Shireroth

Posted: **Fri Apr 25, 2008 8:06 pm**

Okey. So Here is the case as I understand it.

-Babkha desires a new Shah and have asked Hasan I to be said Shah.
-In Shireroth the Kaiser may only be a citizen of Shireroth and no other nation. See Decreebook Chapter V, Section A, Clause 1
-Babkha is another nation, separate from Shireroth.
-The Shah isn't REQUIRED under Babkhan law to be a citizen.
-Shireroth and Babkha are close allies.

-Jacobus Loki, as Steward has issued several decrees and statements proclaiming to have removed Hasan I as Kaiser.
-This action was done without official consent from the Landsraad or Arbiter.
-The Steward is beneath the Kaiser in power.
-Hasan I has now removed Jacobus Loki as Steward.
-Hasan I has asked me as Arbiter to officially investigate this situation.
-The Duchy of Yardistan is allotted certain protection in cases of rebellion against the kaiser by Decreebook Chapter VIII, Section H, Clause 2.
- No official rebellion of the entire Duchy of Yardistan has been proclaimed as of the writing of this.

Here are my questions:

1. Has the Kaiser, Hasan I, accepted the position as Shah yet?
2. Are my facts above correct?

My current position on events:
1. The Kaiser indeed must be a citizen of only one nation, as the law currently stands.
2. As the law stands, the Kaiser may not become Shah and be Kaiser IF this requires him to be a citizen of Babkha.
3. Due to the literal reference to "allegiance" in the mentioned Decreebook section, the Kaiser would not be able to swear allegiance to Babkha as a nation if he was Shah, but would be able to be Shah, if this did not require citizenship. This would be a tightrope as currently written, for the Kaiser.
4. The Steward cannot unilaterally remove the Kaiser.
5. The rebellion provision mentioned above protect the Duchy of Yardistan as a whole in cases of open rebellion and revolt, and does not protect individual Yardistani from prosectution for committing illegal actions.
6. Jacobus Loki is not currently protected by the Yardistani Rebellion Clause.

I would prefer to settle this in arbitration and not have to pass any sort of sentence. I would also point out while I have jurisdiction to state a position, and interpret the law, and declare an action legal, or illegal; I have no power to enforce my judgement on either the Steward or the Kaiser, as they are above me in power. The Judex is granted power through the Landsraad, from the Kaiser. Though upon inspection of the Charter, one might be able to say I may block the Kaiser from assuming the position of Shah, with the consent of the Landsraad and Prætor. Charter: ARticle III, Section B

Posted: **Sat Apr 26, 2008 1:13 am**

I thank the Arbiter for his mercy and past kindnesses. Who would have thought that when I restored the Charter and appointed an Arbiter, that I would be the first one brought before the court?

I apologize for all incivility during this time. I was being decisive, but the consensus makes me appear rash. I acted quickly in an attempt to preserve law and culture.

I do not apologize for my actions. I believe that I acted correctly, and would most likely do the same thing if it were to do all over again. Maybe a bit quieter, but the same things.

I cannot in good conscience serve Hesam / Hasan again. I like him as a person, but I have lost all respect for his goals and policies and his style as a ruler in Shireroth.

If the contest were simply between Hesam and Jacobus, I would continue the contest. (Those who know me know I was, among other things, one of the most accomplished guerrilla fighters in micronationry.)

But I will not contest the will of the Arbiter and Founder. Warring against him would be raising my hand against Shireroth, and that I will not do.

I still claim citizenship, but I will now go into exile. Should the rule of Hasan / Hesam end, and should a future government think better of me and my services to the nation, I would certainly look favorably on returning. If not, it is the price I pay for doing what I perceive as my duty.

I do not say good-bye, merely adieu.

Posted: **Sat Apr 26, 2008 3:20 am**

Arbiter,

Your facts are correct. And to answer your questions:

1. No, I have not accepted the position yet. Babkha has decided on their own accord to refer to me as "Regent" however I have not confirmed or denied that title as I wished to discuss it in Shireroth first.

2. I know you did not ask this question directly, however, A New Shah is under no requirement to pledge allegiance to Babkha. There has been no official means of qualifying the Throne in Babkha and is usually ad hock based on each case. The idea is that since the Babkhan throne is a direct line extending from Babak The Founder, Babkha pledges allegiance to the new Shah, not the other way around. If I recall correctly, there is a precedent for pledging loyalty to the Deity Zurvan but the pantheon of Zoroastrianism and the pantheon of the gods of Shireroth are entirely potentially compatible I believe.

And likewise, I do not wish a sentence if Jacobus is found guilty, I simply want an official stance on the issue according to Shireroth's law.

Posted: **Sat Apr 26, 2008 3:50 am**

Objection (if it is permitted) - but I believe the wholly illegal nature of the deposition of Shahanshah Rashid Arsalani must be taken into account. Yes, it is true that Shireroth and Babkha are "close allies" as you term it, but in this case surely Shireroth must back the true Shah, namely Ric? Who has been by the way well known in Shireroth too, as Andelarion, in the Elwynnese Duchy iirc.

You could argue this is irrelevant given this is a Shirerithian court. However, if it is agreed that Shireroth should support the government with which it signed the Mango-Camel Pact with, we must consider the move to make Hasan Shah an illegal rebellion, thus making this whole issue moot.

Posted: **Sat Apr 26, 2008 4:46 am**

Kaiser Hasan I wrote:Arbiter,

Your facts are correct. And to answer your questions:

1. No, I have not accepted the position yet. Babkha has decided on their own accord to refer to me as "Regent" however I have not confirmed or denied that title as I wished to discuss it in Shireroth first.

2. I know you did not ask this question directly, however, A New Shah is under no requirement to pledge allegiance to Babkha. There has been no official means of qualifying the Throne in Babkha and is usually ad hock based on each case. The idea is that since the Babkhan throne is a direct line extending from Babak The Founder, Babkha pledges allegiance to the new Shah, not the other way around. If I recall correctly, there is a precedent for pledging loyalty to the Deity Zurvan but the pantheon of Zoroastrianism and the pantheon of the gods of Shireroth are entirely potentially compatible I believe.

And likewise, I do not wish a sentence if Jacobus is found guilty, I simply want an official stance on the issue according to Shireroth's law.

You are saying that you did not accept the Shahs position?

FALSE

You said that you didn't accept the Position permanentaly?

TRUE

I cite the reference on Babkhas forum:

Alright, since there is near consent on this I tentatively accept. However I will wait until I hear back from Shireroth on their position. I suggest that should our current Shah return, this matter would be subject to his approval or denial. If he does return before the 5 weeks ends and wishes to remain on The Thrown, I state now that I would abdicate.

So practically what he is saying is that he is the Shah until Ric gets back...which is breaching the Charter law stating that:

The Kaiser may hold no other allegiance or citizenship another nation.

What Hasan has done IS in fact breach of the charter, it is to late now to redeem yourself. But on the other hand, Jacobus did do some very stupid things (in my opinion) but only some were justified, such as the impeachment of Hasan, since he had in fact broken the Charter Law. Therefore with the Kaiser breaking that very sacred and ancient law, he is in fact, not the Kaiser anymore. It is time to look for a new kaiser, not Jacobus or Hesam...

Posted: **Sat Apr 26, 2008 7:46 am**

The current situation as I understand it is that Babkha is referring to me as "regent" which has the same qualifications as Shah. The reason they are doing this is that they do not wish to insult Ric. At the end of 5 weeks (or is it 7?), if Ric has not posted, he will be declared legally dead by all accounts within Babkha. However, since the Shah is not considered a citizen, he is not subject to that law. This also depends on a Babkhan ruling as to whether Shah Rashid himself IS subject to Babkhan law since he was a citizen of Babkha who had never officially revoked his citizenship when he became Shah. But mostly, since Babkha is Babkah, its more likely that if Ric does not return within a reasonable amount of time, they would offer to crown me Shah and attempt to contact Ric by any means possible.

I would request that individuals who are not asked to speak by The Arbiter begin a companion thread for their comments. This thread should be considered the court.

Posted: **Sat Apr 26, 2008 9:55 am**

I will echo the Kaiser words concerning those who speak in my court. You may open a companion thread here in the Judex, but it will have no official weight. I officially have only called on Jacobus Loki and the Kaiser since this case is about them both.

-I will reiterate my stance that the Steward does not have the authority to unilaterally remove the Kaiser from the throne. This is my Official position as Arbiter of this Judex.

-Since the Kaiser has accepted Tentatively the position as Shah, awaiting to see if this is a problem in Shireroth, it is quite clear that he takes the action while still thinking in the best interest of law and order. He does not accept it outright, recognizing the possible breach in Shireroth law. As such I do not find him guilty of any malicious act against the Laws of Shireroth in that acceptance.

-This however is still further complicated by whether or not the Shah must be a citizen and/or pledge allegiance to the nation of Babkha. I would desire someone who can officially speak for Babkha for this matter, or someone who can acquire for me an official stance to please bring it here for me so I can review it.

-The pledge of allegiance to a non-Cedrist god has precedence in the course of Shireroth history. Any other theological issues are not within my domain as Arbiter to judge, but would need to be taken to the Temple. However, there is no law requiring the Kaiser to hail to the Cedrist gods exclusively, or even at all.

-If the Kaiser violates a law, even the Charter, he is not automatically removed from the Throne. There is no law at any applicable lever that calls for this. Nor precedent.

I do recognize that the Kaiser is indeed walking a fine line with this issues, but I believe he is trying his best to adhere to the laws of the land of Shireroth.

I will also point out that the law requiring the Kaiser to be a citizen of only Shireroth with no allegiance to another nation was set down as Decree as it is written in our laws. Thus is not a Charter issue. If the Kaiser were to violate this law, he would not have directly violated the Charter.

At this time the only charter violation was that of the Steward removing the Kaiser. I have overlooked this violation due to Jacobus' good intents and officially once again state for the record that this course will not advance any attempt to punish him for these actions. The Kaiser may still do as he wishes, but this court invoked no punishment.

I believe the last issue before this court will be resolved once I am informed of the official stance concerning the Shah, on whether he must be a citizen and/or pledge allegiance to the nation of Babkha. At that time I will put forth the official finding of the court.

Posted: **Sat Apr 26, 2008 12:40 pm**

Mr. Arbiter,

I would like to say that any involvement in another nation, although it may be not be against the law, is not good for this nation. Being a citizen, ah, or whatnot would split attention of the Kaiser to Babkha, which, as you know, is not good for the nation.

I request that the Kaiser abdicate to a more active citizen, or not take the position. If there is any sort of merging of Babkha or Shireroth, I will leave, or something like that...(look at other citizenships). Even though me leaving is not enough to affect you, something shall happen.

I yield to the floor,

Jess

Posted: **Sat Apr 26, 2008 2:00 pm**

Lord Arbiter, I present to you the following case which defines the question you've asked. In order to more clearly make the matter understood, this issue dealt with the problem of Babkha ceding the MCS lands of Woodstania. Under Babkhan law it is illegal for any land or possession owned by Babkha to be given away under any circumstances. As such it was my aim to present the case that The Shah is not a citizen of Babkha but infact the "owner" of Babkha, its possessions and its subjects.

I quote the following which references the Babkhan constitution:

I would like to present to His Imperial Majesty a claim which has been agreed upon through no small effort to regain His Imperial Majesty's rightful control of the Eura continent. Through this claim, the CIS will leave Eura and relocated to Lesser Eura. Riponia will move from Lesser Eura and relocate onto Appollonia. As I mentioned, this would achieve my charge as Atebeg of The Gate to defend His Majesty's Crown and Country and result in the near completion of the Reconquista.

However, the single stipulation is that to reach an agreement with Riponia we are required to cede the lands belonging to the Ostan of Razamin, located on the continent of Eura. By the Constitution of The Kingdom of Babkha, under Part 1. Article 1.(3) this act would be in violation of the law:

Quote:
(3) That the sovereignty of the realm shall be inalienable - no portion of Babkhan sovereignty or governance shall be ceded or gifted to any foreign polity, community or person by any authority of the Babkhan Realm.

And

Part 1. Article 2.(3)

Quote:

(3) The Kingdom cannot, and shall never, alienate any portion of His Imperial Majesty's Metropolitan Kingdom, whether through abandonment, evacuation, ceding to a foreign power or donation to any person or organisation not subject to His Imperial Majesty.

While this would be an act of severe contravention of the Law by a Babkhan Citizen, I would like to illustrate that His Imperial Majesty does not comprise a member of The Realm Of The Kingdom Of Babkha, but that His Majesty exists outside of the realm which remains His possession:

----------------------

Part 1. Article 1.(1)

Quote:
The Kingdom of Babkha shall be a sovereign realm under the Kapav Throne, that is a state held in trust from the founder of the Kingdom by all subsequent Shahanshahs in direct succession from Shah Babak Kapav.

-------------------------

Part 1. Article 1.(2)

Quote:

(2) The Babkhan Realm shall be composed of all the citizens of the Kingdom. The acquisition and loss of citizenship shall only be governed by an Act of Majlis.

---------------------------

Part 2. Article 5.1

Quote:
Every citizen is entitled to the fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual, that is to say, the right, regardless of race, place of origin, beliefs, or the manner of worship with which Zurvan is
honoured but subject to respect for the rights and freedoms of others and for the public interest, which shall be addressed in a Bill of Rights that shall be defined by an Act of the Majlis i-Satrapan.

----------------------------

Article 8.1 a) & b) of The Bill of Rights of The Kingdom of Babkha:

Quote:

Article 8

(1) This Bill of Rights applies
a) to the Majlis-i Satrapan of the Kingdom of Babkha and His Imperial Majesty´s Government in respect of all matters within the authority of the same including all matters relating to citizens of the Kingdom of Babkha in the Imperial Fiefs, the Crown Estates and all protectorates and dependencies of the Babkhan realm including occupied territories overseas and sovereign base areas leased from foreign powers; and
b) to the administration of the Ostans of the Kingdom of Babkha.

---------------------------------

It is evident in Part 1. Article 1.(1) of the constitution that The Realm Of The Kingdom Of Babkha is held UNDER The Throne of The Shahanshah.

And that in Part 1. Article 1.(2) That The REALM Of The Kingdom Of Babkha is composed of CITIZENS of the Kingdom.

That all citizens of The Kingdom of Babkha are guaranteed coverage by The Bill of Rights of the Kingdom of Babkha as stated in Part 2. Article 5.1 of the Constitution.

That in conclusion, His Imperial Majesty's actions cannot be subject to the law of The Realm of The Kingdom of Babkha because he is not a citizen of the realm as His Imperial Majesty is not covered by the Bill of Rights as noted in Article 8.1 a) & b) of The Bill of Rights of The Kingdom of Babkha.

In conclusion Your Majesty,

As Shahanshah Of The Kingdom Of Babkha and holder of The Realm of The Kingdom, His Majesty would be the only Babkhan who would be able to legally allow this transfer of land to occur by proclamation of an Imperial Farman. And as His Imperial Majesty's government has been dissolved, this Farman would not be subject to review by the Majilis, Cabinet or Grand Vizier.

As always, The future of The Kingdom exists by His Imperial Majesty's grace, and should it please HIM to allow the Reconquista to be achieved that The Kingdom would once again have a homeland on Eura, His Majesty need only proclaim via Farman posted in the palace, an endorsement of e claim being proposed here:

http://www.micromaps.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=711

I remain in humble service to H.I.M.

HIH Hesam Jahandar,

This, Lord Arbiter, proves that The Shah is NOT a citizen of Babkha, but the holder of the realm. And as stated, the realm is defined as all that is Babkha. Now, the following states Shahanshah Rashid's agreement with the statement above. And in terms of Babkhan tradition, The Shah's word is law.

Thank you, your Imperial Highness. I am in agreement with the assessment you have made. A farman will be written shortly.

That agreement was put into practice as Babkha then gave the lands of Woodstania to Riponia during the Eura Conquista. And since that time, its been consensus agreement among all Babkhans and the Law that The Shah is not a citizen of Babkha. This however brings up a question for Babkhans. Since the Civil Code of Babkha declares a citizen dead after a certain period, that would mean Shah Rashid cannot be declared legally dead. Because of this, Babkha decided to begin referring to me as "Regent" in place of outright Shah. The idea is that all attempts are being made to contact Shah Rashid to inform him of this issue and ask that he make a statement of his intentions one way or another.

Posted: **Sat Apr 26, 2008 4:13 pm**

(Jess: You are not contributing the the LEGAL discussion in this case. This is a LEGAL matter, not a matter of what is best for the nation. Thus, stay out of my court unless you have a solid legal argument to make about this, that has not already been addressed.)

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.

Shireroth

Jacobus Loki Vs. Hasan I

Jacobus Loki Vs. Hasan I

Re: Jacobus Loki Vs. Hasan I

Re: Jacobus Loki Vs. Hasan I

Re: Jacobus Loki Vs. Hasan I

Re: Jacobus Loki Vs. Hasan I

Re: Jacobus Loki Vs. Hasan I

Re: Jacobus Loki Vs. Hasan I

Re: Jacobus Loki Vs. Hasan I

Re: Jacobus Loki Vs. Hasan I

Re: Jacobus Loki Vs. Hasan I