THE CROWN v. FREDDY VON FREDSTER VII

[Chorale__ 2147]

SUBPOENA - THE CROWN v. FREDDY VON FREDSTER VII

10th of Harren’s Folly, 1796

THE CROWN,

    Represented by OLIVIER HALCOURT of THE MINISTRY OF JUSTICE,

   

    DESIRES TO SUMMON THE FOLLOWING PARTY TO COURT;

                FREDDY VON FREDSTER VII

THE HONORABLE EDWARD SELM; SOLICITOR

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

 

204.1132 - When an individual intentionally or negligently operates as a part of an organization that meets the definition of a private military organization and has not received proper authorization, this shall be an Unauthorized Military Organization in the first degree, a misdemeanor.

Oren Revised Code, CH203 ‘On Unauthorized Military Organizations’

 

305.061 - Children below the age of ten will not be allowed to engage in any form of labour.

 

305.064 - Businesses that are found to be in violation of this statute (see: 305.061, 305.062, 305.063) shall be charged with Class E, or economic infringement to the first degree as mandated by the Oren Revised Code.

 

305.013 - Minors may not consent to contracts, unless ruled otherwise by a magistrate.

 

305.043 - Obscure clauses may not favour the party who created the obscurity.

 

Oren Revised Code, CH305 ‘On Child Labour Contracts’

 

Whilst wandering the streets, Attorney-General Olivier Halcourt came across a flier that advertised applications for prospective indentured servants. This in itself is not illegal, but after examining some of the verbiage utilized on the flier, the Solicitor discussed with his team and decided upon charges to bring forth to the defendant.

 

WITH THE PRESENCE OF THE FOLLOWING RELEVANT PARTY OR PARTIES:

 

    N/A

 

ON THE DESIRED DATE OF:

    PENDING DISCUSSION WITH DEFENDANT

 

YOURS HUMBLY,

    OLIVIER HALCOURT on behalf of THE CROWN,

    THE MINISTRY OF JUSTICE, VINMARK ROUSSARD STREET 2, PROVIDENCE

    [[Chorale_#4767]]

 

[BenevolentManacles 2232]

MOTION TO DISMISS

On behalf of the accused.

 

These charges are an insult to Imperial jurisprudence, legal precedence, and the intelligence of sane solicitors everywhere. It must be the case that the prosecution was rushed when writing this, for it is a collection of nonsense for which I can not forgive except by the prosecution's explicit apology. They explicitly state that they have no evidence of a crime in the section of this suit meant to supply evidence of a crime.

 

Whilst wandering the streets, Attorney-General Olivier Halcourt came across a flier that advertised applications for prospective indentured servants. This in itself is not illegal, but after examining some of the verbiage utilized on the flier, the Solicitor discussed with his team and decided upon charges to bring forth to the defendant.

 

For the sake of argument, I will individually dismantle these charges.

 

204.1132 - When an individual intentionally or negligently operates as a part of an organization that meets the definition of a private military organization and has not received proper authorization, this shall be an Unauthorized Military Organization in the first degree, a misdemeanor.

Oren Revised Code, CH203 ‘On Unauthorized Military Organizations’

 

If a few non-uniformed men with weapons are a militia, then my cousins and I are a militia. Besides all that, men should be allowed to hire non-uniformed bodyguards to protect their interests and their homes. If we set the precedence that an employer may not arm his hired help for the sake of protection, then we are truly fools. Even if you disagree with me on this, my client did not even do that, and no evidence was presented he did.

 

305.061 - Children below the age of ten will not be allowed to engage in any form of labour.

 

305.064 - Businesses that are found to be in violation of this statute (see: 305.061, 305.062, 305.063) shall be charged with Class E, or economic infringement to the first degree as mandated by the Oren Revised Code.

 

No evidence was presented that my client hired any children. Why would you even attempt to apply this charge without investigating it's evidentiary basis? 

 

305.013 - Minors may not consent to contracts, unless ruled otherwise by a magistrate.

 

This is not a statute you can charge someone under, it is a compellation of the law. It exists so that if a contract enters into the questions of the court, and a child signed it, it is considered null and void.

 

305.043 - Obscure clauses may not favour the party who created the obscurity.

 

It is so innately clear that whomsoever filed this suit does not understand contract law. This is not a statute you may charge someone over, it is a stipulation that invalidates contracts that meet this requirement, to be determined by a court of law. 

 

When next you file a law suit, call on me first. I will ensure it is sensible, for a modest fee.

 

Yours, and greatly disappointed,

Edward Selm

Attorney at Law

 

P.S. It is not the 'Year Zero.' It is the year of Our Lord, 1796.

 

[Chorale__ 2147]

On 12/1/2020 at 5:49 AM, BenevolentManacles said:

MOTION TO DISMISS

On behalf of the accused.

 

These charges are an insult to Imperial jurisprudence, legal precedence, and the intelligence of sane solicitors everywhere. It must be the case that the prosecution was rushed when writing this, for it is a collection of nonsense for which I can not forgive except by the prosecution's explicit apology. They explicitly state that they have no evidence of a crime in the section of this suit meant to supply evidence of a crime.

 

Whilst wandering the streets, Attorney-General Olivier Halcourt came across a flier that advertised applications for prospective indentured servants. This in itself is not illegal, but after examining some of the verbiage utilized on the flier, the Solicitor discussed with his team and decided upon charges to bring forth to the defendant.

 

For the sake of argument, I will individually dismantle these charges.

 

204.1132 - When an individual intentionally or negligently operates as a part of an organization that meets the definition of a private military organization and has not received proper authorization, this shall be an Unauthorized Military Organization in the first degree, a misdemeanor.

Oren Revised Code, CH203 ‘On Unauthorized Military Organizations’

 

If a few non-uniformed men with weapons are a militia, then my cousins and I are a militia. Besides all that, men should be allowed to hire non-uniformed bodyguards to protect their interests and their homes. If we set the precedence that an employer may not arm his hired help for the sake of protection, then we are truly fools. Even if you disagree with me on this, my client did not even do that, and no evidence was presented he did.

 

305.061 - Children below the age of ten will not be allowed to engage in any form of labour.

 

305.064 - Businesses that are found to be in violation of this statute (see: 305.061, 305.062, 305.063) shall be charged with Class E, or economic infringement to the first degree as mandated by the Oren Revised Code.

 

No evidence was presented that my client hired any children. Why would you even attempt to apply this charge without investigating it's evidentiary basis? 

 

305.013 - Minors may not consent to contracts, unless ruled otherwise by a magistrate.

 

This is not a statute you can charge someone under, it is a compellation of the law. It exists so that if a contract enters into the questions of the court, and a child signed it, it is considered null and void.

 

305.043 - Obscure clauses may not favour the party who created the obscurity.

 

It is so innately clear that whomsoever filed this suit does not understand contract law. This is not a statute you may charge someone over, it is a stipulation that invalidates contracts that meet this requirement, to be determined by a court of law. 

 

When next you file a law suit, call on me first. I will ensure it is sensible, for a modest fee.

 

Yours, and greatly disappointed,

Edward Selm

Attorney at Law

 

P.S. It is not the 'Year Zero.' It is the year of Our Lord, 1796.

 

[!] A letter is sent out to the defendant and his legal team, 

“FROM THE OFFICE OF STATE PROSECTION,

  Good evening, Mr. Selm and Mr. Fredster, my team and I have gone over the motion to dismiss and have unanimously decided to waive the case against the accused. We thank you for pointing out our wrongdoings and would like to note that Mr. Fredster is set free of any charges brought to him. To Mr. Selm, congratulations on a job well done and we look forward to working with you in the future. 

 

THE MOST HONORABLE ATTORNEY-GENERAL, Olivier Halcourt”