PETITION RULING - The Crown v. Kharajyar R.A.

[Draeris 3124]

RULING ON THE KHA PETITION TO THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL

 

PETITION OF THE PETITIONER

 “Toteoh the Khah”

ON BEHALF OF

The Karajyar Refugee Association

V.
 

 

RESPONDENT OF THE PETITION

HIS EXCELLENCY THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL

Count Bohemond de Leumont of Provins

ON BEHALF OF

The Church of the Canon

&

HIS HIGHNESS THE LORD-PROTECTOR

Duke A.v.J. de Sarkozy of Adria

ON THE SUBJECT OF

The 1^st Golden Bull of Rhodesia

The 2^nd Golden Bull of Judeburg

The legality of the aforementioned documents and their perceived infringement onto established imperial law codified in the LEX IMPERIALIS. The perceived infringement occurs on the articles of: CHAPTER I. CRIMINALIS LEGEM, III., IV., IV.I., IV.II., V., V.I., XIII., XIII.I., XIII.III., XIV., XIV.I.

 

CONSIDERS THE FOLLOWING

 

REGARDING THE JURISDICTIONAL LEGALITY OF THE PETITION

The Karajyar Refugee Association is placed in a foreign nation which in principle renders the petitioner outside of the Imperial jurisdiction of the Empire. However, this principle becomes irrelevant if the substance of the petition, and the potential consequences that stem from it, are exclusively applied to the LEX IMPERIALIS. At least in terms of substance can the petition be considered legally relevant to the Empire. Furthermore, considering the lack of an agreed upon establishment of jurisdictions, the denial of this petitioner could set a precedent that is dangerous to the general applicability of the LEX IMPERIALIS to everyone that finds him- or herself in the Empire. Considering the fact that if a foreigner commits a crime, he or she faces an Imperial court instead of his or her domestic one, denying foreigners their ability to participate in legal traffic would undermine the intended functionality of the LEX IMPERIALIS. Therefore, the petition is considered legally within the jurisdiction of the Empire.

 

REGARDING THE EXCLUSION OF THE CHURCH OF CANON FROM THE LEX IMPERIALIS

Even though the Solicitor-General has openly petitioned the Church of the Canon to expand its authorities in the legal dimension so that it may not find itself superseded by Imperial law, the petition has remained unanswered. Therefore, the legal positions as they were before the petition are applied for this petition. Albeit the Church of the Canon is presumed to have absolute judicial autonomy from the Imperial judicial apparatus, members of the Church of Canon are subject to specific laws from the LEX IMPERIALIS. While the special tribunal established by the Church of the Canon would oversee most CLASS I infringements done by servicemen of the Church, most CLASS V crimes done by church servicemen would be handled by Imperial courts. Under the current legal framework, the Imperial Judiciary cannot rule whether the Church of Canon should, at least partially, answer to the LEX IMPERIALIS.

 

By recognizing the legality of the petition and by considering the petitioner within the jurisdiction of the Holy Orenian Empire, the petitioner is both subject to the laws of the Church of the Canon as much as the LEX IMPERIALIS. The Church of the Canon has not (yet) subjected itself to the current Imperial legal framework; meaning that any form of petitioning as the petitioner has done would simply be impossible. The ability to petition is considered a right for every Orenian citizen as much as any legal subject within the Imperial jurisdiction. Leading to the conclusion that due to the absence of a petition mechanic in the Church of the Canon that properly facilitates this fundamental legal right in the Empire, we must follow the mechanic present in the LEX IMPERIALIS. They are therefore not excluded from the structures, laws and principles embodied by the LEX IMPERIALIS.

 

However, when we CHAPTER II CONTRACTUS LEGEM is applied, we can interpret the exceptional judicial position of the Church of the Canon as a contract between the Imperial Crown and the Church. The rule of thumb that this situation creates, is: “LEX IMPERIALIS is to be applied, unless the Church of the Canon states otherwise”. Due to the lack of a petition mechanic, the Church of the Canon cannot express a stance regarding the legality of the petitioner, his petition and the authority of the Solicitor-General to respond to it. The judicial concept of a petition and its potential consequences do not exist in the Canonistic legal framework. The Solicitor-General therefore rules in response to this petition that the Church of the Canon is not excluded from the LEX IMPERIALIS and the procedures of legality on the subject of petitions alone. This petition can legally place the Church of the Canon within its scope.

 

REGARDING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE BULLS OF JUDEBERG AND RHODESIA

In principle, the Solicitor-General would have no authority over the Church of the Canon and its Canonist legal framework. However, the Church of the Canon is neither able to undermine the LEX IMPERIALIS which is deemed to be the legal will of the Lord-Protector, who legally embodies the authorities and functions of an Emperor. This duality raises the question whether the Church of the Canon can undermine fundamental imperial rights, as much as the Solicitor-General can protect them with the legality of the Church of the Canon as a cost.

 

To break this legal impasse, the Solicitor-General applies the Leumont Principle: “Everything established within the physical, administrative and diplomatic dimension that is not in accordance to the rule of law; is considered to have never existed”. While the Bulls of Judeberg and Rhodesia might be in accordance to Canonist rule of law, they are not in accordance with the established laws of the LEX IMPERIALIS, nor is there a petition mechanic that would honor the fundamental rights of an Imperial legal subject. It is not established that the laws of the Church of the Canon supersede CLASS V laws, and it assumed that they delegate the judicial handling of CLASS V laws to the Imperial courts.

 

Therefore, everything that the bulls of Judeberg and Rhodesia state that is in conflict with the articles of: CHAPTER I. CRIMINALIS LEGEM, III., IV., IV.I., IV.II., V., V.I., XIII., XIII.I., XIII.III., XIV., XIV.I., is deemed to be not in accordance to the rule of law. Everything in the bulls that is in conflict with these articles alone are considered null in the eyes of the Imperial courts.

 

THE CONCLUSION

The Church of the Canon can maintain the Bulls of Judeberg and Rhodesia and apply everything that is not in conflict with CHAPTER I. CRIMINALIS LEGEM, III., IV., IV.I., IV.II., V., V.I., XIII., XIII.I., XIII.III., XIV., XIV.I., as everything that is in conflict with these articles will be deemed to have never existed legally. The Solicitor-General invites the Church of the Canon to properly arrange the relationship between Imperial rights, laws and the laws of the Church of the Canon to avoid future legal impasses such as these. If the petitioner or any legal subject finds him or herself victim of crimes as described in III., IV., IV.I., IV.II., V., V.I., XIII., XIII.I., XIII.III., XIV., XIV.I., the Church of the Canon would be deemed to not have the legal basis to commit these crimes to the legal subjects of the Empire.

 

APPEAL OR PETITION

The respondents that the Solicitor-General ruled on behalf of can, if they deem this ruling to be illegal or improperly conducted, petition the Solicitor-General to overturn his ruling, or verbally reject this ruling in a Court of law. If they chose not to reject this petition within 20 saint days, which is deemed as ample time to prepare either a petition or a verbal rejection, this ruling will be subject to jurisprudential integration to the LEX IMPERIALIS.

 

 

 

IN NOMINE LEX

HIS EXCELLENCY THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL

Count Bohemond de Leumont of Provins

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Skyrunner 257]

Owyn Adrian Talraen de Rennes reads through the document by candlelight underlining with his quill pen in several spots and making notes. “A good document, though I wonder how he got his reasoning that the legal right to petition in the Empire extends to that of the Church. I’d figure if that would explained better it would make a much stronger legal argument.”

[Archbishop 1784]

“How a kharajyr, who worships the moon, are afforded rights within the Empire of Man is beyond me.” said Boniface.