RULING ON THE REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW: RESIDENCE STATUS

[MCVDK 2853]

RULING ON THE REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW:

RESIDENCE STATUS

Opinion of the Court delivered by Justice Baelius

 

Joined by:

Justice d’Aryn

 

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

 

The late Mr. Edward Selm, henceforth referred to as Mr. Selm, filed a suit in response to the utilized aspects of the electoral process of the Mayoral election of Providence, wherein the Supreme Court of the Holy Orenian Empire, henceforth referred to as the Court, has granted reviewal on the basis of the following arguments;

 

The Honorable, Mr. Selm states within his filing to the Court that there is a difference between residents and other properties within the Imperial Charter of Providence as denoted within the edict declared in the name of Their Imperial Majesties known as the Imperial Charter for the City of Providence: 

   

II. Administrate the collection of local taxes or rents, and sale of residences and other properties. [Imperial Charter for the City of Providence]

 

The Honorable, Mr. Selm further states within his filing to the Court that from this excerpt it can reasonably be construed that both residences and other properties exist in the city, and that one who owns something other than a residence, such as an open stall is not, by definition, a resident. If this were the case, then a foreigner who owned a stall could be considered a resident, which this court should not concede due to the disastrous precedent it would set.

 

It is the opinion of the Court that the language of the article [Imperial Charter for the City of Providence] is clear, there must be a presented difference between that of residential nature and commercial nature, such as stalls presented within the initial request of Mr. Selm. 

 

The Ministry of Justice argues within their Amicus Brief, as submitting to the Court, that the lack of definition of properties within the Oren Revised Code, henceforth referred to as the ORC, permits the interpretation that all properties must be treated with the same legal standpoint, as shown within the argument presented to the Court within the brief; 

 

“Nowhere in the Orenian Revised Code are types of property defined or construed. While there is a brief mention of “other properties” within the municipal charter for the City of Providence, this by no means indicates that these properties cannot also constitute as dwellings or residencies. To define and distinguish between types of property when both the Orenian Revised Code and the municipal charter of the City of Providence do not is an overstep of the court’s power and purview. All properties must be treated the same legally without substantial distinction unless done so textually by the provided law, whether from the Orenian Revised Code or the municipal charter for the City of Providence.  [Amicus Brief of the Ministry of Justice in Response to ‘Judicial Review: Residence Status’, Section I: TYPES OF PROPERTY ARE NEITHER DEFINED NOR REGULATED WITHIN THE ORC]”

 

On the basis of the counter argument presented within the Amicus Brief of Mr. Selm, as submitted to the Court,  has deemed their opinion in agreement with the response presented through the brief of Mr. Selm, whereas it has been argued that all law cannot be defined within the ORC to an extensive level of definition, as exemplified through the quote presented below: 

   

“The O.R.C does not define prison or jail, for example. Shall I now argue in court that when my client is sentenced to prison, because it is not defined, his prison shall be wherever he pleases? It would be poor practice for the Courts to set the standard that if something is not explicitly defined in the O.R.C., then it has no definition. [Amicus Brief of Mr. Selm in Response to ‘Judicial Review: Residence Status’, Section I: DEFINITIONS OF TYPES OF PROPERTY MUST EXIST]”

 

The Court has on the basis of the above arguments, as well as consideration of other arguments presented within the briefs submitted, deem it required to specifically direct their attention and opinion towards the discussion of the definition of residents as presented within the ORC. 

 

Herein the Court has deemed validity within the arguments presented within the brief, as submitted to the Court, of the Honorable Mr. Samuel T. Savoyard, henceforth referred to as Mr. Savoyard, wherein the following has been presented to the Court: 

       

“We see a further distinction in how different types of properties are treated by national law, for example in the Evictions Act, 1772. 

            Evictions Act 1772:

                'ARTICLE I: GENERAL DEFINITIONS

2.  “Eviction” shall be construed to mean  the ejection of a person from a building in which they reside or do business;

                ARTICLE III: REASONABLE EXCEPTIONS TO CH303.023

 1. The following shall constitute reasonable exceptions to CH303.023 as provided for the amendment in Article II a., and shall warrant a lawful eviction when:

e.  The property is a business failing to meet communal expectations by way of poor trading practices;’

Here we see the law recognising first in its definitions that one may be the 'occupant' of a building in the sense of owning it while not actually 'residing' within that building. Merely being marked down as the occupant of a property on the ledger does not imply that property is your permanent residence, or even a residence of yours at all. 

Secondly, the law specifically treats properties used for doing business differently to properties used as residences. The occupant of a property in which he only does business may be evicted for poor trading practices, but the resident of a property may not be. So therefore there exists a clear legal distinction between a property used for commerce and a property used for residence, however whether these distinctions are based on how the city designates these properties or how the owner uses them is unclear. [Amicus Brief of Mr. Savoyard in Response to ‘Judicial Review: Residence Status’]”

Furthermore the Court has found the following articles of law within the ORC to further support the argument presented within the brief of Mr. Savoyard, wherein these articles of law adds to difference within residencies of the Charter: 

207.011 - Where an individual intentionally lives the life of a vagrant, participating in improper begging, and illegally staying in residences and towns, this shall be the crime of vagrancy, a misdemeanor. [Oren Revised Code, CH207 ‘On Injury against Order’]

604.011 - All citizens of the Holy Orenian Empire over the age of 18 who are registered to an address have the right to vote in national elections in the province of their residence. [Oren Revised Code, CH604 ‘On Elections’]

Wherein the Court has found the definition of a residency within the Imperial Charters, as presented within the brief of Mr. Selm, to be within correct legal requirement: 

“In conclusion on the definition of residencies, this Court should recognize that a residency must be defined as or something near to; a single building, room, or apartment that may reasonably serve as a place to sleep, eat and rest. [Amicus Brief of Mr. Selm in Response to ‘Judicial Review: Residence Status’]”

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

   

On the definition of residency with Imperial Charters - The nature of all residencies within the Imperial Charters, as seen within the ORC, shall be of livable nature. Therefore all properties utilized for commercial purposes, or otherwise unlivable nature, shall not be defined as residencies unless the following conditional statements of the location stand true until further defined within the legislative branch:

   

(i) It must be a single building, room or apart. 

(ii) It must reasonably serve as a place to sleep, eat and rest. 

(iii) It must have some form of municipal tax. 

 

All three statements shall define the residencies of the Imperial Charters, whereas properties outside of the requirements presented above shall not count as residencies and shall therefore not offer the advantages of legal nature granted through the ownership of residencies. 

 

On the Result of the Mayoral Election of Providence - Through consideration of the above issues, as well as definition delivered within this ruling, it has been deemed acceptable for the Court to issue an order to the former Magistrate of Providence to present his electoral sheet utilized within the mayoral election, whereas the Court wishes to deem, based on the electoral sheet presented, if the Court wishes to deem re-election of the Lord Mayor of Providence. 

 

Additional Notice to the Legislative Offices of Oren -  In accordance with the above ruling, wherein extensive knowledge of unfinished legislature has been found within the ORC, it is the wish of the Court to advise the legislative branch to investigate, improve and define the definitions of citizenship, residencies and other properties as presented within the ORC. 

[yopplwasupxxx 5946]

"I give my congratulations to Mister Selm, if he does still live among us, for this victory in court. May we meet again in the field of legal battle sometime again." says the Attorney-General.

[MCVDK 2853]

Justice Baelius ensures that the former Magistrate of Providence is given the ruling @MrChenn1