Jump to content
frill

RESPONSE TO BARCLAY V THE CROWN (1738)

Recommended Posts

RESPONSE TO BARCLAY V THE CROWN (1738)

 

 

 

The Estate of Konstanz Barclay

As represented by Otto Barrow, Archbishop of Jorenus

 

 

V

 

The Holy Orenian Empire


 

ON THE SUBJECT OF

 

The Estate of Konstanz Barclay claims the wrongful death of Konstanz Barclay by the hands of the Holy Orenian Empire on the date of 10 Sun’s Smile 1738.

 

THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL CONSIDERS THE FOLLOWING

 

Although the case has merit and should be taken to court, there are problems with the filing of the suit that need addressing before this.

 

AS TO THE FACTS

 

I THE PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

 

The defendants are the family of a politician and attempted Senator living in the demesne of Reza, Haense.

In 1738 Konstanz Barclay, hereafter referred to as “Barclay”, was present as legal counsel for Prince Andrik of Haense at a meeting concerning the dissolution of an intervassal pact deemed seditious by the empire. 

In 1738 Barclay was later cited in a newspaper stirring seditious behaviour and sewing dissent through advocating a vassal revolt.

In 1738 Barclay appeared in Reza commenting on a particular senatorial election for the Imperial Lower House and insulted the functionaries of the government of the empire.

In 1738 the court of the Holy Orenian Empire judged him guilty of sedition.

 

 II. WITH REGARDS TO THE SUIT

 

APPROPRIACY OF THE FORUM

 

With there being a lack of substantial system of appellate court within the empire, nor any court-system that would dignify appeals by a superior judge beyond the current legal system, this suit creates significant problems with the legal framework established by my predecessor. With the legal lacunae left by the previous solicitor-general slowly being closed, an appellate court will soon be established alongside a judicial system that can withstand imperial intervention.

 

Pursuant to Prince-Father Polycarp’s exordium on the authority of the imperial office, there is no standing office to grant judgement to the decisions of the emperor; therefore it would be necessary to instead take to court the empire’s legal representative, p/k/a the Imperial Solicitor-General. 

 

INSUFFICIENT REDRESS

 

With regards to the legal fees cited, the office of the judiciary deem estimated costs of legal counsel to be improper to estimate prior to the proceedings of the court, as this number may not accurately reflect the legal costs of pursuing the trial.

 

FOR THESE REASONS, THE OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL CONCLUDES

 

That the plaintiff’s claim is dismissed without prejudice.

The plaintiff is encouraged to privately mediate this matter.

If this is deemed an untenable action, the plaintiff is strongly encouraged to refile their case with adequate redress and change of defendant.

 

 YOURS,

 Imperial Solicitor General Veikko Harjalainen, esq.

The Solicitor General’s Office, Varoche Hall, City of Helena, Holy Orenian Empire.

 

 


 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, frill said:

In 1738 Barclay was later cited in a newspaper stirring seditious behaviour and sewing dissent through advocating a vassal revolt.

“Because newspapers are always accurate and valid evidence.” said Farley

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Vivaca sighs, “F****** beurocrats...”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...