Judgments of the Imperial Judex

The judiciary, for settling disputes and feudal contracts

Moderator: CJ Miller

Locked
User avatar
Daniel Farewell
Posts: 1104
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 5:49 am

Judgments of the Imperial Judex

Post by Daniel Farewell »

Here be dragons.

User avatar
Daniel Farewell
Posts: 1104
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 5:49 am

Elwynn v Imperial Cartographer

Post by Daniel Farewell »

For proceedings, click here
Findings of the Imperial Judex

In

Elwynn v Imperial Cartographer (IJ-2317-T1-A)

Plaintiff
  • Duchy of Elwynn
Defendants
  • Bill Dusch, Imperial Cartographer
Statement on the Border Issue:
The Duke of Elwynn posted this for my consideration.
BORDERS OF THE COUNTIES OF ELWYNN

Duchy of Elwynn
Petitioner

Now comes the Duchy of Elwynn, by and through its lawful Duke, to petition the Imperial Judex for considering a matter that may prove troublesome in the future.

1. Background:

1.1
On or about 10 Vanchauslurk 2281 did the Duke of Elwynn decree the establishment and the determination of borders of the counties of Elwynn. The decree can be found here (includes map): [Editor's note: decree and map are offline].

1.2
On or about 13 Vanchauslurk 2284 did Bill Dusch produce a map of Shireroth with county borders. The borders of the Elwynnese counties were significantly different from the ones established by the decree referred to in section 1.1. The map can be found here (the borders of Elwynn on the map have not changed since the addition of Elwynnese counties onto the map): [Editor's note: map is offline]

1.3
On or about 15 Vanchauslurk 2286 did the Kaiser of Shireroth, Yarad I, decree that "... the most current edition of the Map of Shireroth as compiled by Lord Bill of Antya, Imperial Cartographer, will be used in determining the amount of territory available for allotment to new Counties, and the votes that fiefdoms may receive." The full text of the decree can be found here: http://shireroth.org/shirewiki/Imperial_Decree_200

2. The nature of the petition

In light of the findings produced in Section 1 the Duchy of Elwynn petitions the Imperial Judex to give opinion upon which borders are lawful (in other words, is it Lord Antya's map's borders the one lawful or is the Elwynnese Decree's borders?).

Respectfully submitted.
As is law in this land, all orders and decrees of the Kaiser supercede all orders and decrees of lesser nobles than the Kaiser. As such, if the Kaiser decreed that the map created by Lord Bill of Antya, to be the official map of the borders of Shireroth, than that map takes legal power over any decrees by lesser nobles than the Kaiser that may state otherwise. For, as the map may have been created by a lesser noble than the Kaiser, of a fiefdom not associated with the Duke of Elywnn, once the Kaiser decreed it official, it thus had the power of the Kaiser behind it.

However, I would note, that while legaly correct, it would be inappropriate, and in bad-faith for Lord Bill to knowingly create a map that would violate the decrees of a noble, and than have the Kaiser decree said map as law. But I state again, that due to the Kaiser's decree, such an action would be legal.

--Erik Metzler
Imperial Provost
15 H'Graasreign 2317

User avatar
Daniel Farewell
Posts: 1104
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 5:49 am

IR v Augustus

Post by Daniel Farewell »

For proceedings, click here.
Findings of the Imperial Judex

in

R v Augustus (IJ-2391-C1-A)

Plaintiff
  • The Imperial Republic
Defendants
  • Delphi Augustus the Duke of Antica
HYPATIA AGNESI, the Arbiter:
I am afraid that given the evidence presented, I cannot in good conscience find Delphi guilty. I have consulted with my resident computer expert who has explained more of the computer attack logistics (ie, how SQL injection attacks work), who has stated that he does not believe that there are any records kept with that sort of attack. Considering this and considering Sander's comments that he believed that the attack was by an obtained password, there does not really seem to be any kind of direct evidence available. I have not seen IP records or more than one incriminting conversation, and that was with the prosecuter!

I'm sorry Scott, although you are probably correct in pointing the finger at Delphi, I cannot convict him. Proving motive and ability is not solid evidence that he did it.

I hereby declare a mistrial.
Findings of the Imperial Judex

in

IR v Augustus (IJ-2391-C1-B)

Plaintiff
  • The Imperial Republic
Defendants
  • Delphi Augustus the Duke of Antica
HYPATIA AGNESI, the Arbiter:
Ok, firstly, NO MORE DISCUSSION IN THIS THREAD!!!!

Second, perhaps I should have said "not guilty" instead. If someone wants to take Delphi to trial again or appeal, it is up to the kaiser to deal with it. I applied for this post saying I would be fair first and foremost, and I was. Sure, outside of the trial, I'm pretty sure Delphi did do it. However, that is my speculation as a private citizen, and not my verdict based upon everything that was posted here. There were no computer logs, and no conversations saying things like "I'm going to destroy them" or "I just destroyed them!", etc., and that is just the way it is with this case. There simply was nothing proven beyond motive and ability. (And it is important to realize that saying someone is technically capable doesn't mean they had to have done it.)

Motive iss NOT enough to convict here, especially when the circumstantial evidence against Delphi was entirely composed of what people think of him and some of his previous actions, and when he did not even seek to deny that he had motive! I'm not saying Scott did a bad job prosecuting, just that, as he'd said before the trial started, that there was a distinct lack of any other evidence to present. I feel that this is a fact of how we conduct business in micronations, and we have to deal with trails that cannot be resolved satisfactorally. And if justice matters at all around here, a verdict that is not politically expedient will be just as acceptable as one that is not.

Now, get out of my thread. It's closed.

User avatar
Daniel Farewell
Posts: 1104
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 5:49 am

Loki v R

Post by Daniel Farewell »

For proceedings, click here.
Findings of the Imperial Judex

In

Loki v IR (IJ-3186-O1-A)

Plaintiff
  • Jacobus Loki
Defendants
  • Hasan I Jayatar
ERIK MORTIS, the Arbiter:

Issue 1: Legality of Kaiser being Shah of Babkha.

This court recognizes that the Shah of Babkha is not inherently a citizen of Babkha.
This court recognizes that the Shah of Babkha is in fact the 'owner' of Babkha, and as such does not inherently owe allegiance to Babkha.
This court recognizes that despite these fact we are still skating the line in terms of legality.

This court recognizes the legality of the Kaiser to also be the Shah of Babkha, on condition that he not attain citizenship or pledge any oath of allegiance to Babkha.
This court recognizes that at this time those two conditions have been met.

This court gives permission to any Duke, the Steward or the Prætor to reopen this issue before my court if they can present solid evidence that the two condition mentioned above have been violated.

The court also in addition recommends that the Kaiser, despite this court's finds, not go ahead with becoming Shah without first conferring with the Landsraad and making the appropriate changes needed to bring this course of action away from being on the edge of legality. This change would have to be done in the form of a Decree as the law most inquestion appears in the Decreebook. A statement of permission from the Landsraad would go a long way in smoothing the legal ruffled feathers. This recommendation is not required to be followed.

Issue 2: Powers of the Steward over the Kaiser.

This court does not recognize the Stewards authority to remove the Kaiser fro power for any reason, other than those mentioned explicitly in law.

This court does not recognize the protection of the Yardistani Clause extending to an individual or the Duke of Yardistan solely attempting to remove the Kaiser without permission.
This court recognizes the extension of the Yardistani Clause over the Duchy of Yardistan as a whole in cases of open rebellion and insurrection.

This court will call for no punishment for the recent misunderstanding concerning this issue.
This court recommends that no action be taken to penalize Jecobus Loki for this misunderstanding.

Unless there is any further business within my jurisdiction concerning this case that I have failed to address, The court is hereby adjourned, and this case declared Resolved.

User avatar
Daniel Farewell
Posts: 1104
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 5:49 am

Loki v Windsor

Post by Daniel Farewell »

For proceedings, click here.
Findings of the Imperial Judex

In

Loki v Windsor (IJ-3240-T1-A)

Plaintiff
  • Jacobus Loki
Defendants
  • Jonas Windsor the Prætor of the Landsraad
ERIK MORTIS, the Arbiter:
Jacobus Loki wrote:Milord Arbiter

As was brought to our attention regarding the economic bill, this bill (the cease annexations bill) was open for much longer than four days, and is most likely in violation. The Preator has been informed.

(Not to mention the Dead Guy voting on it. :angel)

No that I'm after another constitutional crisis or anything. Really.

Maybe His Niftiness could decree it, before all of the crazed annexationists :D acting on prior authority, go and jerk chains that mayhap should not be jerked?

(Darn, acting all responsible. Phooey!)

Regards,
Firstly, As I am not a ruling lord (in regard to this court) Milord is not a proper title of address for myself.

As I and precedent see it, a bill going past the 4 day period, while a technical violation, and a problem to be addressed, is not sufficiently severe to warrant action on the part of the Imperial Judex. I will allow the Landsraad and the Prætor to address the issue without my interference.

The vote of the Dead Duke, does not constitute a violation, or even a problem in Landsraad Procedure, nor a Charter Issue (No such thing as Constitution in Shireroth btw) The vote was cast by a valid duke, at a valid time. If a new duke was instated, and voted again, it would replace the previous vote.

As I see it, the violation is minor enough, and in light of historical precedent, on is own not severe enough to require the Landsraad to reexamine it.

User avatar
Daniel Farewell
Posts: 1104
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 5:49 am

IR v Heimer

Post by Daniel Farewell »

For proceedings, click here.
Findings of the Imperial Judex

In

IR v Heimer (IJ-3276-C1-A)

Plaintiff
  • The Imperial Republic
Defendants
  • Jess Heimer the Baron of the Holy Lands
on

Violation of the Tri Citizenship law (LB IX-B)

MALLIKI TOSHA, the Arbiter:

On other charges

From the beginning, this trial was limited to the possible violation of the Tri Citizenship law. However, there were, and still are, accusations voiced against the defendant for attempting to register a papel. Therefore, this court will briefly address those accusations. While registering a papel might be malicious, it is also not illegal. A person cannot be punished for something that was not a crime at the time the act was committed. It is the opinion of this court that the public ridicule the defendant has had to endure after his papelism attempt is punishment enough.

Summary of evidence
The Inquisitor has attempted to show that the defendant has been a citizen of Shireroth, Gralus, Vanderveer, the Empire of Anterreich-Launderschnell and Mulgaria. While indeed the first four of these citizenships have been proven, it has not been established that the defendant has been a citizen of Mulgaria. Furthermore, the Inquisitor has failed to show which of these citizenships were held at the same time in a satisfactory manner. The defendant has also given a perfectly valid explanation to what citizenships he has had, and the Inquisitor has failed to refute that as well.

Verdict
After careful deliberation and based on the evidence presented before this court, we find the defendant

NOT GUILTY. :smashy

Appeal
A Writ of Appeal may be submitted to the Kaiser within seven (7) days of the time stamp of this post.

On the parties
I sincerely hope that both parties will behave in a correct and respectful manner if they ever appear before this court again. Both parties have at times behaved in a way not becoming a person before this court and that could, in the future, constitute contempt of court.

User avatar
Daniel Farewell
Posts: 1104
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 5:49 am

Rahikkala v Landsraad

Post by Daniel Farewell »

For proceedings, click here.
Findings of the Imperial Judex

In

Rahikkala v Landsraad (IJ-3415-T1-A)

Plaintiff
  • Ari Rahikkala the Duke of Straylight
Defendants
  • The Landsraad
MALLIKI TOSHA, the Arbiter:

1. The Imperial Charter, Article III, Section B states that the Arbiter may overturn any act or resolution of the Landsraad that is deemed to be in violation of the Charter. This includes amendments to the Landsraad Procedures, since they are a resolution of the Landsraad as well as prohibited from violating the Charter. Therefore, the Imperial Judex accepts jurisdiction in this case.

2. With the passing of Imperial Decree 337 all dukes and duchies are now to be considered as equals amongst themselves. The terms "equal" and "equality" are used, but they are never defined. With this lack of definition, this Court must define the term. For simplicity, I define equality in this case as "the concept that all dukes and duchies are to be awarded the same influence, standing and treatment". I believe that this definition can be widely accepted.

3. The petitioner questions the legality of the Economy Second Half Bill 3279 on the grounds that it violates the Charter, Article IV, Section C. The section reads:
Imperial Charter, IV, C wrote:All Dukes and Duchies are equal under the Kaiser. No Duke or Duchy shall be deprived of it's equality without the consent of the Kaiser, the Duke of the Duchy concerned, and the Landsraad.
The Economy Second Half Bill 3279 in short introduced the current voting system in the Landsraad, where the amount of Erb each Duchy holds directly decides that Duchy's voting power in the Landsraad. The petitioner argues that he does not support the act and it should therefore be repealed. This is, however, not possible. The act was passed in full accordance with the laws active at that time, and cannot therefore be repealed solely because the petitioner, though a duke, disagrees with it now. The passage of an act or resolution cannot be overturned in this way.

4. A different question comes to mind though. Does the Economy Second Half Bill 3279 violate the Charter as it stands now? The Charter allows the Arbiter the power of overturning any act or resolution of the Landsraad that violates the Charter.

5. The Charter states that all dukes and duchies are equal. The current Procedures of the Landsraad states that each Duchy's vote is decided by the amount of Erb that duchy holds at any given time. This could lead to one Duchy have more voting power than all other Duchies together, and does today lead to small differences in the voting power of the duchies. This is in direct violation of the principle of duchy equality set down in the Imperial Charter.

6. Therefore, it is the ruling of the Imperial Judex that the following sections of the Procedures of the Landsraad are in violation of the Imperial Charter, Article IV, Section C, and therefore immediately declared null and void:
3. A. 2
3. A. 3
3. A. 4
3. A. 5
3. B. 1

7. This ruling may be appealed to the Kaiser within seven (7) days, and heard at his pleasure. A Pone to that effect must be posted at the Kaiser's Court.

User avatar
Daniel Farewell
Posts: 1104
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 5:49 am

Loki v Windsor (2)

Post by Daniel Farewell »

For proceedings, click here.
Findings of the Imperial Judex

In

Loki v Windsor (IJ-3431-T1-A)

Plaintiff
  • Jacobus Loki
Defendants
  • Jonas Windsor the Prætor of the Landsraad
MALLIKI TOSHA, the Arbiter:

The Imperial Charter, Article II, Section A states the following:

"All law set down by the Landsraad shall be recorded in the Lawbook."

The LawBook, IV, A, 1, a. states the following:

"The Landsraad must place all permanent laws of the Land of Shireroth into the Lawbook of Shireroth, which shall be maintained by the Prætor of Shireroth."

This implies that anything not recorded in the LawBook is not to be considered as law, or as a temporary law. In the interest of clarity, practicality and common sense, I rule that the Prætor is restricted to three citizenships, including his Shirerithian one, even without Imperial Decree 347.

Furthermore, if the Landsraad "clearly intended" to restrict the Prætor to two citizenships, they should have made sure that such a law was added to the LawBook.

This ruling may be appealed to the Kaiser within seven days.

:smashy

User avatar
Daniel Farewell
Posts: 1104
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 5:49 am

Re: Judgments of the Imperial Judex

Post by Daniel Farewell »

For proceedings, click here.
Findings of the Imperial Judex

Miller v. IR et al. (IJ-3938-T1-A)

Plaintiff
  • CJ Miller
Defendants
  • The Imperial Republic
  • Mr. Aurangzeb Khan, Minister of Immigration and Naturalization, Ardashirshahr, Shireroth
Presentation and rebuttal
Background
CJ Miller is an individual who has applied for Shirerithian citizenship on several occasions, all of which have been denied. The reason behind this is primarily several remarks made by Mr. Miller on #micronations that were perceived by several Shirerithian citizens as well as others as offensive. Mr. Miller applied for citizenship, only to have it referred to the Kaiser and by His Niftiness to the Landsraad, which proceeded to deny the application. Mr. Miller then attempted to apply for citizenship again on May 18th, 2010, and was subsequently denied citizenship by the Minister of Immigration and Naturalization, Mr. Aurangzeb Khan. Mr. Miller then appealed the decision by the Minister to the Imperial Judex.

Plaintiff's Case
Mr. Miller argues that since His Niftiness Kaiser Mors VI issued an "Inperial Deecree #456", the action by the Minister was illegal since "Inperial Deecree #456" according to Mr. Miller is a valid imperial decree granting him Shirerithian citizenship. Mr. Miller holds that the Imperial Charter does not allow the Kaiser to repeal decrees without issuing a new decree, and since that has not been done, Mr. Miller holds that "Inperial Deecree #456" is indeed valid. As a consequence of this, he holds that the Minister is in violation of the Charter and an Imperial Decree, which is illegal under the Charter, specifically IC, II, A, c (which deals with the powers of the Landsraad actually). Mr. Miller also holds that the Minister by taking this action is assuming authority over the Kaiser, which is in violation of IC, II, A, d (which also deals with the Landsraad, as well as bodies created by the Landsraad). Mr. Miller holds that this section applies to Ministers since they, according to Mr. Miller, hold their power by delegation from the Kaiser and are confirmed by the Landsraad.

In summary, Mr. Miller holds that the defendants have violated "Inperial Deecree #456", and, as a consequence thereof, sections IC, I, B, a-b and IC, II, A, c-d of the Imperial Charter as well.

Defendants' Reply
His Niftiness Kaiser Mors VI, appearing for the Imperial Government, claimed that "Inperial Deecree #456" was an April Fool's joke, and therefore not a valid decree.

Minister Khan then proceeded to motivate and defend his actions. He holds that the policy of the Ministry of Immigration and Naturalization is to deny citizenship to Mr. Miller on account of the resolution in the Landsraad denying Mr. Miller citizenship. He also holds that since the Kaiser has stated that "Inperial Deecree #456" is not a valid decree, the Ministry is not bound by its provisions. He concludes his statement with maintaining that the Landsraad decision is binding on his office until a competent authority declares otherwise.

After the submission by the Minister, Mr. Miller replied that "Inperial Deecree #456" was indeed a valid "proclamation" of the government and therefore any attempt to violate it, i.e. not grant Mr. Miller citizenship, was in direct violation of the Kaiser's wishes and the Charter. His Niftiness Kaiser Mors VI replied to this by holding that "Inperial Deecree #456" was indeed not a valid decree, since it was not called an "Imperial Decree", which is a valid instrument of state. He then proceeded to hold that even if "Inperial Deecree #456" was valid, Mr. Miller himself called the "Deecree" a "Proclamation", which is not a legally binding document.

Opinion of the Judex
"Inperial Deecree #456"
All of the Plaintiff's case hinges on the famous "Inperial Deecree #456: New Kiaser", issued by His Niftiness Kaiser Mors VI on April 1st, 2010. Mr. Miller maintains that it is a valid imperial decree granting him Shirerithian citizenship. The question the Judex asks itself is whether or not it is. If it is, Mr. Miller should be granted Shirerithian citizenship. If it isn't, the actions of the MiniImNat are both legal and in line with his duties as Minister.

The power of the Kaiser to issue Imperial Decrees is laid down in IC, I, B, b of the Imperial Charter, reading as follows:
b. The Kaiser may make any decree regarding the operation, behavior, functions and policy of Shireroth, as well as any actions zie deems fit, as long as they do not violate this Charter.
This provision establishes two main powers of the Kaiser. The first is that zie may issue decrees regarding the "operation, behavior, functions and policy of Shireroth". The second is that zie may make any actions zie deems fit, as long as none of this is in violation of the Charter. In this single sentence provision of the Charter lies a great deal of the Kaiser's power. How do we then establish what is and what isn't an Imperial Decree? Tradition holds that the Kaiser issues Imperial Decrees in the "Kaiser's Court" board on the Shirerithian forum. They are in the format "Imperial Decree #XXX". "Inperial Deecree #456" was indeed issued in the Kaiser's Court, but is it therefore an Imperial Decree? The spelling in the title is not essential, but does carry some weight. The post does say that Mr. Miller is granted Shirerithian citizenship and is appointed "Kiaser", but the post is also full of spelling mistakes and questionable statements regarding former Kaiseress Aure, and the whole thing ends with a sentence where if you take the first letters of the words in it, it spells "Aprilfool". The Kaiser has also stated on numerous occasions that it was an April fools joke.

Is this then enough to disqualify it as an Imperial Decree? It is the opinion of the Judex that it is. The Charter is silent on the issue of how an Imperial Decree should be formatted, so it is technically possible to name a statement "Green Chicken" and hold it as a valid Imperial Decree, provided that the content somehow implies that it is an Imperial Decree, and that it was the intent of the Kaiser that it should be an Imperial Decree. The Charter does after all grant the Kaiser power to "make any decree" as well as "any action zie deems fit" as long as it doesn't violate the Charter. This includes the power to declare any statement to be an Imperial Decree, as well as the power to declare any statement, including valid Imperial Decrees, to not be Imperial Decrees. Mr. Miller maintained that the Kaiser has to issue an Imperial Decree to repeal an Imperial Decree, but there is no such requirement in the Charter. It is ultimately the Kaiser and his intent that decides what is and what is not an Imperial Decree.

Violation of IC, I, B, a-b
Since "Inperial Deecree #456" was not a valid Imperial Decree, neither of the Defendants have violated this provision of the Charter.

Violation of IC, II, A, c-d
This section is not applicable in this case since it does not apply to Ministers. Subsection c applies only to the Landsraad, and subsection d applies to the Landsraad and "any body it creates". Ministers and Ministries derive their legal authority from IC, I, B, d: "The Kaiser may delegate zir powers to lesser officials known as Ministers". Ministries and Ministers derive their authority directly from the Kaiser and are therefore not bodies created by the Landsraad. The provisions in the LawBook regarding the operation of the Ministries are issued by the Landsraad, but only in its role as secondary legislator, not as the body from which the Ministries ultimately derive their authority.

Actions of the MiniImNat
Since the Judex holds that "Inperial Deecree #456" is not a valid Imperial Decree, the issue of whether or not the Minister was in violation of it and/or the Charter is mute.

Conclusion and Orders of the Judex
Conclusion
The Judex has established that "Inperial Deecree #456" is not a valid Imperial Decree. Therefore, the case of the Plaintiff fails due to there being no basis for the claim against the Defendants. Since the Plaintiff based his case solely on the claim that "Inperial Deecree #456" was valid, the Judex will not address any other legal issues regarding this case.

For the record, it is the firm belief of the Judex that the Plaintiff has no legal case whatsoever regarding the issue of citizenship.

Any decision to alter the position of the Imperial Government regarding citizenship for Mr. Miller should be based on the general sentiment towards him in the Shirerithian community. Perhaps he should be given a second chance, perhaps not. That is ultimately up to the Kaiser and the community at large to decide. I, however, see it as my duty to only look to the law when hearing and ruling on cases. I leave all other considerations to the Kaiser.

Orders
Due to decisions by the Landsraad, Kaiser and Minister of Immigration and Naturalization, and to ensure the smooth running of the Imperial Government, I issue the following orders, under the authority of IC, III, A, a:

  • 1. The Plaintiff is hereby barred from applying for citizenship in any manner in the Imperial Republic of Shireroth

  • 2. The Plaintiff is hereby barred from appearing to apply or actually applying for government positions in the Imperial Republic of Shireroth

  • 3. The Plaintiff is hereby barred from taking any other action for which Shirerithian citizenship is a requirement


Violation of any of these orders shall result in Banishment from Shireroth, according to DB, VI, A, 1, for a period of time as below:

  • Order 1. Seven (7) days
  • Order 2. Fourteen (14) days
  • Order 3. Seven (7) days


Any subsequent violation shall result in an application to the Kaiser for Exile from Shireroth, according to DB, VI, A, 2.

Final Information
Appeal
This order may be appealed to the Kaiser within seven (7) days of the timestamp on this post. However, the Kaiser may, at zir leisure, agree or deny to hear the appeal. Any decision by the Kaiser in this case is final and cannot be appealed.

Disclaimer
Nothing in this Order of the Judex is construed to imply any limit on the Kaiser's ability and power to hear and decide any issue at any time, for any reason.

Locked

Return to “Imperial Judex”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests