according to the crime which was attempted.

Brandt

202.02B - On Battery: Where an individual intentionally commits upon another an unlawful act of  violence which brings about lasting, but not permanent injury, incapacitates for any length of time, or utilizes a dangerous weapon , this shall be battery of second degree, a misdemeanor.

- Broke Aimee de Frand’s ribs and her knee and Agnes de Frand’s nose.

202.04A - On Murder: Where an individual intentionally commits such an act of violence upon another which brings about their death, with no premeditation, this shall be a murder in the second degree, a felony.

209.03A - On Attempt: Where an individual actively attempts, but fails to commit, a crime, the individual shall be held liable with a mitigated punishment according to the crime which was attempted.

Oren Revised Code, CH202.02‘On Battery’

Oren Revised Code, CH202.04‘On Murder’

Oren Revised Code, CH209.03‘On Attempt’

During the peasant revolt Aimee de Frand and few others were in the tavern, where she called the peasants filthy, provoking Brandt which had issues with her as she sold Ivy Dust, making his friend addicted to it, on top of that Aimee called Anna Henrietta names which provoked them even more. Brandt punched her in the jaw and dragged her to the Ivy House, on the next floor where he beat her - breaking her ribs and knee, he then threatened to throw her out of the window. She jumped from the stairs where she was caught by some of the witnesses, Elijah tried to stab her but he was stopped by Agnes de Frand, resulting in kicking her at the face with no injury dealt. 

WITH THE PRESENCE OF THE FOLLOWING RELEVANT PARTY OR PARTIES:

Edith Hope

Sir Candle Wick

Nataliya Reza

Agnes de Frand

Ricky O’Rourke

Written Evidence
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Vo3TAI4PN3U85MrRcsZSyvVzE1cgwOtjGlite4YntHY/edit?usp=sharing

ON THE DESIRED DATE OF:

[[DATE OF TRIAL / PENDING DISCUSSION WITH DEFENDANT]

YOURS HUMBLY,

Valent de Rosius on behalf of THE CROWN,

MINISTRY OF JUSTICE, BASRID CIRCLE COURTHOUSE, PROVIDENCE

Valecius#5323

The Crown v. Richard Allen

12th of HOREN’S CALLING, 1820

THE CROWN,

Represented by Supervising Solicitor George Hartcold of the MINISTRY OF JUSTICE,

DESIRES TO SUMMON THE FOLLOWING PARTY TO COURT;

Richard Allen

ON THE BASIS OF THE FOLLOWING PRINCIPLE(S), DOCTRINE(S), EDICT(S) OR ARTICLES OF LAW:

ABSCONDING 204.07A - Where an individual fails or intentionally avoids surrendering oneself to the custody of Imperial officials at the appropriate time, this shall be the crime of absconding, and in the case of the awaiting trial immediately confirms guilt, dismissing the need for lawful hearing.

KIDNAPPING IN THE FIRST DEGREE 202.06B - Where an individual intentionally abducts, restrains, or confines another individual against their will, and in the course of this brings about physical harm or endangerment of the victim, this shall be kidnapping in the first degree, a felony.

IMPERSONATION IN THE FIRST DEGREE 202.09B - Where an individual intentionally assumes the identity of another individual in order to carry out high treason, this shall be impersonation in the first degree, a felony.

TREASON 204.01A - Where an individual commits acts with the intent to compromise the integrity of the Crown and its constituent institutions by waging insurrection and seeking the destruction of the Imperial State by impugning the character and person of the Crown through subversive means such as collusion with enemy entities and actors against the State, this shall be the crime of treason. 

SEDITION 204.03A - Where an individual intention to bring into hatred or contempt, or to incite disaffection against the person of His Majesty, his heirs or successors, or the government and constitution of the Holy Orenian Empire, as by law established, or the Imperial Diet, or the administration of justice, or to excite His Majesty's subjects to attempt otherwise than by lawful means, the alteration of any matter in Church or State by law established, or to incite any person to commit any crime in disturbance of the peace, or to raise discontent or disaffection amongst His Majesty's subjects, or to promote feelings of ill-will and hostility between different classes of such subjects, this shall be the crime of sedition, charged with the crime of treason.

On the 13th of Sigismund's End, 1819, Richard Allen, a man of unknown allegiance, kidnapped Detective Ernest Colbert. This of course, wasn’t the least of his many crimes, He was able to rally some ISA soldiers to his side, and thus committed sedition against the MoJ in inciting the ISA soldiers to fight against them, falsely claiming that the MoJ were attempting a coup d'etat. He lead an insurrection against the state with this band of ISA soldiers. He claimed to be a relation of His Imperial Majesty John VIII, this not true, thus he also committed impersonation in the first degree. He later absconded from jail afterwards.

WITH THE PRESENCE OF THE FOLLOWING RELEVANT PARTY OR PARTIES:

Geoff Turgon

John Napier

Darius Wane Alo

Keorn

Boreal

Father Basil

James Fisher

Major Basrid

Lieutenant Velu

ON THE DESIRED DATE OF:

[[DATE OF TRIAL TO-BE-DETERMINED]]

YOURS HUMBLY,

George Hartcold on behalf of THE CROWN,

MINISTRY OF JUSTICE, BASRID CIRCLE COURTHOUSE, PROVIDENCE

((Kaiser Jacob II#1965))

APPEAL: THE CROWN V. BRANDT & D’EMYTH

11th of Godfrey’s Triumph, 1816

THE CROWN, 

Represented by CHARLES GALBRAITH of the MINISTRY OF JUSTICE,

DESIRES TO APPEAL THE FOLLOWING RULING;

[Ruling on The Crown V. Brandt & D’Emyth]

ON THE GROUNDS OF THE FOLLOWING PRINCIPLE(S), DOCTRINE(S), EDICT(S) OR ARTICLES OF LAW:

-MISTRIAL:

The Crown, represented through the Ministry of Justice, does hereby file an Appeal against the Ruling on The Crown v. Brandt & D’Emyth before the Supreme Court of the Holy Orenian Empire, on the basis of mistrial.

First of all, it is the opinion of the Crown that the declaration of this “mistrial” made by the presiding Judge of this case was wholly illegal, as no motion or formal request was filed, offering no formal submission of evidence and no opportunity for the prosecution to ever respond to the defense’s allegations regarding the evidence.  

Furthermore, it is the opinion of the Crown that the presiding Judge did not follow the Trial Procedure (ORC 614.03): the presiding Judge did not allow any of the parties to make submissions by turn, whether by witness examination or addressing the jury. In fact, no witnesses were allowed to be summoned before the Court by the presiding Judge and no parties were allowed to address the jury, and the Jury was not allowed to deliberate or vote on the verdict, which constitutes a complete violation of the Legal Procedure Act.

Also, the Crown wishes to question the power of a presiding Judge to declare his own judicial proceeding a mistrial, given that the only reference of “mistrial” in statutory law is ORC 614.01E, an article of law which explicitly mentions that the declaration of mistrial and the overturning of the decision of a Circuit Judge must be made by the Supreme Court of the Holy Orenian Empire when granting an Appeal and, therefore, it is obvious that the Circuit Court does not hold that power, which is an exclusive prerogative of the Supreme Court.

The Crown also wishes to state that the validity of the evidence provided by the Investigator Arlo Cooper to the Court is completely irrelevant to the correct follow-up of the legal procedure, which should have been followed by the presiding Judge. The fact that the Defense questioned the validity of an evidence brought by Investigator Cooper does not justify any declaration of mistrial by the presiding Judge and, if anything, it merely should condition how the Court, and in this case, the Jury, reviews that evidence and all the other evidence provided to the Court when they decide the verdict on the guilt of the Defendants.

In addition, we urge the Court to consider ORC 609.04C - “The rulings of the Circuit Court are to remain strictly textualist in nature.” No text of any law supports this declaration of mistrial. 

Under ORC 614.01E, “(iiA) A mistrial, whereby a trial was conducted and judgment rendered in violation with Court procedure prescribed in this bill, such as a juror failing to disclose a past interaction with a party;”. As no trial was actually held, and mistrial was declared far from the boundaries of the law, we urge the Court to allow the case to be retried, or in this case, given an actual day in court and the overseeing circuit justice reassigned.

-LEGAL ERRORS IN THE CIRCUIT COURT’S DECISION:

In Accordance with the Judicial Reform Act, 1800; Section III.I:

“III.II - It shall henceforth be within the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court to verdict on criminal laws within the area of infractions, misdemeanors, felonies and treason, as well as all imperial civil law.” 

It is the opinion of the Crown that the Circuit Court did not rule within the textual boundaries of the law. The Judicial Reform Act gives the presiding judge the right to issue judgement, but as outlined in ORC 609.04C, it must be within the textual boundaries of law. 

The precedent established by this decision would suggest that cases may, and ought to be, simply thrown out by the circuit justice should the defense make unsubstantiated (as no evidence of Cooper’s misconduct had even been present at the time of trial) claims of misconduct.

1. “Arlo Cooper, in the submission of his evidence, added in writing that he found the defense to be guilty prior to the trial or even the preliminary hearing, thus admitting his bias on the case.”

The investigator, and the prosecutor, both must be convinced of the defendant’s guilt in order to properly prosecute. They argue the case, using the evidence obtained and their points within the law, to convince the court of the defendant’s guilt. This is a basic premise of prosecuting the law.
 

2. Points 2 & 3 in the Circuit Court’s decision.

Not only are these points entirely irrelevant to the declaration of mistrial, they are self-contradictory. 

Under section 2, the Circuit judge seemingly finds the investigator in the case to have been guilty of fraud and deviancy. Under section 3, the judge does good to remind us of the rights of men, particularly the right to trial. 

Perhaps the judge would do good to be reminded of this right and its application to all men, not just the defense in this case.

IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE THE FOLLOWING:

-The Crown does hereby ask the Supreme Court to overturn the precedent established by the Ruling of the Crown v. Brandt & D’Emyth and to declare and order that this case be retried by the Circuit Court and that a new Circuit Judge be assigned accordingly for that purpose.

-The Crown wishes to state that the victims of the alleged crimes in this case were not given their day in court due to procedural negligence and complete disregard for evidence or right for the prosecution to have responded to any motion for mistrial, which was never made anyways. As we will highlight in the transcript submitted alongside this appeal, the defense never formally motioned for mistrial or submitted evidence and the prosecution was never allowed to respond to the defense’s statement. All of these things must occur in a retrial (or, rather, first trial, as no legitimate trial has been conducted) of this case.

YOURS HUMBLY,

Charles Galbraith on behalf of THE CROWN,

MINISTRY OF JUSTICE, PROVIDENCE

[[Sergi#5457]]