MCVDK

September 13, 2020

“’So I am the Most High, and in pursuit of My Virtue, I bid my faithful this: You shall keep fast to your word and station, and aspire not to greatness among men, but to My glory.’ Virtue 1:68” Leofric Edmund cited from the Scrolls before signing the Lorraine cross within the air, “As they have sworn themselves to God and his creation. They have sworn themselves to each other beneath his sight and promised themselves by words of Fidelity to one another. May their love last and their marriage be fruitful.” Leofric finished his statement with another signing of the Lorraine.

September 10, 2020

pEHY0G9D7pvn1ruITSBNlfxkornOOP6UYhfO5WhwnCN7p6w9mLMUwrWj6pvF3wNWhur5kvS5KHGsWXxmmB14JsyTi6aLPfyHbqBVB1SSy6TjmzFUfOkDwsSGmJ5RLIbB_hC0yOQb

RULING OF D’ARKENT v. RUTHERN

nmq2qmMfv-XscVNCZSbTmueNZXwzop_MthUfw7R5TGb3RsUhoEoadEwi8KpeZWVtGxv9D5nOWFvmYEKP0dsDqpAhUa-sji1XqVf5lu3yQMGxFrNFP9LCzVFGlYUCdJKjgGnFOpoO

September 10, 2020

pEHY0G9D7pvn1ruITSBNlfxkornOOP6UYhfO5WhwnCN7p6w9mLMUwrWj6pvF3wNWhur5kvS5KHGsWXxmmB14JsyTi6aLPfyHbqBVB1SSy6TjmzFUfOkDwsSGmJ5RLIbB_hC0yOQb

RULING OF D’ARKENT v. RUTHERN

nmq2qmMfv-XscVNCZSbTmueNZXwzop_MthUfw7R5TGb3RsUhoEoadEwi8KpeZWVtGxv9D5nOWFvmYEKP0dsDqpAhUa-sji1XqVf5lu3yQMGxFrNFP9LCzVFGlYUCdJKjgGnFOpoO

Presiding Justice

Basileios Balthazar Baelius

Plaintiff

Joseph d’Arkent

Defendant

Mary Ruthern nee Carrington

Witnesses / Submission Testimonies

Peter Baldwin d’Arkent

Victoria Anne d’Arkent

Emma Elaine d’Arkent

The Circuit Court, presided by Judge Basileios Balthazar Baelius CCJ, verdicts on the following issues presented by the Plaintiff;

I - The rightful custody of the d’Arkent children belongs to the father of the children.

II - The regency clause of the Baroness of Carrington written will is invalid.

The Circuit Court, presided by Judge Basileios Balthazar Baelius CCJ, verdicts;

I - On the Subject of the Custody of the d’Arkent children

Within the rights granted by the Oren Revised Code, henceforth referred to as the ORC, under CH302; “It is the obligation of the father to care for the child. [ORC 302.014]” & the threshold set within the Court; “the threshold of 'care' to be a strict one, ensuring that the children receive the most provision reasonably available. [Threshold of ‘Care’]”

It is clearly noted within the above that it must be the duty of the father to care for the children of their own offspring. It is within the opinion of the Court, that Mr. Joseph d’Arkent passed the above mentioned threshold of ‘Care’ as set within the Court. Mr. Joseph d’Arkent is therefore eligible to care and provide for the children of his own offspring. As a result of such, Mr. d’Arkent shall be granted the full custody of the children d’Arkent.

II - On the Subject of Rightful Regency of the Carrington Estate

The Plaintiff within the Court has displayed a multitude of reasons against the capability of the late Baroness of Carrington. It is noted within the ORC under CH708; “A designated regent is chosen by the capable lord, to administer and rule in the name of the lord or his heir in the case of incapability of the office holder. The person or persons designated to rule as regent is to be defined and listed with the will of the office holder. [ORC 708.02]” wherein the specific notion of ‘capable’ shall be noted.

The Court has heard the witness testimonies of the following individuals; Peter Baldwin d’Arkent, Joseph d’Arkent and Emma Elaine d’Arkent, wherein the Court has seen a consistent notion of Lady Mary Lucille d’Arkent being within breachment of the ORC. Therefore within breachment of the ORC CH703; “The duty to maintain their estates, manage them with good nature and uphold the law of the Imperial State within their estates, and to prohibit any estates’ decline into decadence and debauchery. [ORC 703.01]”. Furthermore, Lady Mary Lucille d’Arkent’s will display the clear misunderstanding, as well as misuse, of the laws of the Empire.

The Court therefore sees fit to deem Lady Mary Lucille d’Arkent as incapable by the time of her death. As a result of such, the Court shall verdict the regency clause of Lady Mary Lucille d’Arkent’s will as invalid and thereby the regency of Miss Mary Jane Ruthern nee Carrington as invalid. Therefore; the choice of regency, until the firstborn son of Lady Mary Lucille d’Arkent reaches proper age, shall be provided by the authority of the Crown.

September 2, 2020

PLEA AGREEMENT

THE CROWN,

Represented by BASILEIOS BAELIUS of THE MINISTRY OF JUSTICE,

With co-counsel HENRIK LARSON of THE MINISTRY OF JUSTICE,

AGREES WITH THE FOLLOWING PARTY;

LOTHAR ALIMAR,

Represented by LEONARD SKINGAARD

ON THE FOLLOWING TERMS;

The Crown Prosecution agrees, with the Defendant Party present, to drop all charges of the Oren Revised Code, henceforth ORC, 202 filed against Mister Lothar Alimar, henceforth Mister Alimar, in turn Mister Alimar shall plead guilty to the ORC 206.041, an infraction.

Mister Alimar shall, as verdict upon the breachment of the ORC 206.041, a fine to the state of one thousand five hundred mark within a period of three years. In the scenario that Mister Alimar exceeds the period agreed upon by the parties, the fine shall increase by two hundred fifty mark per year exceeding the agreed payment period.

Signed, Assistant Solicitor-General Basileios Baelius

Prince Lothar Vladislav Alimar of Muldav

August 27, 2020

@KBR

Basileious gaze moved across the missive for a moment as his footsteps carried themselves through the hall of the Novellen. Soft sounds of his boots hitting the clean marble floor throughout the halls as his steps grew faster as the halls grew longer. “Iskander.” He noted upon finally finding his brother within the Novellen as his gaze finally raised from the missive for the first time since his carriage from Reza. “Aachen resigned. .” He noted quietly and almost sadly as his gaze returned to the missive once more. “We mustn’t let him down, Iskander.” He added, “We’re the next generation of Rhenyari within the Empire. We mustn’t let him down.” the Rhenyar repeated his words once more as they grew to a mumble, a few simply words leaving him beneath his breath. “You did us proud, aachen. The Basridi and Rhenyari. The People of Oren. You deserve the rest.”

August 24, 2020

MOTION TO DISMISS

Sir Edward Galbraith,

Represented by BASILEIOS BAELIUS of BASRID SOLICITORS,

DESIRES TO DISMISS THE FOLLOWING SUIT;

IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY: SIR EDWARD GALBRAITH, 1782

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

To the Honourable Justices of the Supreme Court, it is the right and ability of the defendant party within any form of formal Court to file a Motion to Dismiss. As such, on behalf of the Defendant Sir Edward Galbraith, a Motion to Dismiss shall hereby be filed to the Supreme Court Justices for review of the validity of the Impeachment.

The Defendant Party has found many faults within the Inquiry made by the Honourable President of the House of Commons, Lukas Rakoczy, which has caused the Inquiry as whole to remain invalid and therefore subject to dismissal. The Defendant Party sees fit that the Supreme Court Justices evaluates the Inquiry upon the following notions:

I - The following statement is noted by the Honourable President of the House of Commons, Lukas Rakoczy, henceforth referred to as the Honourable President, within the announcement of impeachment inquiry: Sir Edward Galbraith, 1782;

“No confidence

A lack of confidence by the House in the Secretary’s ability to perform his duties well. [IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY: SIR EDWARD GALBRAITH, 1782]”

The Defendant has found that our constitutional system consecrated in the Oren Revised Code, henceforth referred to as the ORC, does not contain any principle of law that requires a Councilor of State to have the confidence of the House of Commons in order to remain in Office. Furthermore, it is the opinion of the Defendant that in our current constitutional system there is no relation of confidence between the Imperial Diet and His Imperial Majesty’s Government considering that the Crown appoints the Archchancellor -who then appoints his Councilors of State on behalf of the Crown- and not the House of Commons [ORC 602.044]. In fact, the only constitutional role of the House of Commons in that aspect is the confirmation of the Councilors of State once they have already been appointed by the Archchancellor on behalf of the Crown [ORC 602.015].

The Defendant was already confirmed as Secretary of the Interior by the House of Commons in 1772 after being appointed by the Basrid Ministry in the same year, so it is the opinion of the Defendant that the current House of Commons cannot simply undo the confirmation of Sir Edward Galbraith as Secretary of the Interior that already took place in the past by impeaching him only for political reasons.

In fact, it is the opinion of the Defendant that the “No confidence” impeachment charge is not analogue to any of the impeachable offenses described in the principle of law ORC 602.016, such as “improperly exceeding or abusing the powers of their office” or “using their office for an improper purpose or for personal gain”.

Therefore, the Defendant has found the “No confidence” impeachment charge announced by the Honourable President to be entirely political, unconstitutional, and therefore an illegal and invalid impeachable offense.

II - As clearly defined within the ORC under the following statement;

“Writs of Impeachment, concerning the impeachment of a member of the Council of State for offenses of a categorically serious extent, such as ‘improperly exceeding or abusing the powers of their office’, or ‘using their office for an improper purpose or for personal gain’. These must be passed with a two-thirds majority [ORC 602.016].”

In this principle of law it is highlighted that the Honourable Members of the House of Commons must have a two-thirds majority vote to start an impeachment inquiry. This opinion is in fact the procedure followed by the former Honourable President Sir Terrence May in 1756 when the Imperial Senate voted with a two-thirds majority to start the impeachment inquiry of the former Secretary of the Treasury Peter de Sarkozy as can be read in the transcript of the Tenth Session of the Imperial Diet:

https://www.lordofthecraft.net/forums/topic/188904-tenth-session-of-the-imperial-senate-1754-1756/?do=findComment&comment=1758823

It is noted by the Defendant that no formal vote has taken place in the House of Commons to start an impeachment inquiry against Sir Edward Galbraith at all, as all the transcripts and documents recently published by the Imperial Diet do not contain any formal vote in the House of Commons on the start of the impeachment inquiry. In fact, the only parliamentary document that the Defendant has found regarding the start of the impeachment inquiry has been the announcement made by the Honourable President, which in the opinion of the Defendant could be considered as an illegal act from the Honourable President to usurp the constitutional power of House of Commons to issue Writs of Impeachment by unilaterally deciding the start of the impeachment inquiry by himself, without allowing the Honourable Members of the House of Commons to debate and vote on the matter, and therefore, violating their political rights. Therefore, it is the opinion of the Defendant that the current impeachment process against Sir Edward Galbraith is invalid and should be cancelled immediately.

III - The Defendant would like to move to the attention of the Supreme Court Justices to the following documents filed under the Imperial Diet of the Empire;

https://www.lordofthecraft.net/forums/topic/193046-impeachment-inquiry-of-edward-galbraith-1774/

The above document presents the charges of the former impeachment inquiry on Sir Edward Galbraith held roughly eight years from today. All of the above mentioned charges were de facto dismissed when the House of Commons cancelled the above noted impeachment inquiry in the same year. Therefore, it is within the opinion of the Defendant that the same charges that were already inquired and dismissed in a former impeachment inquiry by the House of Commons cannot be brought again in a new impeachment inquiry, especially considering that circumstances have not changed and that no new information has been discovered regarding those charges such as “Mismanagement” or the “Wrongful dismissal of employees” accusations since the former impeachment inquiry of eight years ago.

The impeachment charges that repeat in both of the aforementioned impeachment inquiries are the following;

“Abuse of Power

Mismanagement of the City of Helena

Appointing his own representatives to offices, rather than having them being elected by the city.

Wrongful dismissal of employees. [IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY OF EDWARD GALBRAITH, 1774]”

Which have formally been defined by the House of Commons in this new impeachment inquiry as the following;

“Abuse of Power

Charging significantly less on deeds that directly benefited the Secretary

Creating a hostile workplace, causing fear in those would speak out against him.

Wrongful dismissal of employees.

Mismanagement

Failure to maintain proper records of Ministry of Interior work.

Fabricating documents after-the-fact to appease House subpoenas. [IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY: SIR EDWARD GALBRAITH, 1782]”

It is the opinion of the Defendant that the aforementioned charges are invalid and that therefore they should not be accountable in Court, as the House of Commons already took a specific stance on those impeachment charges in the past when the House cancelled the former impeachment inquiry that had those same charges.

IV - It is within the experience of the Defendant that in practice the impeachment process has two main stages: the impeachment inquiry and the impeachment trial. Despite the House of Commons is technically in the middle of the inquiry stage, the inquiry is actually currently nonexistent as the Honourable President has not scheduled any impeachments hearings and has not requested to the Ministry of the Interior any documents of any kind for the aforementioned investigation on the Secretary of the Interior since the impeachment inquiry began. In fact, the only thing that the Honourable President has done after announcing the start of the impeachment inquiry is scheduling the date and time of the impeachment trial and communicating that decision to the Secretary of the Interior, in a clear violation of the procedural rules regarding the impeachment process.

This opinion of the Defendant is in fact the procedure followed by Sir Terrency May when after the Imperial Senate voted to start the impeachment inquiry on the former Secretary of the Treasury Peter de Sarkozy in 1756 the Imperial Senate Committee on Justice that he presided inquired the Ministry of the Treasury on the possible impeachable offenses committed by the former Secretary of the Treasury Peter de Sarkozy.

The fact that in the current House of Commons there are no functional Committees does not mean that the House does not have the constitutional obligation to inquire the Ministry of the Interior regarding the possible impeachable offenses committed by the Secretary of the Interior if an impeachment inquiry has been started and, therefore, given the fact that at the moment there is not any factual inquiry on the Ministry of the Interior despite the current inquiry stage of the impeachment process against Sir Edward Galbraith it is the opinion of the Defendant that the current impeachment process against Sir Edward Galbraith is invalid and should be cancelled immediately.

IN ORDER TO ACCOMPLISH;

- Cancellation of the impeachment on the Secretary of the Interior, Sir Edward Galbraith, announced by the Honourable President of the Commons in 1782.

INJUNCTION REQUEST:

- Immediate suspension of the impeachment on the Secretary of the Interior, Sir Edward Galbraith, announced by the Honourable President of the Commons in 1782 until the Supreme Court rules on this Motion to Dismiss, given the fact that not doing so would imply that the House of Commons could soon convict the Defendant following illegal procedures and violating his rights, causing him an irreparable damage.

AND THEREFORE HOPES TO RESTORE JUSTICE IN THE AFOREMENTIONED PROCEDURE.

YOURS HUMBLY,

BASILEIOS BAELIUS on behalf of Sir Edward Galbraith,

BASRID SOLICITORS, PONTIAN PLACE 8, HELENA

[[MCVDK#9258]]

August 14, 2020

To the Honourable Members of the House of Commons, both of Josephite and Evardine ideology, as well as those of independent seating within the House. Upon this Saint’s Day, the date of the 2nd of The First Seed (1781), I create this open letter to you, Honourable Member of the House, to address an issue within the current Orenian Revised Code, henceforth ORC, that is deeply concerning in my personal and professional opinions of the Code of the Empire.

It would be understood if the Honourable Members are not aware of myself and my person. I, therefore, thought it would be appropriate to start my statement by a brief introduction and explanation of my history with the ORC and other acts, edicts & otherwise legal documents within the Imperial Lands. I was baptized Basileios Balthazar Basrid, currently utilizing the name of Basileios Balthazar Baelius after marriage, and I am a descendant of the line of Ba’as. My father is Sir Jahan Basrid & my Granduncle is Simon Basrid, Archchancellor of the Empire. My heritage and family have caused most of my Imperial life to be involved within some form of political intrigue, which later evolved into becoming apart of the Ministry of Justice at the age of fifteen and was appointed Attorney-General of the Ministry of Justice, by the Solicitor-General Farooq Gray, at the age of twenty and have since served the Empire as Attorney-General. It does not need to be mentioned, or further proved, that my work heavily involves the ORC, and otherwise, on a daily basis. It is within this work, that myself and some of my staff have noticed recent issues within the currently written Code.

I have recently been working on the case known as The Crown v. Alimar (1780). I would advise the Honourable Members of the House to find the documents surrounding the case to properly understand the evolution of the case and the issues presented and countered within it. It is within the case of The Crown v. Alimar (1780), that certain aspects of the ORC seems to have furthered my interest in attempting to aid the entirety of the Imperial people.

The Paddington Act (1756) establishes the following;

“On Intelligent Non-Personhood

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.

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

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

- Orenian Revised Code, CH301 ‘On Personhood’

As Attorney-General, I understand the need for the Honourable Members of the House of Commons to establish laws upon the intelligent non-persons. It is my personal belief that the Paddington Act [ORC 301.07] is a deeply required part of Imperial Law. However, I am also of the opinion that the Paddington Act [ORC 301.07] and furthermore the utilization & definition of the ORC’s section 202 ‘Injury against the Person.’ have deep issues within that require immediate review.

As clearly defined within the ORC’s section 202 ‘Injury against the Person.’ - this section contains certain laws within the area of an injury against a person. However, as noted in the above section shown of the Paddington Act [ORC 301.07], specifically the statement; “An intelligent non-persons are defined as Hou-Zi, Anurians, or Kharajyr.” invokes the idea of which an intelligent non-person is no longer protected by the laws of the ORC’s section 202 ‘Injury against the Person.’ This effectively means that any intelligent non-person, as of the definition of personhood [ORC 301.06] and further clarification of intelligent non-persons [ORC 301.07], are unable to legally protect themselves from all forms of personal injury. To further give the Honourable Members of the House of Commons an understanding of the issue; any person within the Empire is able to commit some of the following actions against an intelligent non-person without facing legal consequences; Assault [ORC 202.01], Battery [ORC 202.02], Manslaughter [ORC 202.03], Murder [ORC 202.04], Mayhem [ORC 202.05], Kidnapping [ORC 202.06], Hostages [ORC 202.07], Defamation [ORC 202.08], Impersonation [ORC 202.09], Torture & otherwise cruel methods of punishment [ORC 202.010] & Malpractice [ORC 202.011]. Most of the above mentioned breaches of law includes any form of damage which has the possibility of leading to death - many of the above breaches of law further discriminates, or otherwise harms, the intelligent non-person in many different ways.

Specific breaches of laws within the ORC’s section 202 ‘Injury against the Person’ such as Assault [ORC 202.01], Battery [ORC 202.02], Manslaughter [ORC 202.03], Murder [ORC 202.04], Mayhem [ORC 202.05] is, within the opinion of the Attorney-General, a direct violation against the Right to Life, of which any intelligent non-person is granted; “An intelligent non-person will be granted the Right to Life.” The Right to Life noted the following; “THE RIGHT TO LIFE, so no man will ever be taken to the Skies so soon. [Emperor Joseph I, ORENIAN REVISED CODE, Addendum 1718]” and as such right denotes any intelligent non-person should be protected from any laws of which may harm them to the degree of death. It is therefore within my belief, that any intelligent non-person should be granted the right to be protected by the following laws of the ORC; Assault [ORC 202.01], Battery [ORC 202.02], Manslaughter [ORC 202.03], Murder [ORC 202.04], Mayhem [ORC 202.05], Torture & otherwise cruel methods of punishment [ORC 202.010] & Malpractice [ORC 202.011] as these breaches of law all contains the possibility of which any intelligent non-person’s life is endangered.

Furthermore the following two rights should be granted to any intelligent non-person of the Empire; “THE RIGHT TO LIBERTY, so no man will ever be bonded by the shackles of slavery. [Emperor Joseph I, ORENIAN REVISED CODE, Addendum 1718]” & “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]” as breaches of these rights is a direct violation of the freedom provided by the Empire to the servants of it. Intelligent non-persons should also, in the opinion of the Attorney-General, maintain the ability to represent oneself within the Courts of Law. It is absurd for any citizen, or temporary citizen, including intelligent non-persons, to be unable to represent oneself within the Courts of Law. The Imperialist system is built upon the freedom of representation and ability to utilize the Courts of Law to right any wrongs - disallowing Imperial people to do such; is taking away their right to life as they wish it to be. It is endangering their lives as people contain the ability to act against intelligent non-persons with the knowledge of not having to answer for such crime.

I will not fully state that I am asking for equal opportunity for any intelligent non-person, for I am not asking for such. However, as a man of the law, I refuse to allow simple laws to protect people, persons, within the Empire to commit acts of crime - to violate the ORC and the principles of our society without serving the consequence of it. I wish for the Honourable Members of the House of Commons, to set themselves within the position of the intelligent non-person, as to fully understand the problem and inability to protect oneself against crimes of the Empire despite being a lawful and willing servant of it. It is a violation of the rights many persons of the Empire seem to forget fully, it a violation of basic principles that our entire society has been created upon. We shall allow any persons and intelligent non-persons of the Empire to seek the chance and ability to protect themselves against unlawful men. For then, and only then, is the Empire an example of greatness - our system a masterpiece.

Signed, Attorney-General Basileios Balthazar Baelius, Imperial Solicitor of the Ministry of Justice, Professor & Royal Court Tutor of Imperial Civics.

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

August 13, 2020

5KD21mt-cJMNABAzJJsJ_KskWQLanIUn14vExPERhAeRaLDVxlXtypmDboN_8RP4lMMp9YpUYJ26tkfvGP4hNZV1evawFGAcIjr6nXgV1EN6kHIP3IsOfI7b1Q0b3VApiowKwbpt

The Crown prosecution, representatives of the Crown within the Court case of The Crown v. Alimar (1780), recognizes the motion of continuance by Mr. Skingaard as invalid and hereby wishes to rebuttal against the motion. The Crown prosecution recognizes Mr. R’azirr Therkul, henceforth referred to as Mr. Therkul, who is not considered a person within the Orenian Revised Code, henceforth ORC, under the Paddington Act (1756), is not granted protection of the ORC’s section 202 ‘Injury against the Person.’ However, the Crown prosecution does note the statement within the Paddington Act [ORC 301.07] mentions the following notice; “An intelligent non-person will be granted the Right to Life. [ORC 301.073]” of which states; “THE RIGHT TO LIFE, so no man will ever be taken to the Skies so soon. [Emperor Joseph I, ORENIAN REVISED CODE, Addendum 1718].”

The Crown prosecution therefore contains the opinion of the following breaches of law, “Where an individual intentionally commits upon another an act of unlawful violence which brings about permanent injury, this shall be battery of the first degree, a felony [ORC 202.023]” & “Where an individual intentionally or negligently commits such an act as to bring about the dismemberment of another, the destruction of an eye, castration, or other irreparable loss of an appendage or organ, this shall be mayhem in the first degree, a felony. [ORC 202.053]”, is not only a breach of the ORC’s section 202 ‘Injury against Person’ but also a breach of the Right to Life as the above mentioned breaches of law contains the possibility of ending in death for the victim. The Crown prosecution therefore notes the opinion that Mr. Therkul shall be protected by the above mentioned laws, with the reason of these laws being a breach of the Kharajyrs basic rights of intelligent non-persons.

The Crown prosecution does recognize, that Mr. Therkul may not present himself or his statements within the Court of Law. It is not the intent of the Crown prosecution to breach any statements of the Paddington Act [ORC 301.07], however do note that Paddington Act [ORC 301.07] mentions; “An intelligent non-person must have a legal sponsor, who shall represent them in all legal affairs of state and serve as legal guardian. [ORC 301.072]” of which the Crown prosecution specifically wish to highlight the following statement; “who shall represent them in all legal affairs of state”, of which grants the Kharajyr, an intelligent non-person, the right to have a legal sponsor of which may represent them within the Court. The Crown prosecution therefore notes for the ease of the Central Circuit Justice, that Mr. Therkul does have a legal sponsor whom shall represent Mr. Therkul within the Court of Law.

The Crown prosecution also notes Mr. Alimar as charged for the following infraction; “Where an individual possesses materials that are determined to be obscene to a reasonable person, this shall be the crime of obscene materials, an infraction [ORC 206.041].” The Crown prosecution therefore wishes to mention for the Central Circuit Justice, that the case against Mr. Alimar shall not be invalidated by the, possible, removal of the breaches of the ORC’s section 202, specifically the ORC 202.023 & ORC 202.053. And wishes to continue the case within the Court of Law despite the possibility of these breaches being removed - yet the Crown prosecution does see fit that both breaches remain valid within the Courts of Law.