2013 Asmourescu v. HM Government

From TalossaWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Din el Cort dels Edilicieux


June 21 2013/XXXIV

Brief of the ruling

Opinion of the Court delivered by
Magistrate Martì Prevuost, Esq



Petitioner claims Respondent’s enactment of The What’s the Difference Act (37RZ2) is inOrganic in that it infringes his right to free expression and association as well as his general liberty as a citizen of Talossa in contravention of OrgLaw XIX:1, 3 & 5. Additionally, Petitioner claims: the Act is overly vague in defining a micronation; the Act fails to address whether its violation constitutes a felony or a misdemeanor; the Act restricts judicial discretion with regard to sentencing violators.

Respondent disputes each of Petitioner’s claims.


1. The Act’s provision allowing for honorary citizenship sufficiently provides for freedom of expression, association and general liberty as a citizen of Talossa in accordance with the Covenants of Rights and Freedoms cited.

2. The Act sufficiently defines a micronation.

3. That, while the Act is in keeping with the history and tradition of Talossa not recognizing micronations, the Kingdom of Talossa itself meets the legal definition of, and is hereby defined as, a micronation.

4. Clauses 6 and 8 of the Act are inconsistent and unenforceable as written. In accordance with OrgLaw XVI:9, the Cort is required to use the plain language meaning of words unless a specific technical meaning is intended. The words “desire” and “seek” are synonyms, therefore, by desiring membership in an organization which may constitute a violation of Clause 6, a Talossan citizen may be guilty of seeking to hold citizenship in an organization in violation Clause 6 merely by exercising the option afforded in Clause 8, i.e. whitelisting. Should the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, in consultation with the Attorney General and with the approval of the Seneschal determine the organization is not consistent with citizenship in Talossa, the citizen who expressed a desire to join said organization could be tried for seeking to hold citizenship in a micronation and be subject to revocation. In accordance with OrgLaw XVI:9, the Cort calls upon the Ziu to revise the Act.

5. Given the penalty for violation of the Act, it is assumed violation constitutes a felony.

6. There is no inconsistency with the lack of judicial discretion with respect to the penalty for violation and OrgLaw Article XVI: The Corts.

Statement by
Magistrate Martì Prevuost, Esq

Transcript of Proceedings

The proceedings of the case can be found here.