Quote from: C. M. Siervicül on August 03, 2020, 06:34:26 AM
Congratulations, D:r Nordselva. I'm sure the Chancery will be in good hands.
Thank you Sir Cresti.
Welcome to Wittenberg!
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Show posts MenuQuote from: C. M. Siervicül on August 03, 2020, 06:34:26 AM
Congratulations, D:r Nordselva. I'm sure the Chancery will be in good hands.
Quote from: Miestrâ Schiva, UrN on March 07, 2020, 04:20:10 PMUsing it now actually :-)Quote from: Lüc on March 07, 2020, 01:07:26 PMHey, it works!
Update: this was fixed by changing to a different plugin version. Everything should be in place. Someone should check if the site is accessible through Tapatalk, I don't have the app.
Sent from my E0113 using Tapatalk
Quote from: Viteu on February 24, 2020, 10:47:28 PMQuote from: Miestrâ Schiva, UrN on February 24, 2020, 09:29:10 PM
Another comment: if we had a functioning National Bar in this country, I would wish that counsel for both the Government and the Respondent* would have been subject to discipline (eg. barred from taking the next UC case) for regular outbursts and talking-out-of-turn in the just-concluded appeal.
In other words: we need a functioning National Bar in this country, because the lawyers are unruly.
(* You can't bar me, I'm the Seneschal 8) )
If I make it on the Cort, this is on my list. The Cort is supposed to set up the bar. I'm sure I could find support.among the justices to get this going.
Quote from: Miestrâ Schiva, UrN on February 24, 2020, 09:29:10 PM
Another comment: if we had a functioning National Bar in this country, I would wish that counsel for both the Government and the Respondent* would have been subject to discipline (eg. barred from taking the next UC case) for regular outbursts and talking-out-of-turn in the just-concluded appeal.
In other words: we need a functioning National Bar in this country, because the lawyers are unruly.
(* You can't bar me, I'm the Seneschal 8) )
Quote from: Viteu on February 24, 2020, 05:22:20 PM
"Indeed, it can be argued that if a trial did occur, it was rather loose."
Oddly, if the Cort is of the mind that no trial occurred, then there could be no acquittal. So I find it hard to reconcile the two. It is implied, of course, that the lower cort erred significantly in its application of law.
That said, in my professional practice, when I have lost or won a motion, I do not really care to relitigate the matter outside of the courtroom. So that's that.
In any event, I thank the Cort, the Government, and the Defendant for their hard work on this case. But I remind everyone involved that this matter is not binding, and to the extent that this provides some persuasive authority, it's that the lower cort's application of the law was erroneous and Panache got off on a technicality.
Quote from: Ián Tamorán S.H. on January 06, 2020, 11:02:58 AM
The judgement of the CPI has been published on "the old-Witt".
There being no further (visible) cort cases active, I suggest that all Cort business be moved over to this talossa.com
Ián Tamorán S.J., C.J.