High Court of Justice of the Church of the Canon

IN THE MATTER OF:

The Church of the Canon

v.

Princeps Atticus Keen, et al.

SUBMISSION BY THE PROSECUTION

to the High Court of Justice of the Church of the Canon

From:

Pontifical Prosecutor Alaric Bishop Altamirano

Cardinal Ivan Lotharia

Date: 

14th of Harren’s Folly, 2012 A.D

INTRODUCTION

Purpose of the Submission:

This submission is made on behalf of the prosecution in connection with the above-referenced case. It outlines the prosecution's position, provides relevant evidence, and seeks appropriate relief or directions from this Holy Court.

Nature of the Case:

Princeps Atticus Keen, Boris of Ivoria, and Eduard of Ivoria by and through authority of the Pontifical Prosecution, are hereby charged with violation of the enumerated penal codes below pursuant to the Codex Iurius Canonici Danielus Pontifex, Second Edition and the Canticle of Patience provided by the Scroll of Virtue, enumerated below:

Scroll of Virtue, Canticle of Patience: 

“So I am the Most High, and in pursuit of My Virtue, I bid my faithful this: You shall not raise a hand in wrath, nor in envy, nor in any kind of sin.” (Virtue 5:9).

Codex Iurius Canonici Danielus Pontifex, Second Edition Book I, Title I, Chapter I:
 

§1. The Holy Scrolls, comprising the Virtue of Horen; the Spirit of Owyn; the Gospel of Godfrey; and the Auspice of Sigismund are the foundation of all law and morality.

§2. It is the right of the Church through the High Pontiff to interpret and apply the commandments of the Holy Scrolls.

§3. Nothing is assuredly the command of the Exalted unless it be written in the Holy Scrolls, they being divinely inspired.

Codex Lurius Canonici Danielus Pontifex, Second Edition Book V, Title II, Chapter 3: 

§5. A person who insults or threatens a cleric has committed a crime.

§10. A person who obstructs the justice of the Church has committed a crime.

§11. A person who illegitimately attempts to enforce canon law has committed a crime.

Pursuant to the Preliminary Decision issued by the High Court of Justice, the Pontifical Prosecution may still pursue criminal charges against Atticus Keen and his constituents under Canon Law. Church of the Canon v. Keen, et. al., HCI-002/12, 11, 17 (2012).
 

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Summary of Relevant Facts:

Two elves from Caurost entered the territories of the Pontifical State, specifically within the Principality of Ivoria. Defendants Boris of Ivoria and Eduard of Ivoria approached the two elves and held them against their will. Defendants then proceeded to cut off the ears of the two elves and then forcefully converted them to the Canonist Faith. Defendant Atticus Keen of Ivoria was informed of the matter but refused to investigate and discipline the two knights whom he concedes serve him. Defendant Atticus Keen then proceeded to make negative remarks against elves, even those who are peaceful, canonist, and allied with the Pontifical States. 

Amidst the ongoing investigation of this case, Defendant Atticus Keen would then call for the deaths of all witnesses interviewed by the prosecution whilst also calling for the assassination of Pontifical Prosecutor Cardinal Ivan of Lotharia.

The High Court of Justice had issued a preliminary dismissal of the case pursuant to the inadmissibility of the Pontifical Directives issued by the Pontifical States. The High Court of Justice would then instruct the Pontifical Prosecution to pursue charges pursuant to The Canon Law.

A Saint’s hour after the decision issued by the High Court of Justice, Princeps Atticus Keen would issue a search warrant for three witnesses without consulting the Premier of the Pontifical States’s Cabinet.

Actions by the Prosecution to Date:

• Various witnesses have been interviewed, and testimony or affidavits have been secured.
• General Investigation surrounding the crimes of Attics Keen and Others.
• A Report, is being published by Petran and Caruousi authorities which the prosecution will utilize as further evidence upon receival. 

PARTIES INVOLVED:

Prosecution:

Ivan Cardinal Lotharia

Alaric Bishop Altamirano

Defendant(s):

Atticus Keen

Ser Eduard

Korperal Boris 

All Constituents adhering to Atticus Keen’s most recent missive: Bounty For Traitors Against Ivoria

Other Relevant Parties (if applicable):

TBD.

EVIDENCE RELIED UPON

Summary of Evidence:

The Prosecution intends to rely upon witness testimonies, affidavits, and the recently published missive by Princeps Atticus Keen: Bounty For Traitors Against Ivoria.
 

Supporting Documentation:

The prosecution submits the following evidence in support of its charges:

1. The written testimonies collected by Prosecutor Alaric Bishop Altamirano.
    
2. Written and signed affidavit of a witness regarding Atticus Keen’s intention and desire to harm or assassinate all witnesses and a Pontifical Prosecutor.
    
3. A copy of Atticus Keen’s Missive: Bounty For Traitors Against Ivoria.
    
4. Further evidence shall be provided as the investigation continues. 

Relevance of the Evidence:

Relevance provided within the Legal Arguments below. 

LEGAL ARGUMENTS:

Discussion:
A. Establishment of Personal Jurisdiction

The Holy Scrolls are a fundamental pillar of the Canonist Catechism. Each scroll contains written instructions and rules in which a canonist shall abide by. Book I, Chapter I of the Codex Iurius Canonici Danielus Pontifex, Second Edition outlines the Holy Scrolls as the primary framework and foundation for all Canon Law. See Daniel VI, James II, Codex Iurius Canonici Danielus Pontifex, Second Edition (Rev. 1801).

The Canon Law is derived from the Holy Scrolls. Its laws may be amended or added per the will of the Holy Mother Church through the High Pontiff. See id.

The Pontifical States is a sovereign entity under the direct jurisdiction of the High Pontiff and Holy Mother Church. Furthermore, under the Constitution of the Pontifical States issued by the High Pontiff through his golden bull, the Canon Law shall be the ultimate law governing any individual domiciled within the Pontifical States. See Harrentzedek I, Prima Aurea Bulla Citreum Collis, Section XI (2004).

The High Court of Justice is the highest judicial court within the demesne of the Pontifical States and exercises supreme judicial authority within the Holy Mother Church. See Bainbridge, Praecepta Procedendi, Chapter I: Rule I (2004).

The High Court of Justice has granted the Pontifical Prosecution the authority to raise criminal complaints against the Defendants in its preliminary decision of the first iteration of this case. Church of the Canon v. Keen, et. al., HCI-002/12, 11, 17 (2012).
 

Defendants are citizens within the Pontifical States. Defendants are domiciled within the Pontifical states. Thus, Defendants are subject to Personal Jurisdiction by this court. 

B. On the systematic persecution of the Children of Malin

It has been established that the Canon Law governs the territories of the Pontifical States. The Scroll of Virtue, a progenitor of the Canon Law, establishes the Canticle of Patience which provides: “So I am the Most High, and in pursuit of My Virtue, I bid my faithful this: You shall not raise a hand in wrath, nor in envy, nor in any kind of sin.” (Virtue 5:9).

The persecution of innocent descendants violates this canticle. Within the Scroll of Gospel, Godfrey is admonished by the LORD for spreading the faith by the sword whilst proclaiming the superiority of humanity above all descendants: “Thus the Lord was wroth with Godfrey and He spoke ‘Lo, you have been proud and called My work your own. Who clove the waters from the earth, and who created the Skies and the Void?’” (Gospel 7:20-22). For it is within these lines whereas the ALMIGHTY warns against the dangers of using HIS name to incite needless violence.

Compulsory conversion to the canonist faith without just cause is further prohibited under Canon Law. The Scroll of Spirit provides in its epistle to the godwinites, “Verily, brother, the Lord GOD has given no compulsion in faith.” (Spirit 1:3).

Here, witness testimonies privy to the Princep’s council provide that Atticus Keen purposefully refused to prosecute Ser Eduard and Korperal Boris  who attempted to forcefully convert a mother and child into the Canonist Faith. Princeps Keen has also been heard by the witnesses that, “these were elves, and not worth sufficiently punishing a Knight over nor would he approve the arrest” even when these knights threatened the “death and mutilation of a child.” 

Further depositions from the witness testimony reveal that Atticus Keen expresses a “disdain for elves” and such a comment was backed by the witnesses themselves who stated that he had once “belittled” an elven canonist studying as an acolyte under the Holy Mother Church. 

A later witness has also testified under oath that prior to the establishment of Ivoria’s city, Atticus Keen had expressly stated that “any elf seen on his lands will be thrown off the cliffside.”

Thus, the aforementioned testimonies clearly show a blatant violation of the Canticle of Patience within the Scroll of Virtue.

C. On the illegitimate enforcement of the Canon Law

Having established that the Pontifical States-through its constitution issued by the High Pontiff-adheres to the Canon Law as the supreme law of the land, its enforcement may only be granted by the Holy Mother Church. See Daniel VI, James II, Codex Iurius Canonici Danielus Pontifex, Second Edition (Rev. 1801).

Section 11 of Book 5, Title 1, Chapter 3 of Codex Iurius Canonici Danielus Pontifex, Second Edition states that: “§11. A person who illegitimately attempts to enforce canon law has committed a crime.” See id. This binding statute governs the supremacy of the Pontifical States in its enforcement of Canon Law. The Directives issued by the Premier, who governs the nation on behalf of the High Pontiff, are subject to the Canon Law. Thus, all internal and diplomatic endeavors of the Pontifical States must adhere to the Canon Law. 

A witness privy to the military actions of Ivoria and present during a diplomatic incident with Nevaehlen states that when Atticus Keen and his retinue arrived at the gates of the Vale, he was “refused entrance”. Furthermore in accordance with the witness’s testimony, it can be reasonably assumed that when Atticus Keen had threatened “war with the Vale” for being refused entrance into their city, he was acting without consent from the Premier’s cabinet and the High Pontiff. His separate action can be considered an illegitimate enforcement of the canon law. 

Another witness testimony provides that the witness had seen a soldier of the Ivorian military execute an elf. When the witness asked the reason for the execution, the soldier stated that “Atticus said so”. When the witness inquired the reason for Atticus’s order, the soldier “was unable to state the actual crime he had committed.”

Further, a testimony from another individual privy to the Princep’s courts had stated that Atticus Keen had once let elven diplomats into his city before “hunting them down like dogs” afterwards. Such an act violates Pontifical Supremacy of the Canon Law regarding diplomacy. Rather than letting the elven diplomats speak with the Premier or the High Pontiff, Atticus Keen took it upon himself to issue orders to harm them. 

Thus, the prosecution claims that under the Canon Law, Atticus Keen has violated section 11 of Book 5, Title 1, Chapter 3 of Codex Iurius Canonici Danielus Pontifex, Second Edition through these diplomatic incidents and his orders to harm elves either be it out of vendetta, or personal ambitions of violence. 

Lastly, Atticus Keens missive calling for the capture or death of three witnesses whom he labels as “traitors” within his missive is also a violation of Section 11 of the Canon Law. He did not consult with the High Pontiff nor the Premier of the Pontifical States before publishing his missive. 

D. On the threats issued by Atticus Keen and his constituents
Section 5 of Book 5, Title 1, Chapter 3 of Codex Iurius Canonici Danielus Pontifex, Second Edition provides that “§5. A person who insults or threatens a cleric has committed a crime.” See id. 

When such a threat is against a Cardinal of the Holy Mother Church and privy to the High Pontiff’s Curia, it is schismatic in nature. See id.

Section 10 of Book 5, Title 1, Chapter 3 of Codex Iurius Canonici Danielus Pontifex, Second Edition provides that “§10. A person who obstructs the justice of the Church has committed a crime.” See id.

An affidavit written under oath by a witness privy to Atticus Keen’s court and council has stated that “Atticus directly called for the Death” of Cardinal Ivan while also to “intimidate” Bishop Alaric. When the Pontifical Prosecutors are working strictly in professional capacity on behalf of the Holy Mother Church, such dangerous statements may incite further violence and instability within Canondom. 

The same affidavit states that Atticus Keen had also “directly called” for the death of the witnesses essential to this case and investigation. Such blatant threats are evidently a form of obstruction of justice. 

The recent missive published by Atticus Keen titled Bounty For Traitors Against Ivoria solidifies the claims made by the signed affidavit. These names were mentioned by the witness who had signed the affidavit. If such is true, then it can be reasonably inferred that Atticus Keen is not above harming clergymen within the Holy Mother Church if he does not like them. Furthermore, the prosecution finds that the Princeps may hire mercenaries and brigands to find these witnesses. Thus, these same mercenaries and brigands may choose to harm others who oppose Atticus Keen all for the Princeps’s favor. 

Refutation of Defense Arguments: 

A. On the matter of “Sovereign Entities” and “Feudal Concerns”

The defense may argue similarly during their previous motion to dismiss that Pontifical Prosecution is encroaching upon the sovereign rights of Ivoria. Such an argument has no merit.

As it was established in the aforementioned arguments, the Pontifical States has supreme authority under the Canon Law over its citizens and all residents domiciled within its territories pursuant by the very Golden Bull published by the High Pontiff. See Harrentzedek I, Prima Aurea Bulla Citreum Collis, Section XI (2004). 

Furthermore, the Pontifical Prosecution is an extension of the Canon Church exercising its professional authority as investigators and prosecutors for the Judiciary of the Holy Mother Church. See Daniel VI, James II, Codex Iurius Canonici Danielus Pontifex, Second Edition, Book I (Rev. 1801). 

Vassals being “sovereign entities” do not nullify their liege’s supreme authority above them. No explicit and written agreement was signed between Ivoria and the Holy Mother Church outlining a contractual relationship. The Constitution merely provides the privileges Vassals may have, and such privileges are subject to the discretion of the Holy Mother Church through the High Pontiff and the Premier of the Pontifical States. This discretion is further legitimized under Book I, Chapter I, Section 2 the Canon Law. See id; See also Daniel VI, James II, Codex Iurius Canonici Danielus Pontifex, Second Edition, Book I (Rev. 1801).

Furthermore the “feudal contracts” and “feudal concerns” argument has no legal basis within the Pontifical States. It is established law and tradition that the High Pontiff has a permanent mandate as Vicar of GOD. His curia, and institutions are the extension of that same mandate which permits him to govern in accordance with the LORD’s will. Feudal concerns are merely reserved for Canonist Princes or any other sovereign who does not have a permanent mandate. See Daniel VI, James II, Codex Iurius Canonici Danielus Pontifex, Second Edition (Rev. 1801).

Thus, Ivoria is not a sovereign entity, for it is not an independent entity. It is subject to the directives, decrees and authority of His Holiness and the Holy Mother Church. 

B. On the matter of “Double Jeopardy”

The defense may put forth a “double jeopardy” argument. Minus the explicit lack of the double jeopardy defense within Canon Law, The Prosecution will entertain this form of defense in anticipation of future cases where such a defense may arise.

The High Court of Justice has provided a criminal mandate for the Pontifical Prosecution in its preliminary decision under section 11 and Section 17. Church of the Canon v. Keen, et. al., HCI-002/12, 11, 17 (2012). This mandate permits the prosecution to reopen this case de novo pursuant to Canon Law.

Both sections provide that the Prosecution may pursue this case again but under the jurisprudence of Canon Law. Thus, at the time this submission is presented before the courts, the Prosecution rests its charges under the Canon Law.
 

C. On the matter of “Negligence”

The Prosecution concedes that negligence is a river which flows through the canals of civil litigation. Tortious in nature, civil litigation is the best medicine for the aching pain of negligence. However, Atticus Keen’s actions were not negligent. 

As the above facts and arguments have shown. The Princeps’ purposeful neglect of investigating the actions committed by his retinue, and further evidence of his direct orders show a matter of “depraved heart” indifference to the victims and complete ignorance to the laws of the Pontifical States. 

D. On the matter of “Sovereign Privilege” 

Privilege is not a right. Privilege is a reward given to loyal subjects of their liege. Here, Atticus Keen has expressly disregarded the written laws governing the Pontifical States. Thus, he has expressly disobeyed his liege. When insolence is concerned, the safety of the Pontifical States is held above “Sovereign Privilege”; For the unity of the Church is essential under The Canon Law.  Daniel VI, James II, Codex Iurius Canonici Danielus Pontifex, Second Edition Book 5, Title II (Rev. 1801).

RELIEF SOUGHT:

Primary Relief Sought:

1. A preliminary injunction revoking the legal authorities of Ser Boris and Eduard, until the guilt of these parties is determined. This is chiefly to prevent further abuses of power from occurring.
    
2. A preliminary injunction temporarily revoking the authority of the Ivorian military upon the lands of the Pontifical States.
    
3. Nullification of the missive Bounty For Traitors Against Ivoria.
    
4. The compulsory Abdication of Atticus keen from his post as Princeps of Ivoria and subsequent excommunication.
    
5. Adequate issuance of punishment from the Pontifical States on all adherents to the recently published missive by Princeps Atticus Keen. 

Additional Requests:

The Prosecution requests for a full protective order for all evidence pertaining to witness testimonies and affidavits to ensure the safety of such witnesses. The recent missive issued by Princeps Atticus Keen highlights his wrathful nature which if left unchecked, may incite further conflict within the Pontifical States and beyond. 

Justification for Relief:

The aforementioned party, pursuant to their violations of canon law and the Canticle of Patience, should not be allowed to retain their offices; unrepentant criminals and sinners are not fit for the duties of leadership. The aforementioned party and their position in leadership within Ivoria and the Pontifical States may compromise the safety, security, and stability of Canondom.

Furthermore, The safety of the witnesses, essential to the charges aforementioned, will be at continued risk if the court does not enact a protective order for the aforementioned witness. It is essential their testimony is heard, before they are criminally tried in the courts of Ivoria. 

PRAYER:

In light of the foregoing, the prosecution respectfully prays that this Honorable Court may be pleased to:

1. A preliminary injunction revoking the legal authorities of Ser Boris and Eduard, until the guilt of these parties is determined. This is chiefly to prevent further abuses of power from occurring.
    
2. A preliminary injunction temporarily revoking the authority of the Ivorian military upon the lands of the Pontifical States.
    
3. The compulsory Abdication of Atticus keen from his post as Princeps of Ivoria.
    
4. The excommunication of Atticus Keen and all constitutients embedded within his plot to harm clerics of the Holy Mother Church and the Unity of the Holy Mother Church [Subject to decree of the High Pontiff].
    
5. Adequate issuance of punishment from the Pontifical States on all adherents to the recently published missive by Princeps Atticus Keen. 

SIGNATURE AND VERIFICATION: 

Signature of the Prosecutor(s):

Ivan Cardinal Lotharia
 

Alaric Bishop Altamirano

Verification:

We, the undersigned prosecutors, hereby affirm that the contents of this submission are true and correct to the best of our knowledge, information, and belief.

PLACE: Holy See of Mount Lemon

DATE: 14th of Horen’s Folly, 2012 A.D

ON BEHALF OF: 

The Pontifical Prosecution

High Court of Justice of the Church of the Canon

IN THE MATTER OF:

The Church of the Canon

v.

Lorelei Alstion-Enswerp

SUBMISSION BY THE PROSECUTION

to the High Court of Justice of the Church of the Canon

From:

Alaric Bishop Altamirano

Date: 

21st of Owyn’s Flame, 2005

INTRODUCTION

Purpose of the Submission:

The indictment and conviction of one Countess Lorelei Alstion-Enswerp, on the charges of adultery, based on the sworn testimony of various individuals pointing to a disreputable character, evidence pointing towards the suspicious nature of her husband’s death, and an ailment that likely prevented him from conceiving a child to begin with. Though it is difficult to prove with absolute certainty a physical act of adultery, the prosecution firmly believes it is able to prove unfaithfulness in spirit, and the extreme likelihood of physical unfaithfulness. 

Nature of the Case:

Countess Lorelei Alstion-Enswerp is hereby charged with committing a Crime Against Virtue, specifically the act of adultery. The party with whom she is accused of committing this crime is one Goran Wick, the current betrothed of the accused. This submission requests a trial of the accused be, without unreasonable delay, be conducted to determine her guilt in this matter. 

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Summary of Relevant Facts:

- The husband of the accused perished recently, however he was ailing for some time prior to his death. The exact nature of his illness is unknown. 

- Goran Wick is the individual suspected of partaking in Adulterous behaviour with the Defendant. 

- A child, potentially sired from an adulterous affair, was born within the last year. 

- Goran Wick had personal access to the Cliffside Keep in Enswerp.

- Goran Wick and Lorelei Alstion-Enswerp were betrothed to each other almost immediately after the death of her husband was discovered. 

- The body of Roan Alstion-Enswerp was discovered under suspicious circumstances, the names of those who brought forth the body to the Enswerp family are unknown. 

Chronology of Events:

- Early in the year 2002 AD, the body and death of Roan Alstion-Enswerp was discovered, by the Enswerp family when his body arrived at the keep by unnamed travellers who had accompanied him on his travels. 

- Goran Wick was granted keys to the castle of enwserp, having thereafter access to certain chambers of his own free will.

- On the 5th of Godfrey’s Triumph, in the year 2003 A.D, Roan Alstion-Enswerp was discovered to have perished. The same saint’s day as the “Bloody Diet”. However, before the discovery of his Death, Goran and Lorelai spent a considerable amount of time, alone, together in her chamber. 

Actions by the Prosecution to Date:

- The Prosecution has interviewed one Goran Wick to receive further testimony to the matter at hand.

- The Prosecution has reviewed all documents pertaining to the prior case in which these charges were first brought to the attention of the Court. 

- The Prosecution has interviewed and acquired affirmed testimony from the sister of the Defendant, one Lady Arya. 

- The Prosecution has interviewed Princeps Atticus Keen. 

PARTIES INVOLVED:

Prosecution:

Alaric Bishop Altamirano

Defendant(s):

Countess Lorelei Alstion-Enswerp

Other Relevant Parties:

- Goran Wick, suspected party to the crime of adultery.

- Lady Arya, sister to the defendant

- Atticus Keen, civil litigant of a prior related case.

EVIDENCE RELIED UPON

Summary of Evidence:

- Sworn Affidavit // Testimony of Goran Wick

- Sworn Affidavit // Testimony of Lady Arya

Supporting Documentation:

The prosecution submits the following evidence in support of its charges:

1. Sworn Affidavit of Cynemar Elliot
2. Minutes from HCA-001/04, Ivoria V. Enswerp
3. Notice of Judgement of the Wick Family, Kingdom of Numendil
4. Sworn Affidavit of John of Enswerp

Relevance of the Evidence:

- The Sworn Testimony of Lady Arya will prove the disdain Lorelei Alstion-Enswerp held for Roan Alstion-Enswerp, the love she holds for Goran, and the opportunity where they likely committed adultery together. 

- Exhibit A is relevant to the general character of the defendant, and illustrates precedent for behaviour to the crime in question. 

- Exhibit B are the minutes from the previous hearing that established chronology for the events, and shed light upon the situation in general. It will be referenced to further support the indictment. 

- Exhibit C establishes the criminal and sinful nature of the Wick family, and its general associates with unsavoury behaviour. It shall be used to establish the capacity of Goran Wick to engage, and persuade the Countess to commit Adultery. 

- Exhibit D establishes the distrust Lorelei’s own family holds for her, and her general tendency to violate the basic decencies of nobility and ladyship. 

LEGAL ARGUMENTS:

Applicable Laws and Legal Principles:

- Codex Lurius Canonici Danielus Pontifex, Second Edition, James II: Book V, Title II, Chapter I, §2. A person who engages in concubinage, adultery, or fornication has committed a crime.

- Enchiridion Peccati, The Handbook of Sin: Adultery, The sin of being unfaithful to one’s partner in marriage. The sin of Adultery goes against the example set forth by the Lord through the wedding of the virtuous Horen and Julia as well as Adultery being a grave example of the sin of Lust.

Application to the Facts:

- The Prosecution contends that Lorelei Alstion-Enswerp committed an act of adultery with Goran Wick, and that this unholy union is evidenced by the birth of a child. 

- The Prosecution contends this child was not conceived in lawful wedded union, as the husband, Roan Alstion-Enswerp, has not been heard from in over a saint’s week; and was only discovered recently to be dead.

Refutation of Defense Arguments:

- The Defense, in the past, had claimed that these accusations are simply part of a scheme by the defendant's kin to steal from under her the lands of Enswerp. However, this claim is merely a distraction from the issue at hand; Claimants, had they their eyes on the County could have acted long before this affair to try and "steal" the lands of Enwserp from under her.

RELIEF SOUGHT:

Primary Relief Sought:

The Conviction of Lorelei Alstion-Enswerp on the charge of adultery; and upon conviction, Lorelei Alstion-Enswerp’s disinheritance from her noble status and lands, and that she be forced to take monastic vows, in addition to other penalties the court deems fit.

Additional Requests:

The Prosecution finds no cause for additional relief at this juncture. 

Justification for Relief:

Adultery is an offense against the people of the Canondom, the Church, and GOD, and must be adequately punished. 

PRAYER:

In light of the foregoing, the prosecution respectfully prays that this Honorable Court may be pleased to:

1. Find Lorelei Alstion-Enswerp guilty of the crime of Adultery,
2. Revoke the Countess’ titles and lands as due punishment for her sin; and find a suitable Heir or trustee for these lands.

SIGNATURE AND VERIFICATION: 

Verification:

I, Alaric Bishop Altamirano, hereby affirm that the contents of this submission are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief.

Signature of the Prosecutor

His Grace,

Alaric Bishop Altamirano

PLACE: The Holy See of Mount Lemon

DATE: 21st of Owyn’s Flame, 2005

ON BEHALF OF: 

The Pontifical Prosecution

High Court of Justice of the Church of the Canon

IN THE MATTER OF:

The Church of the Canon

v.

Princeps Atticus Keen, et al. 

SUBMISSION BY THE PROSECUTION

to the High Court of Justice of the Church of the Canon

From:

Pontifical Prosecutor Alaric Valkonen

Cardinal Ivan Lotharia

Date: 

8th of Tobias Bounty, 2011 A.D

INTRODUCTION

Purpose of the Submission:

To determine the culpability and guilt of Atticus Keen, in violating the fundamental laws of the Pontifical States, and committing various criminal acts that will prove him incapable of leading a vassal state.

Nature of the Case:

Princeps Atticus Keen of Ivoria is hereby indicted with committing INSUBORDINATION of the highest order against the Pontifical States, in addition to gross negligence in affairs of governing, specifically violating: The Tetrium Directivum & Secundum Directivum. 

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Summary of Relevant Facts:

Two elves from Caurost entered the territories of the Pontifical State, specifically within the Principality of Ivoria. Defendants Boris of Ivoria and Eduard of Ivoria approached the two elves and held them against their will. Defendants then proceeded to cut off the ears of the two elves and then forcefully converted them to the Canonist Faith. Defendant Atticus Keen of Ivoria was informed of the matter but refused to investigate and discipline the two knights whom he concedes serve him. Defendant Atticus Keen then proceeded to make negative remarks against elves, even those who are peaceful, canonist, and allied with the Pontifical States. 

PARTIES INVOLVED:

Prosecution:

Alaric Walter Valkonen, Pontifical Prosecutor 
Cardinal Ivan Lotharia

Defendant(s):

Atticus Keen 

Other Relevant Parties (if applicable):

James Cardinal Rhosmark, Adrian Henry Sarkozic, Peter di Alessandria, et al. (Further involved parties will be enumerated as the investigation continues). 

LEGAL ARGUMENTS:

Applicable Laws and Legal Principles:

Article IV of the Fundamental Statue for the Holy See Territories, Paragraph 2-3 & The Secundum Directivum, section 2: NO organization or person that is subject to the government of the Pontifical States SHALL engage in any unauthorized application of force or intervention in or against any foreign nation, and The Tetrium Directivum of the Holy Pontifical States, section 1: ALL punishments and penalties and executions under the jurisdiction of the Pontifical Government SHALL be carried out in a manner that is professional and efficient, not directed to permanent maiming, humiliation, or, in the case of an execution, a prolonged death.

RELIEF SOUGHT:

Primary Relief Sought:

• A preliminary injunction revoking the legal authorities of Ser Boris and Eduard, until the guilt of these parties is determined. This is chiefly to prevent further abuses of power from occurring. 
• The compulsory Abdication of Atticus keen from his post as Princeps of Ivoria. 

Justification for Relief:

• It is the opinion of the Pontifical prosecution that these men pose a serious threat to the safety and well-being of canonist, and non-allied canonist elves in particular, As such, our relief seeks to prevent further acts of violence from being committed by the aforementioned parties. 
• The prosecution will demonstrate Atticus Keen’s grossly negligent behaviour and unconstitutional acts proves his incapability to lead a Vassal state of the Pontifical States. 

PRAYER:

In light of the foregoing, the prosecution respectfully prays that this Honorable Court may be pleased to:

1. Enact the swift and immediate revocation of legal authority from the two aforementioned ivori soldiers. 

2. Enact the abdication of Princeps Atticus Keen from the Principality of Ivoria & the replacement thereof. 

SIGNATURE AND VERIFICATION: 

Signature of the Prosecutor(s):

Alaric Bishop Altamirano

Ivan Cardinal Lotharia

Verification:

We, the undersigned prosecutors, hereby affirm that the contents of this submission are true and correct to the best of our knowledge, information, and belief.

PLACE: Mount Lemon, The Holy See of the Church of the Canon

DATE: 8th of Tobias Bounty, 2011

ON BEHALF OF: 

The Pontifical Prosecution

MOTION TO DISMISS

Church of the Canon v. Atticus Keen, et al.

There is no power except from God. 

Let justice be done though the heavens fall. 

Pelagius IV, Bishop-Lector of the Church of the Canon

ON BEHALF OF

Atticus Keen, Princeps of Ivoria

To the Right Honourable Justices of the High Court of Justice of the Church of the Canon,

As is the right of a Defendant, cases can be dismissed based on insufficient evidence, jurisdictional issues, or malicious and frivolous intent. The defense submits that the recent case brought forth against Princeps Atticus Keen of Ivoria, initiated by Bishop Alaric Altamarino and Cardinal Ivan Lotharia, meets all three criteria for dismissal. The defense further asserts that allowing this case to proceed risks setting a precedent that undermines Canon Law and the principles upon which this Court was founded.

Introduction 

The Prosecution loosely calls upon several claims in their initial case, observing that the Princeps of Ivoria has proven insubordination through the Pontifical Constitution and violated its amendments. In doing so, they assert that he has proven negligent to rule, and that two involved guards must be barred from their positions. They use these violations to further allege potential wrongdoing and misconduct worthy of a trial. The Defendant asserts that these claims are vague, ill-intentioned, and in violation of Canonist Law.

Even despite the faulty charge, we recognize the Prosecution’s attempted relief is unnecessary and only has relevance to political motivations and malicious interests. It should be recognized that the original provisioning for the Ivori land deed considered the Ivori as a cultural people returning from voluntary diaspora. Requesting abdication of their tribal leader is tantamount to requesting the eviction and departure of an entire people and their possessions. By precedent, the Ivori people have shown to be righteous and steadfast, hosting daily masses and dedicating their lives to the Lord God. Furthermore, to call for preliminary suspension of his men overwrites the trust owed in feudal contracts and must be denied for the integrity of the states.

The prosecution stated:

Princeps Atticus Keen of Ivoria is hereby indicted with committing INSUBORDINATION of the highest order against the Pontifical States, in addition to gross negligence in affairs of governing, specifically violating: The Tetrium Directivum & Secundum Directivum.

Utilizing the following ‘legal principles’:

Article IV of the Fundamental Statue for the Holy See Territories, Paragraph 2-3 & The Secundum Directivum, section 2: NO organization or person that is subject to the government of the Pontifical States SHALL engage in any unauthorized application of force or intervention in or against any foreign nation, and The Tetrium Directivum of the Holy Pontifical States, section 1: ALL punishments and penalties and executions under the jurisdiction of the Pontifical Government SHALL be carried out in a manner that is professional and efficient, not directed to permanent maiming, humiliation, or, in the case of an execution, a prolonged death.

The basis for dismissal is sought on the following:

I. ON ARTICLE IV OF THE FUNDAMENTAL STATUTE

The Defendant holds that this case is unworthy of the High Courts of Justice, asserting that such a misuse of resources only violates the feudal contract owed to the Pontifical States through the Pontifical Constitution. 

The Prosecution cites Article IV of the Fundamental Statute for the Holy See Territories, which state that civil disputes may be heard by the High Court should they not contravene Canon laws, fall within the jurisdiction of the Pontifical States, and involve only baptized citizens. However, Article IV in its entirety speaks specifically about the right of the citizen to petition the court on civil matters, not about criminal matters brought forth by the prosecution as in this instance.

Importantly, Article X establishes that entities and estates may establish their own courts of law, provided these courts adhere to the provisions of the constitution. However, the prosecution is attempting to circumvent this. If the Court were to accept the Prosecution’s interpretation as valid reason to enter the High Courts, it would render all vassal rulers powerless in their right to govern through their own courts, requiring Pontifical approval for every local issue.

Under this principle of subsidiarity made clear in the Pontifical Constitution, local courts and regional authorities must be the first to address disputes within their jurisdictions. The High Court of Justice should only intervene in civil cases where local courts fail to resolve the matter or if the case involves grave canonical violations—neither of which apply here.

II. Timing of Directives 

The prosecution's case rests on allegations that Princeps Atticus Keen violated Directivums of the Constitution. However, both Directives that are quoted to claim negligence of his leadership were enacted two days after the alleged incident took place. 

According to Canon Law, Book I, Title I, Chapter I, Section 2: 'Laws provide for the future only, unless expressly provided.' Therefore, the cited Directives cannot be retroactively applied to this case, rendering the prosecution’s argument legally invalid from the outset. This also demonstrates malicious intent in trying to strawman charges, which the Defendant levies as disrespectful. 

III. On the Constitutional and Canonical Implications of this Contract

The High Court of Justice in its original charge states that it is established to interpret and enforce Canon Law, as well as oversee civil disputes within the Pontifical States. The prosecution’s reliance on secular statutes, such as the Directivums, raises a fundamental question about the jurisdiction of this Court. Is the Prosecution no longer charged with Canon Law, such that the High Court can move forward with its mission in interpreting and enforcing the Codex Iurius Canonic? 

We remind the Court that, even if this criminal case is somehow considered civil, it is in the rules of procedure that the High Court “shall only hear civil disputes within the Pontifical States when no Regional Court exists in the jurisdiction, the case is appealed from a Regional Court, or the case involves issues of Canon Law.”

The validity of the Prosecution using the Constitution of the Pontifical States compared to the Canon Law must be distinguished. The Directivums, and those of the constitution, are secular laws enacted by the Pontifical States Government, not canonical laws codified in the Codex Iurius Canonic. The avenue of Prosecution in the High Court of Justice is established to interpret and enforce Canon Law, not the constitution nor amendments like the Directives cited by the Prosecution. Therefore, the Directivums and the constitution, through the way the prosecution intends to try the Princeps of Ivoria, cannot be used as a legal basis for a prosecution in the High Court, which is exclusively a court of Canon Law. 

Regardless of the above facts, the Court must ask itself what will result if codexes and laws can exist beyond that of Canon Law, sufficient for men to be prosecuted in the High Courts. To allow another law to rule the fate of man, when it was intended that Canon Law serves paramount in the Pontifical States. Let this serve as a clear reference to a shortcoming to be solved, but not precedent that undermines the legitimacy of the High Court.

The defense respectfully urges the Court to reject this overreach of the prosecution and uphold the integrity of its jurisdiction, as well as future cases.

Closing Remarks

This case is simply insufficient to be heard by the High Court.

It uses retroactive laws, proving malicious intent and breaking Canon Law. If the constitution was acceptable to be used in the High Court, the charges are insufficient to be raised due to subsidiary and feudal concerns. However, still yet, such overreach in allowing the prosecution to use a constitution rather than canon law must be shut down. This Prosecution disrespects the goodly people of the Principate of Ivoria, as well as the courts, by concerning them with a frivolous cause.

We motion that the High Court dismiss this Prosecution in its entirety, and come out with clear guidelines to keep the prosecution in check.

RULE I. ー COMPLIANCE

ART. 1.   All subjects of law appearing before the High Court shall comply with these Rules of Procedure.

ART. 2.   Failure to comply with these rules may result in penalties, including fines, excommunication, or other disciplinary measures as appropriate.

GOD BLESS & MAY THE WHITE FLAME GUIDE YOU,

Holy Counsel, Pelagius IV, Bishop-Lector