Jump to content

yopplwasupxxx

Wiki Wizard
  • Content Count

    1477
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

3883 Divine

About yopplwasupxxx

  • Rank
    Famed Nobility

Contact Methods

  • Minecraft Username
    Yopplwasupxxx

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Jerusalem, Israel

Character Profile

  • Character Name
    Emperor Alexander II
  • Character Race
    Human

Recent Profile Visitors

24250 profile views
  1. Very well, brother. We shall begin quite simply. What is your name?” J. Joachim d’Arkent “And your age?” Around twenty-five “I know it may be clear, heh, but it is for the sake of records. What race of the descendants are you of?” Human “You are able to read and write, yes?” Yes “And with that, are you at all familiar with the Holy Scrolls and Catechism of our Church?” Yes “You are of course baptized?” Yes “Good, good. Are you married? Do you have children?” No and No “In what way of the clergy do you wish to serve? As a Priest, a Monastic?” Priest “While this may not be accepted by the Prelate, depending on the needs of the Church, in what Diocese would you prefer to serve in? You can simply name a city or Kingdom.” Helena “A rather personal question, why have you chosen to walk this path in God?” I have felt His presence since my youth, and now I have found it fit to follow this vocation. “And at last, are you truly devoted to this way of life? Prepared to take any vows involved with ordination and commit oneself to this lifetime bond with the Lord Almighty?” Yes “Wonderful, then that should be all.” he says as he gestures you out of the office with a smile, “This shall be brought to His Eminence, Manfried. You shall hear word of your acceptance and placement soon enough.” he nods before saying finally, “God bless you.” as you walk out and say so in return.
  2. Leonard reads about the Bonifacist manifesto in the Helena Herald.
  3. “Dear Bianca, My wife and I have been married for twenty years now, but for the last five we have lived separately due to conflicting interests of ours. We have four daughters, ages 19, 16, 12, and 6 respectively. Though there are numerous issues culminating in this separation, the ‘straw that broke the camal’s back’, as it were, was our different beliefs on our career paths. As a professional solicitor, I wanted to move the family to Helena in order to increase my business load and exposure to the greater law community. My wife, on the other hand, is both a painter and a choir coordinator, and she preferred to stay in the Northland where she ran our local parish’s choir and a successful artisan company in ethnic Haeseni art. When we could not reach a compromise, we decided separation was the best move. The two eldest daughters came with me while the two youngest stayed with her, so as to not deprive both parents of their rights. However, this pains me immensely. My youngests are still my children, and my eldest are still hers. While perhaps the puppy love of our youth is gone, I still care for her as both my most cherished companion and my sworn spouse. I want to make this work somehow, but I just don’t know what to do and how to approach the situation. What can I do? From, A Forlon Husband”
  4. Leonard van Halen votes Aye for both Circuit Court nominations.
  5. SUMMONS Styrne v. Hayman JULIA STYRNE Represented by LEONARD VAN HALEN MHC DESIRES TO SUMMON THE FOLLOWING PARTY TO COURT; CONRAD ‘CONWAY’ HAYMAN ON THE BASIS OF THE FOLLOWING PRINCIPLE(S), DOCTRINE(S), EDICT(S) OR ARTICLES OF LAW: Julia Styrne, henceforth referred to as Styrne, rents an apartment on 8 Basrid Boulevard in Helena that is owned by an individual known as Conrad ‘Conway’ Hayman, henceforth referred to as Hayman. For the last three years, Hayman has not been present at the property and not fulfilling duties to maintain the property, despite Styrne paying all rent on time and in full. Because Hayman has abandoned the property and not fulfilled the duties as landowner, it is the belief of Styrne that she is entitled to the 8 Basrid Boulevard property. The Party of Julia Styrne, as represented by Leonard van Halen, seeks the aforementioned actions performed based on the following act(s), edict(s), order(s), and legislation, I - A POSSESSOR IS DEPRIVED HIS RIGHTS OF OWNERSHIP IF THEY ABANDON THE POSSESSION According to ORC 303.074, “A possessor may lose a thing, A) By Abandonment…”. Because Hayman has abandoned the property for over three years and not maintained it in any form, his rights as owner are null and void. II - OWNERSHIP IS ACQUIRED THROUGH OCCUPANCY According to ORC 303.022, “Ownership is acquired through occupancy…”. Because Styrne is the current occupant of the property, ownership is rightful hers if there is no current owner. The Party of Julia Styrne, as represented by Leonard van Halen, seeks for the property of 8 Basrid Boulevard to be transferred to the Party of Julia Styrne as per her rights as occupant. ON THE DESIRED DATE OF: ((To be discussed OOCly)) YOURS HUMBLY, LEONARD VAN HALEN MHC 6 Helvets, Owynsburg, Kaedrin, Oren [[yoppl the tarchar#5195]]
  6. PERSONAL INFORMATION Surname: Skingaard van Halen First Name: Leonard Address of Residence: 6 Helvets Year of Birth: 1726 ((Username: yopplwasupxxx )) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ELIGIBILITY QUESTIONNAIRE Are you registered and eligible to vote in the Holy Orenian Empire? Have you filled out the census? Yes Do you have any other title, peerage, or military assignment that may conflict with becoming a Member of the House of Commons, as per the Edict of Reform (1763)? No If yes, do you understand that you will be required to resign or abdicate from this position should you be elected to the House of Commons, and if this does not occur your seat shall be considered to be vacant?: Yes
  7. REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW CONRAD BARCLAY As Represented by LEONARD VAN HALEN DESIRES TO SEE THE LEGAL CONTEXT OF THE FOLLOWING REVIEWED SECOND LEMONADE LEGAL REFORMS BILL (1776) ON THE BASIS OF THE FOLLOWING PRINCIPLE(S), DOCTRINE(S), EDICT(S) OR ARTICLES OF LAW: The Second Lemonade Legal Reforms Bill (1776) is a legislative bill recently passed by the House of Commons and the House of Lords though pending crown ascent (by the time of writing of this request). Within this bill, the articles legislate by removing pre-existing ORC statutes ORC 702.04 (“The right to organize a force of armed men within their estates, to train and fit their militia as seen fit, and to protect their estates with their militia.”) and ORC 703.05 (“The duty to maintain a force of five-hundred soldiers of foot if the baronial rank, a force of one thousand soldiers of foot if the comital rank, a force of two thousand soldiers of foot if the ducal rank, and a force of four thousand soldiers of foot if of the princely or royal rank.”) and adding a chapter ORC 410 and detailing a statute ORC 410.01 in regards to militias. It is the opinion of the party of Conrad Barclay, as represented by Leonard van Halen, that this bill is an overreach and in violation of the Oren Revised Code, including the Edict of Reform (1763) and subsequent acts and/or edicts, and therefore not a valid bill. In support of this opinion, the requesting party brings forth the following principle(s), order(s), and/or legislation, I - THE IMPERIAL DIET CANNOT PASS LEGISLATION REGARDING THE MILITARY AND MILITIAS As per ORC 602.04, the Imperial Diet is limited in its functions to pass certain bills and legislation in regards to areas where the Crown retains executive privilege. This includes “the military” (ORC 602.041). It is the opinion of the requesting party that because the Second Lemonade Legal Reforms Bill (1776) changes stipulations regarding how militaries and militias are organized by the Crown, provinces, and peer estates, this bill is in violation with 602.04 and not in line with the legal limitations of the Imperial Diet. The party of Conrad Barclay seeks to have the Second Lemonade Reforms Bill (1776) considered null and void due to the illegality of its articles. YOURS HUMBLY, LEONARD SKINGAARD VAN HALEN 3 Main St, Johnstown, Northland, Oren [[yoppl the tarchar#5195]]
  8. PERSONAL INFORMATION Surname: Skingaard van Halen First Name: Leonard Address of Residence: Ludovar Keep, Johnstown Age: 60 Partisan Affiliation: Everardine ((Username: yopplwasupxxx)) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ELIGIBILITY QUESTIONNAIRE Are you registered and eligible to vote in the Holy Orenian Empire? Have you filled out the census? Yes Do you have any other title, peerage, or military assignment that may conflict with becoming a Member of the House of Commons, as per the Edict of Reform (1763)? No If yes, do you understand that you will be required to resign or abdicate from this position should you be elected to the House of Commons, and if this does not occur your seat shall be considered to be vacant?: N/A
  9. Full Name of Man - Talion Caldwell Date of Birth of Man - 1763 Name of Woman - Genevieve Date of Birth of Woman -1762 Location of Ceremony - Church of the White Mare, Johnstown, Northland Date of Ceremony (Year) - 1783 Name of Clergyman who performed ceremony - Rev. Otto the Tarcharman
  10. “Aha, another work from the famous Miss La Fleur! Such a prolific playwright. I cannot wait to read its content later this night.”
  11. SUMMONS d’Arkent v. Ruthern JOSEPH D’ARKENT Represented by LEONARD VAN HALEN DESIRES TO SUMMON THE FOLLOWING PARTY TO COURT; MARY RUTHERN NEE CARRINGTON @Branchio ON THE BASIS OF THE FOLLOWING PRINCIPLE(S), DOCTRINE(S), EDICT(S) OR ARTICLES OF LAW: In late 1782, a document titled “The Letter of Release” was promulgated and signed by one Mary d’Arkent nee Carrington, Baroness of Carrington. The article stipulated that if this document had been found, the signatory was to be considered legally dead, making this document a de facto will. Within the will, the signatory states that “[I am forsaking] my position of Baroness of Carrington. Removing whatever claim I have for the title and beseeching my sister as regent to the title until my eldest son turns of age. My properties go to Mary Jane, my title goes to Mary Jane. My children are under custody and rightfully are to be guarded by Mary Jane and Mary Vespira”. The document also clearly stipulates the children of Mary d’Arkent nee Carrington, Baroness of Carrington and her husband (the plaintiff) Joseph d’Arkent, listed henceforth as Charles d’Arkent, Baron of Carrington, Philippa d’Arkent, Emma d’Arkent, Victoria d’Arkent, and James d’Arkent, are not to be under their rightful legal custodian and father, as well as their properties held in trust till they reach the age of majority not maintained by their rightful legal guardian but instead a distant family member. In early 1783, Joseph d’Arkent, as represented by Leonard van Halen and joined by his father Peter d’Arkent, Duke of Sunholdt, formally approached Mary Ruthern nee Carrington in affirming his legal rights to the guardianship of the children and their estates as well as the legal rights of the eldest son Charles d’Arkent, Baron of Carrington to the properties of his deceased mother. Mary Ruthern nee Carrington refused, and under legal counsel Joseph d’Arkent issued a cease and desist order, where if after one month (Saint’s day) she did not relinquish custody of the children, properties, and title, legal action would be taken. After one month, no action has been performed by Mary Ruthern nee Carrington to rectify the situation, as so the party of Joseph d’Arkent seeks legal remedy. The party of Joseph d’Arkent seeks the following actions performed, I - The custody of the children of Mary d’Arkent nee Carrington, Baroness of Carrington, and Joseph d’Arkent returned to their legal guardian and father Joseph d’Arkent. II - The legal guardianship of the properties held in trust for Charles d’Arkent, Baron of Carrington returned to his legal guardian and father Joseph d’Arkent. III - The legal regency of the Barony of Carrington held in trust for Charles d’Arkent, Baron of Carrington returned to his legal guardian and father Joseph d’Arkent. The Party of Joseph d’Arkent seeks the aforementioned actions performed based on the following act(s), edict(s), order(s), and legislation, I - THE FATHER MAINTAINS LEGAL OBLIGATION TO CARE FOR THE CHILDREN According to ORC 302.014, “It is the obligation of the father to care for the child.” Nowhere does it state that this obligation can be absolved or taken away by the writ of a mother. Both law and legal precedence plays emphasis on the child being legal based on relation to the father, not the mother. See ORC 301.011 “ The following are citizens of the empire by birth; (A) Those born of an Orenian father...”, ORC 302.011 “...A child with a recognised filial relation to their father is deemed ‘legitimate’...”, and ORC 302.013 “Filiation is determined by the paternal line.” Therefore, it is the opinion of the plaintiff that the father takes precedence legally when determining guardianship and custody rather than both the wishes of the mother and other kin (such as a sister-in-law). This guardianship includes also all properties and titles held in trust for the children, whereas it is the father’s obligation to maintain such assets as trustee till they come of age. II - PROPERTY IS INHERITED BY THE OBLIGATORY HEIR OF THE DECEASED According to ORC 306.011 “The obligatory heirs are the male children and male descendants with respect to their parents and male ascendants.” As Charles d’Arkent, Baron of Carrington, is the eldest male child of Mary d’Arkent nee Carrington, Baroness of Carrington, it is therefore the legal right of Charles d’Arkent, Baron of Carrington, to receive the properties of his deceased mother. Nowhere in the ORC does it allow for inheritances to be divided up among individuals not considered the obligatory heirs (in this case, Charles d’Arkent, Baron of Carrington and James d’Arkent). ON THE DESIRED DATE OF: ((To be discussed OOCly)) YOURS HUMBLY, LEONARD VAN HALEN 3 Main St, Johnstown, Northland, Oren [[yoppl the tarchar#5195]]
  12. REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST of STEFAN LUDOVAR I, Stefan Otto [Stephen Otto] Ludovar, resident of Johnstown, Northland, declare this to be my Living Trust and hereby revoke any previous Living Trust that I may have previously made. I - The Grantor of this trust is Stefan Otto Ludovar. II - The spouse of the Grantor is Catherine Ludovar nee de Ravensburg. III - The children of the Grantor are Alexandra Ludovar, Milena Ludovar, Ophelia Ludovar, and Vladrick Ludovar. IV - This Trust shall be known as the LIVING TRUST OF STEFAN LUDOVAR. V - The Grantor reserves and shall have the exclusive right any time during their lifetime by instrument in writing signed by the Grantor. Any modification or alteration of the trust without the knowledge or consent of the Grantor shall immediately absolve the trust as a legal binding contract and all assets returned to the Grantor. VI - The Grantor reserves and shall have the exclusive right any time during their life to absolve this trust as a legal binding contract. VII - The Grantor hereby gives the exclusive right to the Trustee of the Living Trust of Stefan Ludovar to maintain and use the assets within the trust as deemed fit. VIII - The Grantor hereby gives the exclusive right to the Trustee of the Living Trust of Stefan Ludovar to care for the children of the Grantor till they reach the age of majority. If the children are not cared for to a proper standard of living, the trust is immediately absolved as a legal binding document and custody is placed to the nearest living relative of the Grantor. IX - The Trustee of the Living Trust of Stefan Ludovar is Frederick Ludovar, Count of Otistadt. The following assets are listed as being part of the Living Trust of Stefan Ludovar, I - The Stefan Otto Ludovar property located in Johnstown, Northland. II - All imperial marks belonging to Stefan Ludovar. SIGNED, STEFAN OTTO LUDOVAR Notary: LEONARD VAN HALEN
×
×
  • Create New...