2014 Grischun v. Canun et al

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


ÉOVART GRISCHUN
Plaintiff
v.
IUSTì CARLüS CANUN
LITZ CJANTSCHEIR
BRADLEY HOLMES
and ÉOVART GRISCHUN
Defendant


Decided
3 Jan 2014/XXXV

Brief of the ruling
{{{ruling}}}

Opinion of the Court delivered by
Magistrate Owen Edwards


Ruling

At long last, here is the Cort's response.

The case is dismissed without prejudice on the basis of D:na Cjantscheir's petition. As the plaintiff has not contradicted the defendant, I take her point to be uncontested; no "writ was served". As the petitioner observes, that leaves this case untenable.

This Cort's opinion on the defendant's claims about the possible media usable to serve summons is as follows: Witt PMs firstly function as a form of email (one has a unique private address and inbox storage space), albeit one on a private network rather than one accessible via normal email clients. That it is a privately-owned entity is immaterial; so is Hotmail, whilst the Royal Mail and USPS are entities controlled by foreign states. Given one has always been able to have Witt PMs sent to your main email inbox, Witt PMs seem to me an entirely acceptable means of summons. Conversely, Witt posts, whilst linkable to one's email, are not themselves a normal mail or email system, being instead a public bulletin board.

This Cort considers summons in private ("Roman") prosecutions to be the responsibility of plaintiffs, not that of the Clerk or Judge, though the Clerk or a Judge might choose to make such summons. Given that the Habeas Corpus Act does not directly refer to responsibility in Roman prosecutions, the fault in this case will not be considered prosecutorial misconduct.

With those remarks made, barring further procedural hijinx, I consider the Cort closed.

INFORMAL RESPONSE TO ALEXANDREU DAVINESCU The case was filed and the prosecution's case made within 90 days.

APPENDIX For future readers of interpretive case law, the Magistrate in this case made the following interpretations of current law: 1) Talossan Corts are competent to impeach public officials, even retrospectively. 2) Given our peculiar circumstances, speedy trial expectations may be taken to extend to at least 229 days. 3) 40RZ4 is held to apply to private or "Roman" prosecutions as well as Crown prosecutions, given its author's agreement that it would apply here suggests an obvious intent that it apply to all prosecutions. 4) Witt PMs are an acceptable form of summons, Witt posts are not. 5) The responsibility for summons in a Roman prosecution falls on the plaintiff.


Statement by
Magistrate Owen Edwards

Transcript of Case

The proceedings of the case can be found here.