yopplwasupxxx

Leo votes Aye.

Leo votes nay.

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.

Leo van Halen votes Aye on the bill.

Leonard reads about the Bonifacist manifesto in the Helena Herald.

“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”

Leonard van Halen votes Aye for both Circuit Court nominations.

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]]

PERSONAL INFORMATION

Surname: Skingaard van Halen

First Name: Leonard

Address of Residence: 6 Helvets

Year of Birth: 1726

((Username:   yopplwasupxxx   ))

   _     _     _     _     _     _     _     _     _     _     _     _

ELIGIBILITY QUESTIONNAIRE

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]]

PERSONAL INFORMATION

Surname: Skingaard van Halen

First Name: Leonard

Address of Residence: Ludovar Keep, Johnstown

Age: 60

Partisan Affiliation: Everardine

((Username: yopplwasupxxx))

   _     _     _     _     _     _     _     _     _     _     _     _

ELIGIBILITY QUESTIONNAIRE

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

“Aha, another work from the famous Miss La Fleur! Such a prolific playwright. I cannot wait to read its content later this night.”

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]]

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

CEASE AND DESIST

JOSEPH D’ARKENT

As Represented by LEONARD VAN HALEN

To MARY RUTHERN NEE CARRINGTON

@Branchio

    The party of Joseph d’Arkent, as represented by Leonard van Halen, issues a letter of cease and desist for the following actions to be done by the recipient party,

I - To cease the active custody of the children of Mary d’Arkent nee Carrington, Baroness of Carrington and Joseph d’Arkent (listed henceforth as Charles d’Arkent, Baron of Carrington, Philippa d’Arkent, Victoria d’Arkent, Emma d’Arkent, and James d’Arkent) and return them to their legal father and guardian Joseph d’Arkent.

II - To cease the active guardianship of the properties held in trust for Charles d’Arkent, Baron of Carrington, and return such guardianship to their legal father and guardian Joseph d’Arkent.

III - To cease the active regency of the title of the Barony of Carrington held in trust for Charles d’Arkent, Baron of Carrington, and return such regency to their father and guardian Joseph d’Arkent.

    If the actions are not ceased as according to this letter within one month (or one Saint’s day [[24 hours]]), legal action will be taken by the party of Joseph d’Arkent to seek proper legal remedy.

YOURS HUMBLY,

LEONARD VAN HALEN

3 Main St, Johnstown, Northland, Oren

[[yoppl the tarchar#5195]]

LAW OFFICE 

of 

LEONARD SKINGAARD VAN HALEN

Leo S. van Halen, Solicitor-at-Law

Orenian University of Nova Horas (BA) - Class of 1736

Nobleton Institute of Technology (JD) - Class of 1742

Marnantine College of Johnstown (Honorary PhD) - Granted 1779

DEFENDING THE RIGHTS OF HARD-WORKING ORENIANS SINCE 1759

CRIMINAL DEFENSE

-

ESTATE PLANNING - TRUSTS, WILLS, DEEDS, AND TAX LAW

-

TORT LAWYER - MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, PERSONAL INJURY, AND MORE

No one’s rights as an Orenian citizen should ever be infringed! Facing legal trouble or seeking damages for injury? Even in the bleakest of hours, you are always entitled to counsel! Never allow injustice to win the day! With a trusty team of paralegals and staff, we aim to make sure no man or woman is persecuted wrongly or unjustly in the Honorable Court of Law! Together as Orenians, we will remain strong!

Don’t hesitate! Find me at my office in Johnstown, or write me to my Helena PO Box.

Contact:

Law Office of Leonard S. van Halen

3 Main St, Johnstown, Northland

PO Box #5

[[Message me on discord at yoppl the tarchar#5195 or message me on the forums.]]

FREE QUOTES! WALK-INS WELCOME!

A Leo Skingaard billboard as seen in the Helenan skyline.

STAY STRONG OREN!

((credits to @Fwied for the billboard pic!))

“Great to see the Black Bulava’s return- a worthy symbol for the authority and responsibility of the current Lord Speaker.”

Leonard Skingaard offers his services as barrister and solicitor to Sir Edward Galbraith  @sergisala

REQUEST FOR REBUTTAL

STEPHEN LUDOVAR

As Represented by LEONARD SKINGAARD

TO THE COURT,

    The defendant party of Stephen Ludovar, as represented by Leonard Skingaard, does hereby move to request rebuttal to the response set forth by the prosecuting party. In support of this request, the defendant states the following principle(s), order(s), and legislation,

I - The prosecuting party is erroneous in its belief that the defendant party of Stephen Ludovar agreed to a yield. The silence of the defendant party should not be considered consent, and in no place in the ORC is silence permitted as a valid sign of consent. Via ORC 305.014 which states “consent is null and void if caused by … misrepresentation”, the misrepresentation made by Sigmar in assuming his subsidiary yield clause without any clear signs of confirmation or negation makes the contract null and void. Also because of the obscure meaning, the interpretation used cannot be the one which benefits the individual that created the obscurity, which Sigmar did by adding subsidiary clauses without clear consent (ORC 305.043). Through all of this, the fight which Sigmar progressed consciously and in sound mind placed him knowingly into danger, and therefore the protections of volenti non fit injuria apply to the defendant party. 

II - Through ORC 305.014, the contract of the duel is null and void. Therefore, any furtherance of the duel is illegal, and because Sigmar knowingly progressed with the duel despite the invalidity of the contract, he is held just as liable as the defendant. Therefore, the protections of in pari delicto apply to the defendant party.

III - The defendant party maintains their original argument. The clause VII.II does not gain credence because of ORC 209.031, which is from federal law, not provincial law. If the charges the prosecuting party wishes to bring fall under ORC 209.031, then they fall under that legislation and not misconstrued provincial law.

IV - The defendant party maintains their original argument. The clause VII.II does not stand in a court of law as it is a standing breach with the Orenian Revised Code.

YOURS HUMBLY,

LEONARD SKINGAARD

3 Main St, Johnstown, Northland, Oren

[[yoppl the tarchar#5195]]

MOTION TO DISMISS

STEPHEN LUDOVAR

As Represented by LEONARD SKINGAARD

TO THE COURT,

    The defendant party of Stephen Ludovar, as represented by Leonard Skingaard, does hereby move this Honorable Court pursuant to the Orenian Revised Code to strike the subpoena and dismiss the complaint(s) filed by the prosecution. In support of this motion, the defendant states the following principle(s), order(s), and/or legislation,

I - The accused party is protected by volenti non fit injuria (ORC 210.02), which states “where an individual consents or actively places oneself in a position of harm or danger, that individual may not bring claim against another party”. Due to Sigmar Baruch’s willing consent of the duel, “... the accused asked Sigmar to challenge him to a duel [which] Sigmar did …”, the individual knowingly put themselves into a dangerous duel, and therefore the accused party should not be held liable else have their legal protections infringed upon.

II - The accused party is protected by in pari delicto (ORC 210.03), which states “where the individual held liable for a crime and the party convicting the individual [are] deemed both at fault, whether for the same crime or similar, both the individual and the convicting party shall not be held liable”. Due to Sigmar’s action in instigating the duel by requesting one from the accused party, it is the opinion of the accused party that Sigmar Baruch is held just as liable for the actions of the duel, and therefore, the accused party should not be convicted.

III - The accused party is not in violation with Haeseni Code of Law VII.II, where it states the “victor is to spare the man otherwise he shall be branded a murderer”. Because “Sigmar miraculously survived after quick treatment”, the life of Sigmar was never taken, and therefore the accused party did not commit a breach of law.

IV - The clause VII.II of the Book of Crimes of the Haeseni Code of Law states that “however does he not beg, he is free to take his life”. In the opinion of the accused party, this is a breach of the Orenian Revised Code pursuant to ORC 605.052 as the use of “begging” to determine righteous assault, battery, murder, or otherwise is in clear violation of ORC 202 and related acts. Henceforth, the use of clause VII.II is not valid in a court of law.

YOURS HUMBLY,

LEONARD SKINGAARD

3 Main St, Johnstown, Northland, Oren

[[yoppl the tarchar#5195]]

MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE

TO THE COURT,

    The party of Lothar Alimar, as represented by Leonard Skingaard, does hereby wish for a Motion for Continuance based on the following principle(s),

I - The pending status of the request for judicial review regarding testimonies of non-intelligent persons submitted by the party of Lothar Alimar on 1780. The ruling of this request may impact either/both the cases of the prosecution and defendant parties.

YOURS HUMBLY,

LEONARD SKINGAARD

3 Main St, Johnstown, Northland, Oren

[[yoppl the tarchar#5195]]

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW

LOTHAR ALIMAR

As Represented by LEONARD SKINGAARD

DESIRES TO SEE THE LEGAL CONTEXT OF THE FOLLOWING REVIEWED

The Crown v. Alimar 1780

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

The case of the Crown v. Alimar (1780) uses the witness testimony of Reginald [R’azirr] Therkul the Kha, referred to henceforth as Reginald the Kha. Reginald the Kha is classified under the Orenian Revised Code, or ORC, through the Paddington Act of 1756 as an “intelligent non-person” (ORC 301.077). By the Paddington Act and subsequent amendments (as of 1780), an “intelligent non-person” is afforded a “limited citizenship within the Empire” (ORC 301.071), where they are “granted the Right to Life” (ORC 301.073) and “may acquire property within the Empire” (ORC 301.074) but “must have a legal sponsor … [and] legal guardian” (ORC 301.072) in order to reside within the country. Also, these entities “may not vote in Imperial Senate [Diet] elections” (ORC 301.075), “may not hold government positions within the Empire” (ORC 301.076), and have their options for property limited to “areas specifically selected by local governments to be available for purchase” (ORC 301.074).

By the rights and limitations imposed by the designation of “intelligent non-person”, it is the opinion of the party of Lothar Alimar that the testimony of Reginald the Kha is not admissible in the court of law. The reasonings for these opinions are as followed,

I - The ORC enumerates that only the Right of Life (ORC 301.073) is afforded to “intelligent non-persons”, not the Right of Liberty or Due Process. The limited citizenship granted to “intelligent non-persons” is not covered under the Criminal Justice Reform Act (1746), which explicitly grants full citizens “due process”(ORC 302.051) and “equal protection under the law” (ORC 302.052). Furthermore, as according to the Imperial Personhood Act (1754), any entity not falling under the definition of a “person” “do not receive legal protections or provisions offered to persons” (ORC 302.063). 

All citizens and/or persons of the empire are granted the Right to Life, which states,

“THE RIGHT TO TRIAL, so no man will ever be wrongly accused when not charged by a trial of their peers.”

-Emperor Joseph I, ORENIAN REVISED CODE, Addendum 1718

    Citizens of the Empire can only be rightfully accused by a trial of their peers, or fellow citizens. These accusations can range from governmental subpoenas and summons to serving on juries and testimonies to the court. Because an “intelligent non-person” is neither a full citizen (ORC 301.071) nor a person (ORC 302.063), using the entity’s testimony in a court of law in a breach of the rights afforded to full citizens of the Empire. Only entities granted the Right to Due Process [Trial] can have their testimonies used legally without an infringement of legal protections afforded to the accused.

II - The ORC enumerates that “non-intelligent persons” “must have a legal sponsor, who shall represent them in all legal affairs of state and serve as legal guardian” (ORC 301.072). Because these entities must have their legal guardian represent them in all affairs of state, they cannot be judged legally competent to give testimony in a court of law. The legal guardian must be the one to bring charges or testimony, not the “non-intelligent person” in question. If Reginald the Kha lacks a legal guardian, then they are in a status of breach with the ORC and not in good standings with the courts and therefore unable to give any testimony in any regard.

References Used:

“302.051 - Citizens of the nation shall maintain the right to due process when convicted.

302.052 - Equal protection under the law is maintained within all courts of law irregardless of status, occupation, and other extraordinary circumstances.”

-ORENIAN REVISED CODE, Criminal Justice Reform Act 1746

“301.071 - An intelligent non-person may acquire limited citizenship within the Empire.

301.072 - An intelligent non-person must have a legal sponsor, who shall represent them in all legal affairs of state and serve as legal guardian.

301.073 - An intelligent non-person will be granted the Right to Life.

301.074 - An intelligent non-person may acquire property within the Empire, though only in areas specifically selected by local governments to be available for purchase for them - otherwise it is on their sponsor to house them.

301.075 - An intelligent non-person may not vote in Imperial Senate Elections.

301.076 - An intelligent non-person may not hold Government Positions within the Empire.

301.077 - An intelligent non-persons are defined as Hou-Zi, Anurians, or Kharajyr.

301.078 - The Goblin Act (1761): Goblins shall be considered Intelligent Non-Persons under law.”

-ORENIAN REVISED CODE, Paddington Act 1756

“302.061 - A pure-blooded member of one of the four primary Descendent races (human, elf, dwarf, orc) is a person.

302.062 - A mixed-blooded individual whose blood is a combination of human, elf, or dwarf descent is a person.

302.063 - All who do not fall into the two above categories (see: 302.061, 302.062) are not persons under the eyes of the law, and do not receive the legal protections or provisions offered to persons.

302.064 - Ologs and other oversized orc-like entities of mental deficiency do not fall into the category of personhood.”

-ORENIAN REVISED CODE, Imperial Personhood Act 1754

    The party of Lothar Alimar seeks to have the testimony of Reginald the Kha and any subsequent “non-intelligent persons” in the Crown v. Alimar 1780 considered inadmissible in court, as well as any future cases regarding these entities.

YOURS HUMBLY,

LEONARD SKINGAARD

3 Main St, Johnstown, Northland, Oren

[[yoppl the tarchar#5195]]

WINNERS OF THE FIRST NIKISCHURWE

    Behold one and all, the First Season of the Nikischurwe competition is at an end! After over a year of submissions and entries by many brilliant contestants, the winners have finally been selected and ready to be announced to the world-at-large.

First Place

“Lorin + Augustus”

By

Bianca La Fleur of Owynsburg, Kaedrin

Second Place

“A Song of Crows”

By

Voron Baruch of Reza, Haense

Third Place

“Dear Friend”

By

Darius Basrid of Helena, Renatus

    Awards will be granted through personal correspondence, upon the availability of the individual in question. The Wailer Society wishes to thank all contestants who entered their works. Details regarding the Second Nikischurwe will be released at a later date.

Sir d’Arkent,

This case is specifically regarding the constitutionality and legality of the action in question. Therefore, in order to mitigate confusion, I am refilling this as a judicial review. The suit on the Ministry of Justice is dropped, but the considerations revolving the illegality of restraining orders remain.

Please let me know of any further issues.

Leonard Skingaard