2005 Dandelion Case (UC)

  

Din el Cort Pü Inalt
Plaintiff
v.
Defendant
Decided
30 August and 12 September 2005/XXVI
Brief of the ruling
{{{ruling}}}
Opinion of the Court delivered by
Senior Justice Laurieir and Justice Moisan
joined by Senior Justice Laurieir, acting alone, affirmed a ruling made by Justice Moisan on August 30, permission for which he had given.

Senior Justice Laurieir's Ruling

In response to Secretary of State John Woolley’s petition, the Talossan Uppermost Cort, under Senior Justice Lorentz, hereby affirms in its entirety the recent ruling made by former Talossan Uppermost Cort Justice Mosian relating to the citizenship status of certain “dandelions” (see text of the earlier ruling below).

The Government, including the Secretary of State, is instructed to comply with this ruling. It has the force of law.

Because of its implications for the rapidly approaching election, the Cort deemed it wise to make public the ruling immediately. The text of the Cort’s full reasoning behind this ruling will be published here soon. The Cort, which reasons deliberately and then writes even more deliberately, did want its perhaps too deliberative pace to interfere with the election process. Additionally, at the present time the Cort is busy at work in the other world.

In general, the Cort rejected the petitioner’s claims that Justice Moisan did not have the authority to make his ruling and found that the Cort’s earlier ruling was consonant with Talossan tradition and arguably, at least, consonant with our maddeningly badly written Organic Law.

While this Cort has rejected the petitioner’s arguments in this case, we want to thank him for bringing to light an embarrassing number of rather—not stupid exactly, but, shall we say—confusing and not entirely well-thought out provisions in the Organic Law relating both to dandelions and to Talossa’s judicial process. These faults were not, to be sure, created by Justice Moisan. In affirming his ruling, we saw his analysis as one supported by law and tradition. Nevertheless, it is clear that Talossa deserves a better justice system. Legislators are you listening?

Justice Moisan's Ruling

Azul Talossans,

First, let me announced that I just had word from Senior Justice Lorentz and he gives me his official blessing to act as the entire Cort in accordance with Art. XVI:Sec. 8 of the 1997 Organic Law.

I contacted former King Robert I, and he is unsure himself as to the extent of his mass pardon last year. Having been unable to actually locate the text of it, I have decided to use my authority as Regent to issue a new mass pardon. I hereby declare that any strike Talossan citizens may have received during the May/June 2004 election is hereby pardoned. If the former pardon actually included those, this is therefore a confirmation of it. SoS Wooley, please adjust each citizen's strikes accordingly.

A great deal of debate has occurred concerning the status of certain dandelions. I have studied the law and the situations of a number of those cases and I hereby issue the Cort's decision:

Concerning the cases of Koralia Furxheir, Danielle Elizabeth Pope, Geoffrey Leonard Pope, Noah James Griffin and Cami Rose Griffin; the Cort is satisfied that by having their names on the list of citizens of the so-called Republic of Talossa, the above dandelions have either themselves or by proxy (their parents) effectively renounced their citizenship in the Kingdom of Talossa. The Cort hereby confirm that citizenship in another micronation is incompatible with citizenship in the Kingdom of Talossa in accordance with 24 RZ11 - The No Dual Citizenships in Fake Countries Act and 23 RZ35 - The Dual Citizenships Act.

With regards to other dandelions whose parents have renounced their citizenship, the Cort is not yet prepared to issue a ruling and ask any interested party to submit legal opinions to the Cort for consideration.

However, concerning the cases of Alexander Freeman, Jacqueline Freeman and Guillaume Jacob. Assuming that the Cort will later rule that they were effectively dandelions (not yet decided). The 1997 Organic Law clearly states in Art. XVIII:Sec. 7 that upon their 14th birthday they should register themselves with the Minister of Immigration by writing a What Talossa Means to Me essay. Once again assuming that the future ruling of the Cort would effectively determined that they were dandelions all along, their 14th birthday would have occurred in the latest part of 2003, more than 20 months ago. While the 1997 Organic Law does not implicitly tells how long the Kingdom should wait after their 14th birthday for such notification, it is clear that the intent of the law was not to keep them on the nominal citizenship roll forever. The Cort hereby rule that sufficient time has elapsed and that regardless of the future decision these three individuals are not to be considered citizens. The Cort also urge the Ziu to prepare and submit at its earliest convenience an amendment of the 1997 Organic Law that will clearly state how long a dandelion has to produce his/her essay and register.

The remaining decision of the Cort is a very delicate one, which will dictate further study. Do dandelions whose parents renounce their citizenship automatically renounces theirs? As the Cort stated above, any interested party is invited to submit briefs, which the Cort will consider when making its ruling. This is an urgent matter as it will affect the seats distribution in the election. The Cort urge everyone concerned to reflect on the situation and submit briefs of their opinion. Do not assume that someone else will submit a brief for your own point of view. Briefs must be received no later than 3 September 2005.

Long Live Talossa!