6th of Sun's Smile 1846

 In response to crimes levied against William Darkwood and all parties' willingness not to come to court, A proposed plea deal pending signing of all parties involved is pushed.

William Darkwood is to plead guilty on the counts of

• 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. 

William Darkwood is to write a written formal apology to Charles Darkwood 

William Darkwood is to write a written formal apology to the Barclay Family 

William Darkwood is to at the earliest convenience obtain confession from a member of the Canonist Clergy 

William Darkwood is to carry out all parameters of the penance the clergyman lays out in confession

Upon completion of all terms and conditions of the plea deal, no other punitive actions shall be taken against William Darkwood for the crimes currently levied against one William Darkwood. 

Signed, William Darkwood

Signed, Charles Darkwood

Signed, The RH. Judge Henrik Komnenos

Signed, The Prosecution, Jarad Munnel

-William Darkwood

The breaking of these terms will result in prosecution

RULING ON THE CROWN V. Volaren

5th of Snow's Maiden, 47 SA

Presiding Justice 

RH Duncan

Plaintiff

Jarad Munnel (on behalf of the Crown)

Defendant

Loras Volaren

Witnesses / Evidence

Capt Alexander Antler

Leftenant Joseph Beckett

The Circuit Court, presided by RH Duncan CCJ, on the following charges presented by the Plaintiff;

202.01 - On Assault

                    202.011 Where an individual inentionally makes an unlawful attempt, coupled with a present ability, to commit a violent injury on the person of                                 another, this shall be assault, a misdemeanour.

202.02 - On Battery

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

202.04 - On Murder

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

204.011 - On Treason

                   204.011 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.

207.05 - On Disturbing the Peace

                   207.05 Where an individual intentionally and deliberately hinders or interrupts the common peace by embelished performance or immoral behaviour, this shall be the crime of Disturbing the Peace, an infraction.

209.03 - On Attempt

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

The Circuit Court, presided by RH Duncan CCJ, verdicts;

In accordance with the Legal Procedure Act, the assigned judge has overseen the case and heard the evidence of both sides. As such the defendant was found guilty on all charges, due to the strong evidence and earlier admission of planning murders of ISA soldiers.

The Circuit Court, presided by RH Duncan CCJ, sentences;

The Defendant, Loras Volaren , is sentenced to death by hanging, to be completed by the ISA as soon as possible

Signed,

The Rt. Hon. Judge of the Central Circuit Court

Duncan

-Charles Darkwood
-Adrianna Darkwood
-Lorenz Darkwood

The breaking of these terms will result in prosecution

RULING ON THE CROWN V. Kithara

21th of Malin's Welcome, 1843

Presiding Justice 

RH Duncan

Plaintiff

Amie Halcourt-Ruthen (on behalf of the Crown)

Defendant

Kithara

Witnesses / Evidence

Darius Wane Romstun De Rosius

The Circuit Court, presided by RH Duncan CCJ, on the following charges presented by the Plaintiff;

202.01 - On Assault

                    202.011 Where an individual inentionally makes an unlawful attempt, coupled with a present ability, to commit a violent injury on the person of                                 another, this shall be assault, a misdemeanour.

202.06 - On Kidnapping

                    202.061 Where an individual intentionally abducts, restrains or confines another individual against their will without physical harm                                  or endagerment of  the victim, this shall be kidnapping in the second degree, a misdemeanour.

209.03 - On Attempt

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

The Circuit Court, presided by RH Duncan CCJ, verdicts;

In accordance with the Legal Procedure Act, the assigned judge has overseen the case and heard the evidence of both sides. As such the defendant was found guilty.

The Circuit Court, presided by RH Duncan CCJ, sentences;

The Defendant, Miss Kithara, is sentenced to 5 years mandatory conscription

Signed,

The Rt. Hon. Judge of the Central Circuit Court

Duncan

RULING ON THE CROWN V. COOPER

11th of Horen’s Calling, 1839

Presiding Justice 

RH Henrik Komnenos

Plaintiff

THUCYDIDES MELPHESTAUS (on behalf of the Crown)

Defendant

ARLO COOPER

Witnesses / Evidence

FATHER BASIL

MOTHER GUILIA

SISTER AUGUSTINE

The Circuit Court, presided by RH Henrik Komnenos CCJ, on the following charges presented by the Plaintiff;

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

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. 

The Circuit Court, presided by RH Henrik Komnenos CCJ, verdicts;

In accordance with the Legal Procedure Act, the assigned judge has taken all necessary steps to facilitate communication between the Plaintiff and the Defendant. The Defense had chosen not to participate in these communications, and thus a trial date was set however  the defense still notably still chose to not attend. Thus, the court has decided, in accordance with the law of Absconding (O.R.C 204.07A), that the Defense, Mister Cooper, has been found guilty on all charges

The Circuit Court, presided by RH Henrik Komnenos CCJ, sentences;

The Defendant, Mister Cooper, is sentenced to banishment for 2 annum and a 500 fine to be paid to the victim 

Signed,

The Rt. Hon. Judge of the Central Circuit Court

Henrik Komnenos

RULING ON THE PETITION

for the

LEGAL DEATH

of

VARON DRASKOVIC

To the Members of House Draskovic -

This letter is to inform you that the Imperial Courts have judged the Right Honorable Baron Draskovic, Varon Draskovic, to be declared dead in absentia. As a missing person for over a decade, precedence demands such.

However, it was established in the Imperial Letters for the Barony of Draskovic, issued in 1813 by His Imperial Majesty Joseph II, that the succession of the Barony is non-hereditary. Therefore, with Baron Varon Draskovic's death, the title will revert to the possession of the Crown. 

Signed,

The Rt. Honorable Judge of the Circuit Court,

Tanith Vursur

5th of Owyn’s Flame, 1826

Presiding Justice:

Chief Justice Olivier A. Halcourt

Prosecution:

Sir Charles Galbraith

Defense:

Patrick O’Rourke

Defendant:

Dame Viktoriya Tsecsar

Witnesses:

Anne Eleanore Pruvia 

CHARGES:

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.

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.

SENTENCING:

The defendant is sentenced to a fine of two-thousand marks made payable to the Imperial State and shall serve a lifetime banishment from the Empire. Should the defendant re-enter the Empire under any condition, they are subject to additional charges.

STATEMENT FROM THE COURT:

Circuit Judge O’Ceartas, while presiding over the case of The Crown v. Tsecsar, expressed disregard to judicial precedents. The Supreme Court ruled in The Crown v. D’Emyth & Brandt that a mistrial cannot be declared by a Circuit Justice. As such, he was replaced by Chief Justice Halcourt and a fresh trial began. All actions, judgements, or otherwise that yielded from the trial headed by Circuit Judge O’Ceartas are declared null and void.

Signed,

The Most Honorable Chief Justice of the Supreme Court

Baron Olivier A. Halcourt J.D. SSE SCJ

This Plea Agreement awaits confirmation by a Circuit Judge, who shall guarantee that its terms are enforced on behalf of the Crown.

3rd of Harren's Folly, 1825

THE CROWN,

Represented by CHARLES GALBRAITH of THE MINISTRY OF JUSTICE,

AGREES WITH THE FOLLOWING PARTY;

PEONY DU CASSE

FACTUAL BACKGROUND; 

According to the Crown, represented through the Ministry of Justice, the Defendant, Peony du Casse, henceforth Madam Casse, admitted under oath during an interrogation conducted by the Ministry of Justice that she recently illegally possessed drugs and that she had Justice Turgon consume them unwillingly by mixing it with food in a bizarre manner.

ON THE FOLLOWING TERMS;

The Crown Prosecution agrees, with the Defendant Party present, to drop all the charges against Madam Casse, in turn Madam Casse pleads guilty to the Crime of Deviancy (O.R.C. 206.03A) and to the Crime of Contraband, in its subtype of possession of illegal substances (O.R.C. 204.04A), for the facts described ut supra (Cf. Factual Background). 

Madam Casse shall, as verdict upon the breachment of the aforementioned articles of law:

- Be convicted to Pay a Fine of 30 Minas to the Imperial State, to be paid to the Imperial Treasury and to be enforced immediately after the judicial confirmation of this Plea Agreement. 

- Be convicted to Pay 10 Minas to Geoff Turgon in terms of civil damages, to be paid in one saint week immediately after the judicial confirmation of this Plea Agreement.

- Share all the information that she possesses regarding all illegal activity she has committed or she is aware of with the Ministry of Justice.

- Testify against any accomplice(s) in court when required by the Ministry of Justice. 

The Crown Prosecution agrees with the Defendant Party to bring this Plea Agreement to a Circuit Judge, who shall confirm this Plea Agreement and enforce it on behalf of the Crown.

Signed, 

HIS EXCELLENCY, Charles Galbraith, Solicitor-General, Prosecutor.

MADAM, Peony Du Casse, Defendant.

This Plea Agreement has been confirmed by Judge Owyn O’Rourke, who shall guarantee that its terms are enforced on behalf of the Crown.

11th of Godfrey’s Triumph, 1824

THE CROWN,

Represented by CHARLES GALBRAITH of THE MINISTRY OF JUSTICE,

AGREES WITH THE FOLLOWING PARTY;

THOMAS RAVNEN

FACTUAL BACKGROUND; 

According to the Crown, represented through the Ministry of Justice, the Defendant, Thomas Ravnen, henceforth Mr. Ravnen, admitted under oath during an interrogation conducted by the Ministry of Justice that he recently attempted to unlawfully break into the Augustine Palace, and that he also attempted to unlawfully break into the Mortimer Estate with the intention of stealing goods, and that he successfully unlawfully broke into the Komnenos Estate, where he stole several items valued with less than 50 minas, which were confiscated by the Imperial State Army when he was caught. 

ON THE FOLLOWING TERMS;

The Crown Prosecution agrees, with the Defendant Party present, to drop all the charges against Mr. Ravnen, in turn Mr. Ravnen pleads GUILTY to the Crime of Burglary (O.R.C. 203.02B) and to the Crime of Theft (O.R.C. 203.01A) for having broken into the Komnenos Estate and stolen a sword and some food, and to the Crime of Attempted Burglary (O.R.C. 203.02B and 209.03A) for having attempted to break into the Mortimer Estate.

Mr. Ravnen shall, as verdict upon the breachment of the aforementioned articles of law:

- Be convicted to Designated Service to the Faith for 5 years, to be enforced immediately after the judicial confirmation of this Plea Agreement. 

- Be convicted to Pay 100 Minas to the owner of the Komnenos Estate in terms of civil damages, to be paid in two saints weeks immediately after the judicial confirmation of this Plea Agreement.

- Be convicted to Pay 25 Minas to the owner of the Mortimer Estate in terms of civil damages, to be paid in two saints weeks immediately after the judicial confirmation of this Plea Agreement.

- Be convicted to a Restraining Order towards the Komnenos Estate and all the members of the Komnenos family. The details of this Restraining Order shall be defined by the Judge that performs the judicial confirmation of this Plea Agreement.

- Be convicted to a Restraining Order towards the Mortimer Estate and all the members of the Mortimer family. The details of this Restraining Order shall be defined by the Judge that performs the judicial confirmation of this Plea Agreement.

- Share all the information that he possesses regarding all illegal activity he has committed or he is aware of with the Ministry of Justice.

- Testify against any accomplice(s) in court when required by the Ministry of Justice. 

The Crown Prosecution agrees with the Defendant Party to bring this Plea Agreement to a Circuit Judge, who shall confirm this Plea Agreement and enforce it on behalf of the Crown.

Signed, 

HIS EXCELLENCY, Charles Galbraith, Solicitor-General, Prosecutor.

MISTER, Thomas Ravnen, Defendant.

THE RT. HON., Owyn O’Rourke, Judge of the Central Circuit Court.

THE CHIEF JUSTICE, THE RT. HONORABLE THE LORD HALCOURT DOES DEEM IT NECESSARY TO ISSUE A 

NOTICE TO CEASE AND DESIST

to Mr. Kelhus Vladimir Othaman 

Penned and Notarized on this 5th day of Harren’s Folly in the year 1823  by

The Most Honorable Chief Justice of the Supreme Court

The Lord Halcourt J.D SSE SCJ

Court Order made enforceable by 

The Most Honorable Inspector-General of the Ministry of Justice

Garret Darkwood

((OOC: The contents of the letter can only be seen by @Josef_Rippelberg, everything else is public record))
 

RULING ON THE CROWN V. ADALINA

5th of Sun’s Smile, 1813

Presiding Justice 

RH Elisa Reiss

Plaintiff

Sir Charles Galbraith (on behalf of the Crown)

Defendant

Adalina

Witnesses / Evidence

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

Classified Report from the Ministry of Justice, Document

The Circuit Court, presided by RH Elisa Reiss CCJ, on the following charges presented by the Plaintiff;

 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. 

The Circuit Court, presided by RH Elisa Reiss CCJ, verdicts;

In accordance with the Legal Procedure Act, the assigned judge has taken all necessary steps to facilitate communication between the Plaintiff and the Defendant. The Defense had chosen not to participate in these communications, and thus a trial date was set for the 10th of the Grand Harvest, 1813, where the defense still notably still chose to not attend. Thus, the court has decided, in accordance with the law of Absconding (O.R.C 204.07A), that the Defense, Miss Adalina, has been found guilty on all charges including Burglary (ORC 203.02B), Vandalism (ORC 203.06B), Theft (ORC 203.01C), Disturbing the Peace (ORC 207.05A), Sedition (204.03A), Witchcraft (ORC 206.05A), and formerly mentioned, Absconding (ORC 204.07A).

The Circuit Court, presided by RH Elisa Reiss CCJ, sentences;

The Defendant, Miss Adalina, is sentenced to banishment for a lifetime (ORC. 201.043). Should she fail to respect this sentence, the court rules that she will be taken into Imperial Custody, and put to death by hanging (ORC. 201.043).

Signed,

The Rt. Hon. Judge of the Central Circuit Court

Elisa Reiss

Justice TURGON delivers the Opinion of the Court

THE CROWN, represented by the MINISTRY OF JUSTICE has filed for an appeal in the case of THE CROWN V BRANDT & d’EMYTH following the declaration of a MISTRIAL by the CIRCUIT COURT. As such, the court has granted this appeal. 

The Circuit Court has declared this case as a mistrial after reviewing the evidence, and found that the lead investigator held biases against the defendant. The lead investigator had a run-in with the defendant in response to the incident at hand, before an arrest was made. The question we ask ourselves is this: “Should any evidence gathered in a manner that shows bias be accepted in court?”

As the Crown has stated in its appeal, the prosecutor or investigator must perform in a manner in which they believe the defendant to be guilty for them to properly do their job, and seek justice in court on behalf of the victims. This is not a failure of the system, but an endorsement. The prosecution must fight tooth and nail to prove the defendant's guilt, not the other way around. Both prosecution and defense are convinced their client is in the right, so it is natural that evidence will be submitted biased in one way or another.

A judge is not appointed lightly. They are intelligent, well read, and most importantly they are wise. In this case, the investigator’s past with the defendants were made known and the judge should understand the implications behind that, and have that taken into consideration. When listening to the evidence of a case be presented, the judge may take into account the context of evidence gathered and even weigh the possible biases held by those who gathered the evidence.

In our codex, the only way a mistrial may be declared is if there is a breach in Court procedure. At no point were these procedures breached, so therefore the ruling of CROWN V BRANDT & d’EMYTH as a mistrial is overturned, and shall be remanded to the lower courts to go through the trial process.

Joined by: ALL

REQUEST FOR APPEAL GRANTED: THE CROWN V. BRANDT AND D'EMYTH

Dear Mr. Galbraith, 

Your request for appeal has been granted. The Supreme Court will be accepting amicus curiae briefs from any interested parties for the next four months. After this period has ended, the Supreme Court will review the facts of the case, the arguments presented in the briefs presented by both defendants; which can be filed together or separately, and the original request for appeal filed by Mr. Galbraith. The Supreme Court will not issue a ruling on the appeal until it has a full bench.

No injunction shall be granted until judgment has been rendered by this Court.

Signed,

The Most Honorable Chief Justice of the Supreme Court

The Baron Halcourt, Lord Olivier Alexandre SCJ JD SSE.

Justice GRAY delivered the opinion of the Court.

Mr. Puller filed a Request for Judicial Review, asking us to examine the legality of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, calling it an inappropriate use of legislative power by the Ministry of Justice. The ordinance declares “illegal substance” to be an ambiguous term that was not defined by the diet, potentially leading to confusion with the law. The Ministry aimed to alleviate this confusion, by declaring that they would interpret “illegal substance” as “hallucination or personality affecting drugs for recreational use”. Mr. Puller states that they have the power to do so. We do not agree.
 

In an unusual step, This court also held its first oral arguments, a transcript of which is Attached. 

Ambiguous laws are created for various reasons. As this Court has previously noted, sometimes wording comes from painstaking negotiations, or perhaps the diet believed it would be best to allow the agency to use its expertise to define the ambiguous term itself. Regardless of what the reasoning is, it is difficult to imagine they left it ambiguous with the idea that it would not be interpreted and thus the law would not be enforced. While some have asked this court to rule that only the courts may define ambiguous terms, that would be an unfair usurpation of the power of the diet, and would not be practical. By leaving the wording of a statute ambiguous, they’ve delegated their legislative power to the agency, permitting it to use it’s best judgement to interpret the meaning of the word or phrase.

Yet, despite that, the judicial branch plays an important role in ensuring this process is done fairly. An agency may only interpret a statute it administers that is truly ambiguous. If a court finds a word or phrase is not ambiguous, then the meaning of the word or phrase is what is what the court has determined it to be. Furthermore, an agency's interpretation must be reasonable. 

Therefore, this court must first determine if the word illegal substance is ambiguous or not. While a brief does cite the Cacti Prohibition Act, this act was passed prior to the Lex Criminalis Reform Act of 1774, which rewrote a large portion of the criminal law in this country, including “on contraband” which contains the much debated section we are discussing today. Because of this, if the diet wanted to incorporate the Cacti Prohibition Act to define illegal substances, it would have been made clear during this reform. Yet, the diet opted to move forward with ambiguous legislation, suggesting the intention of keeping ambiguous legislation. Therefore, considering there is nothing further defining illegal substances, this Court determines that “illegal substance” is ambiguous and may be defined by the agency that administers the statute, in this case the Ministry of Justice.

Then, we must determine if this interpretation is reasonable. Considering the lack of legislative history on the topic, the Diet offers no guide on what “illegal substance” should cover. Considering the wording of Section 204.04 of the Oren Revised Code, which states: “illegal substances, literature, or items” the Diet seemingly intended to leave it open ended and ambiguous, giving broad discretion to the Ministry of Justice. Therefore, it is reasonable to hold that substances that are “hallucination or personality affecting drugs for recreational use” would be covered under the definition. Still, the title of the section is “On Contraband.” While drugs would seemingly fit under contraband, as the diet has previously legislated on types of drugs before, many items would not. Therefore, this interpretation should not be construed to give the Ministry of Justice unlimited authority to declare every possible item contraband. It must still conform to the traditional definition of contraband, as drugs do.

To conclude, a court will defer to an Agency’s interpretation of a statute it is charged with administering as long as the word or phrase they are interpreting is ambiguous and their interpretation is reasonable. If a court holds the law is not ambiguous, the court’s ruling controls. This court holds that “illegal Substance” is ambiguous, and the Ministry of Justice’s interpretation is reasonable. Therefore we defer to their interpretation.

Joined by: Justice NAPIER

 ________________________________________________

The Request for Judicial Review by Mr. C.B. Puller has been granted. The Supreme Court of Oren will thus be accepting Amicus briefs from the public for the next three months. Any citizen, group or organization is permitted to submit an Amicus brief to the Court. After which, this Court shall review the original complaint, all briefs and any other relevant information to address the questions raised by Mr. Puller. Since no injunction has been requested, none will be granted. 

 _______________________________________________

Justice GRAY delivered the opinion of the Court.

Mr. Adler, former Chief Justice of this Court, filed a request for judicial review asking this court to determine the legality of Section I, Article I of the Non-Partisan Courts Act. The act lays out a noble goal, to ensure that courts remain non-partisan so that His Imperial Majesty's citizens may have full trust that court’s are not acting with ulterior motives. While Mr. Adler may be a supporter of these goals, he challenges the means in which they were enacted. 

The text of Section I is as follows; “Court justices are hereby to be barred from running for or holding a seat within the House of Commons.” Mr. Adler lays out three arguments, which if one is accepted, should lead to the repeal of this section. This Court agrees with Mr. Adler’s first argument, that elections are entirely under the purview of His Imperial Majesty and his delegates. The Edict of Reform, 1763 grants His Imperial Majesty the power of both calling and dismissing Diets at will, through the form of a national election. That was affirmed by This Court in The Ruling on the Request for Judicial Review: Election Cancellation and Ballot Nullification, and we see no basis to second guess that decision. Furthermore, This Edict forbids the Diet from legislating on the authority of The Crown. 

Here, The Diet has legislated on who may or may not participate in The Diet. Declaring who may and may not participate in The Diet remains a function of The Crown, as it has previously set age and property restrictions on electoral participation. The Diet, by adding a restriction, is directly interfering with the rights of The Crown, which is strictly forbidden by the Edict of Reform, 1763. Therefore, Section I of the Non-Partisan Courts Act is in violation of the Edict of Reform. This Court sees no reason to further evaluate the arguments of Mr. Adler.

But, this court must make a decision on what to declare invalid. This Court could take the simple approach, striking Section I and leaving the rest of the statute intact. Or, this Court could strike the entirety of the act, going beyond what we were asked to do today. This court will take the latter approach. The creation of legislation is an act of compromise, a legislator works with other legislators to determine each and every word in a bill. The phrasing of bills often results from months of careful negotiation and painstaking discussions. To strike part of a bill and leave the rest intact would upset the compromise that went into the creation of this bill. Without Section I, who is to say that the bill would have passed? This Court can not know, and we are not in the business of guessing what occurred during private negotiations. Therefore, statutes lacking explicit evidence otherwise will be assumed to have been passed in their entirety. Without a part of the bill, the entire bill will cease to exist.

Therefore, the Non-Partisan Courts Act is struck down in it’s entirety by this court on the basis of a violation of the Edict of Reform. The House of Commons is unable to legislate on the authority of His Imperial Majesty. Furthermore, this Court will assume an all or nothing approach with statutes unless explicitly stated otherwise within the four corners of the bill.

Joined by: ALL

Request for Judicial Review Granted; Article I of the Non-Partisan Courts Act

 ________________________________________________

The request for Judicial Review by Mr. Joseph Adler has been granted. The Supreme Court of Oren will thus be accepting Amicus briefs from the public for the next three months. Any citizen, group or organization is permitted to submit an Amicus brief to the Court. After which, this Court shall review the original complaint, all briefs and any other relevant information to address the questions raised by Mr. Adler. 

 _______________________________________________

RULING

ON THE

Request for Judicial Review: Amendment to the Legal Procedure Act of 1803

Opinion of the Court delivered by Chief Justice Halcourt

Joined by Justice Napier

The opinion and ruling of the Supreme Court of the Holy Orenian Empire, as delivered by the Most Honorable, Chief Justice Halcourt, are as follows; 

      On the Right to Request Judicial Review:

         The public at large cannot be expected to trust their government when their government- the same government that passes these acts, holds the sole right to request judicial review on their own legislation. If a citizen who holds no ranking in society sees fit to question the acts of their government, they should be afforded the right to do so; so long as this questioning is done with composure, and in compliance with the Law of Our Land. 

     On the Circuit Courts’ Ability to Review:

         Precedence must be followed. It has been established in the Legal Procedure Act of 1772 under Article I: Definitions, that “‘Judicial Review’ shall be construed to mean the Supreme Court’s power to review any governmental conduct that may be in violation of existing law”. The Circuit Court has never been afforded the ability to strike down any Act of the Diet, and this ability shall only be afforded to the upper echelon of the Imperial Judiciary, the Supreme Court. 

In consideration of the above the Supreme Court of the Holy Orenian Empire, as delivered by the Most Honorable, Chief Justice Halcourt, sees fit to conclude;

The Court has reviewed the request, and found the amendment unconstitutional. Therefore, the Amendment to the Legal Procedure Act of 1803 shall be considered null and void, no longer upheld as law in application in the Holy Orenian Empire.

RULING ON THE REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW:

ARTICLE I OF THE NON-PARTISAN COURTS ACT

Opinion of the Court as delivered by the Right Honorable Judge Valmoth

The opinion of the Circuit Court, as delivered by the Right Honorable Judge Valmoth, is as follows;

Joseph D. Adler, referred to by the court from this point as Mr. Adler, submitted a request for judicial review on the Non-Partisan Courts Act of 1768.  This was in respect to Section I Article I which states:

1. Court justices are hereby to be barred from running for or holding a seat within the House of Commons.

2. Court justices are to be barred from publicly pledging support for, affirming membership of or endorsing any political party or faction. 

1. House of Commons elections are entirely under the purview of the Crown, notwithstanding power delegated to Civil Affairs by it, and therefore the House of Commons may not legislate regarding electoral processes or eligibility.

While the public holds the god given right to vote, it is unable to vote for those deemed ineligible by the Crown.  However, the current law prohibiting judges from holding public office was put in place by the Imperial Diet.  This is the issue brought to the court by Mr. Adler.  In rationalizing the constitutionality of this issue, the court must consider the purpose of the Imperial Diet and where it derives its power from.  

The Amendment to the Edict of Reform, 1799 states:

'The Imperial Diet shall be a bicameral legislature concerned with matters of active governance when called to sit by the Crown. This shall primarily be exercised by enactment of legislative bills into law after passage by both houses (barring those limited in Section IV of this edict.)'

'When passed by both chambers, the bill proceeds to the Crown, which either grants, withholds or withholds conditionally imperial assent.'

This court finds this language clear.  The Imperial Diet is the arm of the Crown which is responsible for passing laws.  In order for a law to be passed, it proceeds to the Crown which can either grant, withhold, or conditionally withhold imperial assent.  When the Non-Partisan Courts Act of 1768 was passed, it was granted assent by the Crown.  Should the Crown have found this an encroachment on its power, it could have withheld assent.  In interpreting the Crown's intention, this court finds that the Imperial Diet could place restrictions on a judge's ability to hold public office.

2. Elections are to be run by the Director of Civil Affairs, who is not responsible to them in the execution of his duties as Director. Therefore any legislation which attempts to compel him to run them in a certain manner is unlawful.

Mr. Adler asserts that the Director of Civil Affairs is not responsible to the Imperial Diet for the way in which they perform their duties.  

As brought to the court by Mr. Adler, Amendments to the Edict of Pompourelia, 1798 states:

'That the Director of the Department of Civil Affairs be appointed and dismissed solely at the prerogative of the Crown, subject to no confirmation or responsibility to the Imperial Diet, and be invested with tenure in their office.'

This court agrees with Mr. Adler, and the law, that the Director of Civil Affairs should not be responsible to the Imperial Diet for the way in which they perform their duties.  The Director of Civil Affairs is meant to act as a non-partisan arbiter of elections as a way for the Crown to execute elections without undue influence.  The Director of Civil affairs is meant to be another extension of the Crown and, unless stated so by the Crown itself, should not have their duties questioned by the Imperial Diet.  However, unless the laws regulate how the Director of Civil Affairs must conduct these elections, they are still subject to the laws of this land.  Section I Article I of the Non-Partisan Courts Act of 1768, and the act as a whole, places no regulations on how the Director of Civil Affairs must conduct himself.  This Act merely regulates who can participate, not how they are elected.  For these reasons, this court finds no issue.

3.  An unrestricted capability of the Diet to legislate who may be elected to it would place an undue burden on a citizen's right to vote.

Mr. Adler finally seeks to found unconstitutionality on the grounds that placing such a restriction on judges places an undue burden on the right to vote; more specifically, the right of citizens to choose who they elect.  The concern of the petitioner is that the Imperial Diet would gain unrestricted power to regulate who can be elected.  To illustrate this, Mr. Adler provides an example of the Imperial Diet naming specific individuals as the only citizens eligible for election.  Mr. Adler further asks for a constitutional limit to be placed as to who can be barred from election. To examine this, the court must consider when restrictions are constitutionally able to be placed on citizens.

Mr. Adler provides reference to the ORC as follows,

'301.041 - Citizens of the nation shall maintain the right to suffrage in national elections.'

Every individual citizen has the right to vote. Any restriction placed on this is clearly unconstitutional and must be struck down by the courts.  That is not the issue of this case, however.  The issue here is one of checks and balances in government.  The purpose of the Non-Partisan Courts Act of 1768 was to places checks and balances on the Imperial Courts and Diet.  Each of these branches should remain separate from one another in order to maintain impartiality.  Should a judge be allowed to hold both a court position as well as a position in the Imperial Diet, that individual would be able to both create an interpret the laws.  This can not be allowed.  As for Mr. Adler's concern on the Imperial Diet's ability to restrict others from being elected, this court cannot judge hypotheticals.  Such cases must be judged on an individual basis when they are brought before the court.  Therefore, the law shall remain unchanged.

JUDICIAL REVIEW REQUEST GRANTED:

AMENDMENT TO THE LEGAL

PROCEDURE ACT OF 1803

Dear Mr. Gray, 

Your request for judicial review has been granted. The Supreme Court will be accepting amicus briefs from the public at large and any interested parties for the next four months. After this period has ended, the Supreme Court will review the facts of the case, the arguments presented in the briefs, the replying affidavit presented by Mr. Auber, and the original request presented by Mr. Gray.

In accordance with precedent, no injunction shall be granted until judgment has been rendered by this Court.

Signed,

The Rt. Hon. Justice of the Supreme Court

Sir Edward Galbraith KM JD SSE.

RULING ON THE PETITION FOR A WRIT OF

CERTIORARI: GRAY V. THE HOUSE OF COMMONS

Opinion of the Court delivered by Justice Galbraith

Joined by:

Justice Napier

Justice Halcourt

The opinion of the Supreme Court of the Holy Orenian Empire, as delivered by the Right Honorable, Justice Galbraith, is as follows; 

As soon as the Supreme Court received a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari from the Plaintiff, henceforth referred to as “Mr. Gray”, the Supreme Court of the Holy Orenian Empire, henceforth referred to as “the Court”, ordered the presiding Judge of Central Circuit that heard the case in first instance, henceforth referred to as “the Judge”, to send the record of the hearing that was held with the Plaintiff and the Defendant, henceforth referred to as “Mr. Auber”, to the Court for review.

After carefully examining the record of the aforementioned hearing, the judicial proceedings performed by the Judge and the subsequent Ruling issued in first instance, the Court has determined that the Judge violated the Right to Trial of Mr. Gray when the Judge dismissed the case in a preliminary hearing held with both parties while following an inadequate procedure, i.e., the Pre-Trial Procedure, a fact that effectively deprived Mr. Gray from his Right to Trial before an Imperial Court of Law, which is a constitutional right of the Orenian subjects that is applicable even in non-criminal proceedings and that should be respected and preserved by all the Magistrates of the Emperor, on the basis that the Judge erroneously followed the legal procedure, which constitutes a violation of the aforementioned Right to Trial, also known as a mistrial.

The inadequacy of the procedure described in the previous paragraph is such due to the fact that the Court has deemed that the suit filed by Mr. Gray should be considered a Judicial Review Request and not a Petition for Summons. 

Furthermore, the Court considers that the title of a suit is not a sufficient factor to determine the nature of the legal action expressed therein, and that other factors contained therein, such as its content and the petitions made by the Plaintiff to the Court, should also be examined by the Court before deeming a suit as a specific legal action. In this case, the fact that the suit filed by Mr. Gray contained a petition to the Court to strike down the Amendment to the Legal Procedure Act of 1803 is enough for the Court to deem this legal action as a Judicial Review Request. 

The Court wishes to state that in our legal system the judicial proceedings that must be followed for a Petition for Summons are very different from the judicial proceedings that should be followed for a Judicial Review Request. Specifically, and in accordance with the Legal Procedure Act, the Court wishes to state that the Pre-Trial Procedure is not part of the judicial review proceedings.

Therefore, the Court finds the preliminary hearing, the discussion of the merits of the case performed by the Judge and his subsequent Ruling issued in the first instance to be unlawful and that, as such, they are null and void.

Finally, the Court wishes to remind Mr. Gray that the Judge who presided over the case in first instance, who is also a Supreme Court Justice, has informed the Court that he shall abstain from further proceedings related to this case in order to preserve his impartiality and neutrality as a Magistrate of the Emperor.

In consideration of the above the Supreme Court of the Holy Orenian Empire, as delivered by the Right Honorable, Justice Galbraith, sees fit to conclude; 

The Court grants the Petition for a Writ of Certiorari filed by Mr. Gray. As such, the Court shall immediately assume the case in a single instance and perform the subsequent judicial proceedings related to the Judicial Review Request filed by Mr. Gray.

In addition, the Court declares that all the judicial proceedings performed by the Judge in this case, including his Ruling issued in the first instance, are unlawful and that, as such, they are null and void.

RULING

ON THE

PETITION OF SUMMONS

GRAY v THE HOUSE OF COMMONS

The court has ruled in favor of the defendant and choses to deny the case as in the eyes of the court, we rule there's no merit to the case as no rights are violated nor has the power to stop subjects of the empire to seek help from the courts within the empire.

as delivered by the Right Honorable, Chief Justice Komnenos 

On behalf of the Circuit Courts

Dear Joseph D. Adler,

Your request for judicial review has been granted.  The Central Circuit Court shall hereby accept amicus briefs from those willing for the next three months. After this time, the Court shall review the materials including the facts of the case, arguments in amicus briefs, and the original request by Mr. Adler.

Until judgement has been rendered by this court, no injunction shall be granted.  

Signed,

The Right Honourable Judge of the Central Circuit

Relorin Valmoth

RULING

ON THE

MEDICAL DOCUMENTATION ACT

OF 1803

Opinion of the Court delivered by Justice Napier

The opinion and ruling of the Supreme Court of the Holy Orenian Empire, as delivered by the Right Honorable, Justice Napier, are as follows; 

Mr. Nicephore presents the argument that the Medical Documentation Act of 1803 is unconstitutional as it is a municipal document that sets duties and regulations on a Crown employee.

IMPERIAL CHARTER FOR THE CITY OF PROVIDENCE 

"That a city legislature be established and hereinafter entitled the Assembly of the City of Providence which shall have the power to enact legislation particular to the jurisdiction of the City of Providence." 

“The city legislature shall pass bills into law by simple majority, which when published will be entitled Local Laws so as to distinguish them from national Acts of the Diet, and may pertain to the following spheres… 

I. Local taxation.

II. Budgeting, salaries, and all matters of city income and expenditure.

III. Civil law concerning relations between residents of the city.

IV. Regulation, concerning the regulation of other matters of import to the city not aforementioned.

V. Votes of no confidence, whereby the Lord Mayor may be recalled and new elections held provided a four-fifths vote.”

When compared with the duties laid out by the Medical Documentation Act of 1803... 

Local Law, THE MEDICAL DOCUMENTATION ACT, 1803, Section II, “Documentation”:

1. The Practitioner-General shall be tasked with the documentation of all certified doctors within the capital City of Providence.

3. The Practitioner-General shall regularly update the documentation to include all newly certified doctors within the City of Providence.

4. The Practitioner-General shall release the documentation to the public.

It is clear that the Municipal act affects the duties of the Crown Employee, i.e, the Solicitor General. 

However, upon review of the boundaries of municipal “local” law and Crown “National” law, there are no clear legal statements that prevent “local” law from regulating “National” employees in said locality, only that “National” law supersedes “local” law. 

“The city legislature shall pass bills into law by simple majority, which when published will be entitled Local Laws so as to distinguish them from national Acts of the Diet, and may pertain to the following spheres…”

IV. Regulation, concerning the regulation of other matters of import to the city not aforementioned.

That the city legislature be considered a parliamentary body with the power to legislate concerning inner matters concerning itself, as well as concerning the frequency, manner, place, and the suffrage of local elections so long as these rules do not conflict with Our charter. 

Be it established by Our writ that the government and legislature established by this charter remain subservient in all respects to Our Crown and Counsellors, as well as to Acts of the Our Diet, in which Our law is supreme over Local Laws of the city.”

The Medical Documentation Act of 1803 does clearly concern article IV of the Providence Chater, Regulation, which it is free and able to legislate upon. There are no Crown laws that are in conflict with the Local Law thus written.

In consideration of the above the Supreme Court of the Holy Orenian Empire, as delivered by the Right Honorable, Justice Napier, sees fit to conclude;

The Court has reviewed the request, and found the act constitutional. 

Therefore, the Medical Documentation Act of 1803 shall be upheld as local law in application in the Municipality of Providence.