Jump to content

yopplwasupxxx

Wiki Wizard
  • Posts

    1627
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by yopplwasupxxx

  1. SURNAME: de Joannes

    FIRST NAME: Louis

    ADDRESS OF RESIDENCE: Sedan Way 1

    YEAR OF BIRTH: 1750

     

    Are you registered and eligible to vote in the Alpine District?: Yes

     

    Do you have any other title, peerage or military service 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

     

    ((MC NAME)): yopplwasupxxx

  2. SURNAME: de Joannes

    FIRST NAME: Louis

    ADDRESS OF RESIDENCE: Sedan Way 1

    YEAR OF BIRTH: 1750

     

    Are you registered and eligible to vote in the Southern District?: Yes

     

    Do you have any other title, peerage or military service 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 beconsidered to be vacant?: Yes

     

    ((MC NAME)): yopplwasupxxx

  3. Jonah Stahl-Elendil will be remembered forever in the annals of history; he was a champion of justice and paragon of morality, and surely he shall be missed. Yet his work will live on, I pray, and continued by the righteous men who cut their teeth in the Stahl ministry. May God grant the peace Jonah so readily deserves in the final decades of his long-lived life, where he may finally rest and enjoy the fruits of his labors.

  4. @Harald

     

    Otto the Tarcharman says a prayer to Saint Harald,

     

    “Dear Saint Harald, angel of purity and seraph of charity,

     

    While you bore bravely the pain of struggle and the bone-shatter of conflict, you stood unwaveringly in your faith during your hours of distress. Through Godan’s love and care, firmly stalwart were you in protecting the holy flock. 

     

    You know the pains I am suffering, the burdens which I am forced to bear- ask Godan to grant me peace and patience during my suffering. Agree with me in prayer before Godan for His Mercy, to give upon me healing and mercy that my soul craves.

     

    In the name of Godan and the Prophets,

    So Say We All (Amen).”

  5. @Eryane

     

    ”Dear Ms. Ruthern,

     

    I commend you on your efforts in attempting to chronicle the history of the New Marian language. However, there are some mistakes I wish to address, and hopefully have them corrected.

     

    The language did not ‘advance’ under Otto II, but it was by the joint work of King Stefan, St Heinrik ((FloopTroop)), and Lord Colborn ((Julius55)) that the tongue first emerged. It was under Stefan that New Marian was made the national tongue, and it was by St Heinrik’s stern leadership that fully adapted the burgeoning royal army of those days into a New Marian structure.

     

    Also, I have never seen any translation of the Canon Scrolls into New Marian. I do not believe any King Otto Scroll actually exists. And if it did exist, it most likely came from the translating efforts of Lord Kortrevich ((Quinn)) much later in time than by any order of an Ottonian monarch. Also, if anyone was to reform New Marian into a proper lingua orenica and not a script of formalities, it would be Robert I (who you aptly mention before) and not Otto II. 

     

    As I stated, I give congratulations on your work and hope for the best in your literary career.

     

    Sincerely,

    Otto the Tarcharman”

  6. BRIEF ON BEHALF OF THE MINISTRY OF JUSTICE AS AMICUS CURIAE IN OPPOSITION OF PETITIONER

    _____________________________

     

    To Chief Justice Gray and the Supreme Court of the Holy Orenian Empire,

     

    We, the Ministry of Justice as represented by the Attorney-General, submit this brief as amicus curiae in opposition to the petitioner. It is our opinion that the use of property ownership to determine citizenship by the serving Magistrate of the City of Providence (George Galbraith) was both a valid and legal procedure, and should not be called to a new election or recount. We hold this opinion on the basis of the following principle(s), doctrine(s), edict(s), and article(s) of law,

     

    I - TYPES OF PROPERTY ARE NEITHER DEFINED NOR REGULATED WITHIN THE ORC

     

    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.

    __________

     

    II - THERE ARE NO LAWS PROHIBITING RESIDENCY IN ANY FORM OF PROPERTY OWNED BY THE INDIVIDUAL

     

    Even if properties can be legally defined into types, there are currently no laws prohibiting individuals from living in any sort of type of property, whether it be classed as a ‘residency’, ‘shop’, and so on. For the courts to create now a prohibition on where an individual can live would be therefore the creation of a law or regulation, which is beyond the scope of the court’s jurisdiction. Rather, all properties must be accepted as being able to be residences as per both the Orenian Revised Code and the municipal charter for the City of Providence.

    __________
     

    III - POSSESSION AND USE OF A PROPERTY IS LEGAL PROOF OF CITIZENSHIP FOR A MAGISTRATE

     

    According to the Orenian Revised Code, “[the] possession and continued use of property within the Empire for a period as so judged by a magistrate can be used as legal proof of citizenship if so requested by the citizen” (ORC 301.01B). There is no specification to what type of property, rather to property as a whole. Therefore, a magistrate can legally judge an individual as a citizen if they own property over a certain period of time that is itself determined by the magistrate. As George Galbraith was appointed Magistrate of Providence at the time of election (1797), he was well in his legal right to judge an individual’s citizenship based on property ownership. To deny him this power is a blatant breach of his legal rights and duties prescribed by the Orenian Revised Code. It would also be a breach of a citizen’s right to use property ownership as proof of their citizenship by government agents.

    __________

     

    We conclude with the following points: types of properties are not defined in either law documents, and so must be treated as having the same legal attributes. There are no laws that prohibit residency of any form of property owned by an individual, and it is the right of the Crown-appointed magistrate to use possession of a property as a legal indicator of citizenship (as well as a right of the individual to use their property as legal proof of citizenship). It is by these reasons that We, the Ministry of Justice as represented by the Attorney-General, urge the court to reject this petition and uphold the validity of the results of the 1797 municipal elections for the City of Providence.

     

    Yours Humbly,

    RT. HON. ATTORNEY-GENERAL R. A. FITZPETER, J.D. SSE

    POLYCARP COURTHOUSE, 2 VINMARK ROUSSARD ST, PROVIDENCE

    [[yoppl the tarchar#5195]]

    08jk5uG6X12eIyBrEEFpLikcpXgh-aZZHS9JAi49PVHVmBcXUdJoN2SNp3fr7SsDZFZWrd0iZfHWiDyfvpeETzTFvkp8bz1uaR5wlK32BNz7q76p3YnTZk7hiaAvXpsArrcp0jwF

  7. BRIEF ON BEHALF OF THE MINISTRY OF JUSTICE AS AMICUS CURIAE IN OPPOSITION OF PETITIONER

    _____________________________

     

    To Chief Justice Gray and the Supreme Court of the Holy Orenian Empire,

     

    We, the Ministry of Justice as represented by the Attorney-General, submit this brief as amicus curiae in opposition to the petitioner. It is our opinion that the coin toss held in the 1797 elections for the ‘Lord Mayor’ of the City of Providence is not in violation of either the Orenian Revised Code or the municipal charter for the City of Providence. We hold this opinion on the basis of the following principle(s), doctrine(s), edict(s), and article(s) of law,

     

    I - THE COIN TOSS HAS LEGAL PRECEDENCE IN IMPERIAL ELECTIONS

     

    Coin tosses are not a new occurrence and have been used in Imperial elections previously. During the 1775 elections for the 14th Session of the House of Commons, a coin toss was used by the Ministry of Civil Affairs to settle an electoral tie between candidates O’Rourke and O’Rourke. The outcome of this election was not contested by either parliamentary party nor any private citizen and organization. The use of the coin toss in this instance has therefore created a proper precedence for future elections to follow. There has been no legal or cultural indication since this election that the use of the coin toss does not follow proper regulations and guidelines.

     

    https://www.lordofthecraft.net/forums/topic/193150-elections-for-the-house-of-commons-17th-imperial-diet/

     

    As for an instance used in other societies that later formed core divisions of the modern empire: in 1721, the Republic of Ves (in a region that would be later incorporated into the province of Kaedrin) settled a tie for the election of a censure by means of a coin toss, overseen by the presiding-prince Ide Haraccus. This example shows that the use of the coin toss is not a new occurrence culturally and is rather a commonly-accepted standard to break ties for elections in human-cultured regions.

     

    https://www.lordofthecraft.net/forums/topic/183376-fourteeth-city-assembly-of-ves-1721/?tab=comments#comment-1715781

     

    These two examples show two facts: firstly, that the coin toss has been established previously as a proper method in deciding a tie vote on the national level. Secondly, the use of a coin toss has also been established as being a cultural standard that is implicitly followed and called upon when situations such as these arise.

    _______

     

    II - VOTING SYSTEMS AND PROCEDURE ARE NOT REGULATED BY THE ORC AND INSTEAD DETERMINED BY MINISTERIAL AND MUNICIPAL AUTHORITIES

     

    The procedure and method of voting and elections are not regulated or outlined by the Orenian Revised Code; therefore both the Ministry of Civil Affairs and the municipal government of Providence are allowed to maintain their own voting systems and guidelines. The only qualifications regarding elections is that, if they are to be held, that they are done ‘fairly, openly, and freely’ (ORC 609.09D) or in the municipality’s sake, ‘free and fair’ (City of Providence Charter). There is no instance within either the Orenian Revised Code or the municipal charter of the City of Providence that explicitly or implicitly bars the use of a coin toss to determine a tie in a government-held election. Therefore, as long as a coin toss used to determine an election is considered ‘fair’, ‘free’, and ‘open’, it is a valid process within an election held by either the Ministry of Civil Affairs or the municipal government of Providence and well within their power to use such a method.

    _______

     

    III - THE COIN TOSS IS LEGALLY FAIR, FREE, AND OPEN

     

    We shall construe fair as to mean that which is in accordance to legal precedence and cultural standards, as well as in treating each voting citizen in such a way that meets these rules and standards. As previously stated, the coin toss has been used before, following both a legal precedent (it was used in 1775, a mere twenty-two years ago) and culture standards (its been used in pre-Imperial societies, such as Ves in 1721). This rule was applied equally to every citizen; no votes were unfairly counted as being of greater or lesser value. Instead, the electoral stalemate instigates a tie-breaking procedure (such as the coin toss) that follows legal precedence. The coin toss not involving voting in of itself does not necessitate that it is unfair: as every voting citizen is subjected to it, and no other individual or party can manipulate the outcome, the procedure treats both the citizen and their vote fairly. The use of a coin toss to determine a tied election therefore is a fair procedure and does not conflict with either the Orenian Revised Code or the municipal charter of the City of Providence.

     

    We shall construe free as to mean that which is not under the control or influence of another individual or party, as well as being done without manipulation and instead with proper oversight. The coin toss was done with a generic, unaltered coin approved by the ministry, candidates, and other participants, along with numerous different agents committed to oversight over the procedure. These agents included members of the Ministry of Civil Affairs, the municipal government, the candidates, and the many supporters for both candidates. Because the coin toss was completely random, there was no outside influence which could have manipulated the results. The use of a coin toss to determine a tied election therefore is a free procedure and does not conflict with either the Orenian Revised Code or the municipal charter of the City of Providence.

     

    We shall construe open as to mean that which is not blocked or constricted from view or access, specifically that the procedure and results are reasonably exposed to the public without hindrance. The coin toss held was done in the open and in the presence of both voters and candidates. In no way was view or access to the coin hindered by agents of the government and any voting citizen was able to see at their inclination. The results of the coin toss were also always available to the public without any unnecessary redaction. The use of a coin toss to determine a tied election therefore is an open procedure and does not conflict with either the Orenian Revised Code or the municipal charter of the City of Providence.

    _______

     

    We conclude with the following points: the coin toss is an established, legal precedent and method within the electoral process and follows the necessary qualifications (being fair, free, and open) required by both the Orenian Revised Code and the municipal charter for the City of Providence. It is by these reasons that We, the Ministry of Justice as represented by the Attorney-General, reject the petition and uphold the validity of the coin toss in determining tied elections.

     

    Yours Humbly,

    RT. HON. ATTORNEY-GENERAL R. A. FITZPETER, J.D. SSE

    POLYCARP COURTHOUSE, 2 VINMARK ROUSSARD ST, PROVIDENCE

    [[yoppl the tarchar#5195]]

    CMBE6nfThsPfO3dIboxHGveRXRYtQ9_LCEIuAxKcC3m00wMOGTrdaGDo2aM3SnEI4E0QnA5IFw4Qt7yxYD7HJFvF6bKU0rdkpmtgKrhoKVGUxsVeJ4g4yLaoG4yS3qfEO_2ukn0l

×
×
  • Create New...