Wittenberg

Xheneral/General => Wittenberg => Topic started by: Miestră Schivă, UrN on January 14, 2020, 10:08:51 PM

Title: Talossan judicial precedents
Post by: Miestră Schivă, UrN on January 14, 2020, 10:08:51 PM
Ián P said something on OldWitt (http://talossa.proboards.com/post/169115) about memorable Talossan judicial precedent. My favourite one would have to be from the 1992 case recorded in Ár Päts, where KR1 was actually convicted of treason (for attempting to secede Vuode), but was given no punishment as a "first offence".
Title: Re: Talossan judicial precedents
Post by: Eðo Grischun on January 14, 2020, 10:42:53 PM
Quote from: Miestrâ Schiva, UrN on January 14, 2020, 10:08:51 PM
Ián P

said something on OldWitt (http://talossa.proboards.com/post/169115) about memorable Talossan judicial precedent. My favourite one would have to be from the 1992 case recorded in Ár Päts, where KR1 was actually convicted of treason (for attempting to secede Vuode), but was given no punishment as a "first offence".

I've just realised that we don't keep criminal records in Talossa.  Apart from reading through court cases or history books there isn't an actual record of Talossan convictions or "rap sheets".
Title: Re: Talossan judicial precedents
Post by: Miestră Schivă, UrN on January 14, 2020, 10:46:20 PM
I think it's because criminal convictions are so incredibly rare. I think ESB is the only one in my "Talossan lifetime".
Title: Re: Talossan judicial precedents
Post by: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on January 15, 2020, 03:33:03 PM
ESB is the only person of whom I aware who was both found guilty and who maintained their status within the jurisdiction until sentencing.  The only other criminal who comes to mind, Ups Martüc, left Talossa before sentencing (whereupon proceedings were dismissed, since expulsion would almost certainly have been the sentence anyway).  Cathartic conclusions to courtroom proceedings of any kind, civil or criminal, have generally been infrequent, and I'd guess maybe 50% of all cases ever get resolved.
Title: Re: Talossan judicial precedents
Post by: Eðo Grischun on January 15, 2020, 05:45:52 PM
Oh, I'm well aware that convictions (and crime for that matter) is rare.  I'm just saying, following Miestra's post about KRI, that we don't actually have a method of recording convictions when they do happen.
Title: Re: Talossan judicial precedents
Post by: Ian Plätschisch on January 15, 2020, 08:14:59 PM
V just gave me a much more detailed answer than my question probably deserved.
Title: Re: Talossan judicial precedents
Post by: Miestră Schivă, UrN on January 15, 2020, 10:15:23 PM
More from the peanut gallery:

Quote from: @agbdavisSo in what way could you assure us of your impartiality when confronting a case, as you most certainly will be asked to do, concerning an institution you have sworn to abolish and a person you have sworn you despise?

If AD's line of questioning makes sense, it would entail that no Talossan of Republican beliefs could sit on the High Cort: which would disqualify at least one or two of the incumbents.
Title: Re: Talossan judicial precedents
Post by: Sir Lüc on January 16, 2020, 03:15:41 AM
Quote from: Miestrâ Schiva, UrN on January 15, 2020, 10:15:23 PM
More from the peanut gallery:

Quote from: @agbdavisSo in what way could you assure us of your impartiality when confronting a case, as you most certainly will be asked to do, concerning an institution you have sworn to abolish and a person you have sworn you despise?

If AD's line of questioning makes sense, it would entail that no Talossan of Republican beliefs could sit on the High Cort: which would disqualify at least one or two of the incumbents.
No it wouldn't. A personal grudge is not the same as philosophical differences, unless you want me to believe that all republicans want John obliterated as a matter of principle.
Title: Re: Talossan judicial precedents
Post by: Viteu on January 16, 2020, 09:39:48 AM
Quote from: Lüc on January 16, 2020, 03:15:41 AM
Quote from: Miestrâ Schiva, UrN on January 15, 2020, 10:15:23 PM
More from the peanut gallery:

Quote from: @agbdavisSo in what way could you assure us of your impartiality when confronting a case, as you most certainly will be asked to do, concerning an institution you have sworn to abolish and a person you have sworn you despise?

If AD's line of questioning makes sense, it would entail that no Talossan of Republican beliefs could sit on the High Cort: which would disqualify at least one or two of the incumbents.
No it wouldn't. A personal grudge is not the same as philosophical differences, unless you want me to believe that all republicans want John obliterated as a matter of principle.

Yes it is.  Republicans, by their nature, want to see the monarchy obliterated.  I do not want to see John, personally, obliterated. I want to see the monarchy abolished.  But I want that done through the democratic process. I stated that several times already.  The question was repetitive.
Title: Re: Talossan judicial precedents
Post by: Miestră Schivă, UrN on January 16, 2020, 02:35:38 PM
Quote from: Lüc on January 16, 2020, 03:15:41 AM
A personal grudge is not the same as philosophical differences

The "personal grudge" AD alleges is a figment of his imagination. I've said equally intemperate things about KJ1 personally when I've been particularly incensed at some monarchic míeida or other, and you've seen me operate as his Seneschál on a perfectly respectful and mutual productive basis for the best part of a year, even when we disagree.

AD has made a habit of claiming that his political opponents are full of hatred, hold grudges and are personally and politically corrupt. It's his "finishing move".

ETA: AD admits in his closing statement it's V's republican views to which he objects:

QuoteI submit to this committee that I think it likely that the nominee will find it hard to give any case involving the throne an unbiased hearing, given his emphatic and emotional opposition to the institution
Title: Re: Talossan judicial precedents
Post by: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on January 16, 2020, 03:52:48 PM
Oddly and I'm sure by accident, you cut off the last bit of that sentence. It is fairly important that V has expressed immense animus against the king, personally, in addition to the throne. He swore there would be no peace until abdication, remember?

It might be that you have said equally intemperate things, but you are not up for nomination and I think you also had a significant record of temperance and good faith best efforts as a track record. That was certainly the case you presented to the voters!

I won't argue the case with you here, since I think I said all it needs to be said in my testimony. But I did think it was important not to let that misrepresentation go unchallenged.
Title: Re: Talossan judicial precedents
Post by: Miestră Schivă, UrN on January 16, 2020, 06:43:50 PM
Quote from: Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on January 16, 2020, 03:52:48 PM
Oddly and I'm sure by accident, you cut off the last bit of that sentence.

Nope, did it on purpose, to emphasise that you think Republican views contribute to disqualifying for a UC justice. If you mean that only when in conjunction with "personal animus", then I'll accept that - but then you're opening the door for everyone of professed Republican sympathies to be interrogated (or their Witt posts searched) as to whether they don't like the King personally, while those of Monarchist views (who might have a real problem with the incumbent, who might for example want KR1 back) get away free.

QuoteIt is fairly important that V has expressed immense animus against the king, personally, in addition to the throne. He swore there would be no peace until abdication, remember?

"Swore". It would be funny if he actually did swear, and I'm sure you have the receipts. But I don't consider it good precedent to declare that personal animus previously expressed towards a prominent person is disqualifying for a Justice (if it were, given Talossan history, we'd be short of candidates) - as long as the candidate can convince the Cort that they would do their job. I would have the same attitude if it were one of the many, many Talossans who have expressed personal animus against me up for nomination.

Funny thing - in a fine example of Freudian projection, King Robert I, possibly the most hate-filled grudge-holding person in Talossan history, similarly used to describe all his opponents as hate-filled and holding grudges. The cunning thing about this was that Ben used to infuriate people into losing their tempers at him - which, in his mind, proved their hatefulness. It was a brilliant strategy because so many of us are brought up to value being "nice" and not openly expressing animus/conflict as a social must.

QuoteI think you also had a significant record of temperance and good faith best efforts as a track record.

Why, thank you. I honestly assumed I was in the same "hateful, corrupt, grudge-holder" basket as V.
Title: Re: Talossan judicial precedents
Post by: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on January 16, 2020, 07:54:41 PM
Quote from: Miestrâ Schiva, UrN on January 16, 2020, 06:43:50 PM
Quote from: Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on January 16, 2020, 03:52:48 PM
Oddly and I'm sure by accident, you cut off the last bit of that sentence.

Nope, did it on purpose, to emphasise that you think Republican views contribute to disqualifying for a UC justice. If you mean that only when in conjunction with "personal animus", then I'll accept that - but then you're opening the door for everyone of professed Republican sympathies to be interrogated (or their Witt posts searched) as to whether they don't like the King personally, while those of Monarchist views (who might have a real problem with the incumbent, who might for example want KR1 back) get away free.

Yes, virulent opposition to one of the institutions of State contributes to a candidate's fitness.  To the extent that someone considers the monarchy to be illegitimate and oppressive, as V has stated in the past, that suggests that they will be biased against cases involved the monarchy, which are frequent.  The fact that V also has expressed deeply personal animus against HM is an additional factor, as is the likely possibility he will need to recuse himself on such cases.

I mean, honestly, Miestra, sometimes you get these blinders on when it comes to stuff like this.  I'm not sure I would call it "partisan," exactly, but you're contorting yourself to ignore really plain facts in order to get at your desired conclusion.

Imagine you had a judge who said that all republicans were an abomination and the Republic should be stricken from memory.  No, that's pretty mild.  Imagine that you had a judge who said much worse things, and aimed a lot of them at you, personally.  They declared you were a cancer on Talossa, etc etc.  They said they didn't recognize your authority as Seneschal because you weren't a real Talossan.  They said this stuff for years, publicly and repeatedly.

Now, former republicans (and aspiring future ones) constitute an important part of our country.  If this judge were going to hear your case, you'd probably request their recusal, right?  They're probably going to be biased against you, based on all the things they've said and the longtime intensity of those expressed feelings.  And you'd be right to request that.

Likewise, if a judge had expressed such feelings about our military, such as it is, with particular focus on Adm Davinescu, and a case came up about the military, you'd probably ask for recusal in that instance, too.  Someone who vows that they hate the military, want to abolish it, and think the admiral is illegitimate and personally a cancer on Talossa... they can't give a fair hearing to a military case.

Either of those situations would probably be a serious impediment to someone's confirmation in your eyes, I would hope.  If someone was nominated who had expressed such vehement hostility to important aspects of Talossa for a long time, hopefully it would at least give you pause. But here, it's so much bigger, because the monarchy has been the center of a ton of important cases.  I think that V probably would have a hard time giving the Crown's side, in terms of the crown itself, a fair hearing.

If you're really honest, I think you have to admit that this is at least a legitimate objection, even if you think it's outweighed by other factors or that you just really believe he'll manage to be fair.  Please don't pretend I'm engaged in some crazed witch-hunt, where V's brave thoughtcrime has made him the subject of a cruel inquisition and where anyone else who dares to venture a feeble criticism of power might be the next victim.  The guy swore angry vendetta against the king and monarchy for years.  You might not care because you want the end goal, and he's your friend and you believe him and think he's qualified, and you don't really care about the monarchy, but that's on you.  This is a legitimate issue.

Quote from: Miestrâ Schiva, UrN on January 16, 2020, 06:43:50 PM
QuoteIt is fairly important that V has expressed immense animus against the king, personally, in addition to the throne. He swore there would be no peace until abdication, remember?

"Swore". It would be funny if he actually did swear, and I'm sure you have the receipts. But I don't consider it good precedent to declare that personal animus previously expressed towards a prominent person is disqualifying for a Justice (if it were, given Talossan history, we'd be short of candidates) - as long as the candidate can convince the Cort that they would do their job. I would have the same attitude if it were one of the many, many Talossans who have expressed personal animus against me up for nomination.

While you have been in the government for a really, really long time, I don't think you are quite the institution that we find in the reigning sovereign.  Give it time, though!  Six more years and you might have a case.  Two-person monarchy!

Quote from: Miestrâ Schiva, UrN on January 16, 2020, 06:43:50 PM
QuoteI think you also had a significant record of temperance and good faith best efforts as a track record.

Why, thank you. I honestly assumed I was in the same "hateful, corrupt, grudge-holder" basket as V.

You both have your strengths and weaknesses, as I do and as do we all.
Title: Re: Talossan judicial precedents
Post by: Miestră Schivă, UrN on January 20, 2020, 12:06:59 AM
It would certainly be a problem if our Head of State were to be someone who held grudges and had strong personal antipathies to Talossans with whom he had crossed swords in the past.

Oh wait.
Title: Re: Talossan judicial precedents
Post by: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on January 20, 2020, 07:14:06 AM
Minor point of correction: V was nominated as a justice, not head of state. But I do share your concerns. Anyone who is asked whether or not they still hate the questioner and has to find a way to avoid the question... well, that presents a problem.
Title: Re: Talossan judicial precedents
Post by: Miestră Schivă, UrN on January 20, 2020, 02:08:42 PM
You said that Talossa was a place where people can be what they can't be in real life; well, I'm sorry that real life doesn't offer you enough places to be a smart-ass.

Seriously: the King is still going on about the Proclamation Crisis? Talk about "holding a grudge". And honestly I think V's answer to that was great: that in New York law, courts get petitions to re-argue quite often, and sometimes they admit they get it wrong.
Title: Re: Talossan judicial precedents
Post by: King John on January 20, 2020, 04:52:19 PM
I'm "going on" about it?  Please.  You yourself had mentioned it already in that very thread, and V had talked at some length, and quite sensibly, about stare decisis and how it applies in Talossa.  I was wondering what he thought about (arguably) the most famous and (certainly) the most important case in which stare decisis was, I think we can all agree, entirely ignored.

In this case, too, I'd note that there wasn't any "petition to re-argue", nor any re-argument.  Simply the Cort announcing a different decision in a case they'd already decided.  It's certainly germane to ask the nominee whether he thought that was a good course, procedurally.

-- John R
Title: Re: Talossan judicial precedents
Post by: Miestră Schivă, UrN on January 20, 2020, 05:00:36 PM
Quote from: King John on January 20, 2020, 04:52:19 PM
the most important case in which stare decisis was, I think we can all agree, entirely ignored...

there wasn't any "petition to re-argue", nor any re-argument.  Simply the Cort announcing a different decision in a case they'd already decided. 

That is simply false. I may not have used the term "petition to re-argue", but I forwarded a petition which presented different facts and alternative legal reasoning (http://talossa.proboards.com/thread/11174/petition-injunctive-relief-orglaw-amendment) to the original decision re: 47RZ28 (http://talossa.proboards.com/thread/10706/petition-declarative-relief-application-47rz28), which the UC accepted. I find it hard to believe you don't remember this, but there you are: there was an original case, then the Government asked for the case to be re-heard on different evidence and a different legal principle.

"I think we can all agree" is a phrase often used by people who know what they're about to say is controversial but want to shift the burden of proving that to their opponents.
Title: Re: Talossan judicial precedents
Post by: Miestră Schivă, UrN on January 20, 2020, 05:09:26 PM
... ya Allà, reading those threads reminds me of why I had to take 6 months off Talossa after the Proclamation Crisis. AD's legal tactics caused me literal sleepless nights and deprived me of all joy in this nation.
Title: Re: Talossan judicial precedents
Post by: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on January 20, 2020, 05:43:33 PM
Quote from: Miestrâ Schiva, UrN on January 20, 2020, 02:08:42 PM
You said that Talossa was a place where people can be what they can't be in real life; well, I'm sorry that real life doesn't offer you enough places to be a smart-ass.
It is true that no one in my macronational political career blesses me with such excellent cues.

Quote from: Miestrâ Schiva, UrN on January 20, 2020, 02:08:42 PM
Seriously: the King is still going on about the Proclamation Crisis? Talk about "holding a grudge". And honestly I think V's answer to that was great: that in New York law, courts get petitions to re-argue quite often, and sometimes they admit they get it wrong.
I think you brought it up?  If you didn't think it was worth mentioning, then mentioning it seems strange.
Title: Re: Talossan judicial precedents
Post by: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on January 20, 2020, 06:06:12 PM
Quote from: Miestrâ Schiva, UrN on January 20, 2020, 05:00:36 PM
Quote from: King John on January 20, 2020, 04:52:19 PM
the most important case in which stare decisis was, I think we can all agree, entirely ignored...

there wasn't any "petition to re-argue", nor any re-argument.  Simply the Cort announcing a different decision in a case they'd already decided. 

That is simply false. I may not have used the term "petition to re-argue", but I forwarded a petition which presented different facts and alternative legal reasoning (http://talossa.proboards.com/thread/11174/petition-injunctive-relief-orglaw-amendment) to the original decision re: 47RZ28 (http://talossa.proboards.com/thread/10706/petition-declarative-relief-application-47rz28), which the UC accepted. I find it hard to believe you don't remember this, but there you are: there was an original case, then the Government asked for the case to be re-heard on different evidence and a different legal principle.
Are you aware of the fact that you're vehemently arguing in favor of the king's point?  Like... yes, that's the whole thing that's wrong! 

The cort decided, and then later it accepted a new case looking at the same principle with different evidence and arguments.  The whole point of precedent is that this isn't supposed to happen a lot, otherwise no one really knows what the law is, since interpretation of the disputed point might change from one day to the next and then back again.  Read your petition again.  You describe the cort's ruling in order to argue it should be overturned, suggesting that a repugnant conclusion (invalidation of all amendments) argues against it and so the cort should vacate its previous decision.  You explicitly ask for the decision to be vacated and overturned!
Title: Re: Talossan judicial precedents
Post by: Miestră Schivă, UrN on January 20, 2020, 06:29:54 PM
Quote from: Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on January 20, 2020, 06:06:12 PM
The cort decided, and then later it accepted a new case looking at the same principle with different evidence and arguments.

Which is what V said happened in New York regularly. QED.
Title: Re: Talossan judicial precedents
Post by: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on January 20, 2020, 06:44:30 PM
Quote from: Miestrâ Schiva, UrN on January 20, 2020, 06:29:54 PM
Quote from: Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on January 20, 2020, 06:06:12 PM
The cort decided, and then later it accepted a new case looking at the same principle with different evidence and arguments.

Which is what V said happened in New York regularly. QED.
It's a bold stance to say that precedent doesn't matter, but I admire you for taking that stance.
Title: Re: Talossan judicial precedents
Post by: Miestră Schivă, UrN on January 20, 2020, 06:47:06 PM
This is what happens when "enthusiastic amateurs" go up against real lawyers - they tend to be Shocked and Appalled to find out that real jurisprudence does not match their simplistic assumptions.

Talossa is based on Anglo-American law; the State of New York is as well; therefore, NY's flexible attitude to stare decisis is a possible model for us, and one shown by the UC (I think correctly) in the Proclamation Crisis cases. This is why it's good to have a Real Lawyer about the place, and IMHO on the Cort - as long as we continue to work within an Anglo-American common law system, of course. A fully indigenous Talossan civil system is still worth considering and then we can make up whatever rules we want.

On a more serious note, if I really thought "precedent didn't matter", I wouldn't have such an allergic reaction to the Cort's oddball definition of "name" in the S. Panache case.
Title: Re: Talossan judicial precedents
Post by: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on January 20, 2020, 06:51:32 PM
Well, I guess the fact that the newest justice doesn't believe in precedent is good, in some ways, since it means that we can reargue the same case the next time it comes up.  So we have that going for us, at least.

Why do you care about the name decision?  It doesn't even matter if it's bad, since if the same thing comes up, we can just argue the point again with "new evidence and new legal theories."  I mean, it sucks in the sense that it's absurd and embarrassing, but it's not as if it will matter in the long term.

Quote from: Miestrâ Schiva, UrN on January 20, 2020, 05:09:26 PM
... ya Allà, reading those threads reminds me of why I had to take 6 months off Talossa after the Proclamation Crisis. AD's legal tactics caused me literal sleepless nights and deprived me of all joy in this nation.
Not sure, by the way, why you bring this up so often.  I think that whole thing was really unethical -- the idea that you got to discuss and make arguments in private to a justice is so weird.  I understand that the cort agreed as a panel that it was impractical to condemn the practice, given the small size of Talossa, but you'd still never find me repeatedly reminiscing about the time I got to make ex parte arguments and won the resulting case which had been decided the opposite way very recently.
Title: Re: Talossan judicial precedents
Post by: Miestră Schivă, UrN on January 20, 2020, 07:24:26 PM
Quote from: Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on January 20, 2020, 06:51:32 PM
the newest justice doesn't believe in precedent
...
you got to discuss and make arguments in private to a justice
...

(https://media1.tenor.com/images/6d2f78672be6cde9aa59c57d7daa1d31/tenor.gif?itemid=14574212)
Title: Re: Talossan judicial precedents
Post by: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on January 20, 2020, 08:51:08 PM
It's not controversial to say that, since it was admitted in open court that you got to post a thread and discuss the case on the FreeDem forum.  I couldn't see that or respond, but the justice admitted that he did read it (though he didn't comment on your theory of the case).  The defendants nor I didn't get a chance to write any private arguments that you couldn't read.  That's the sinister aspect of ex parte -- it lets one side describe their theory of the case, unchallenged.
Title: Re: Talossan judicial precedents
Post by: Viteu on January 20, 2020, 09:49:37 PM
Quote from: Miestrâ Schiva, UrN on January 20, 2020, 06:29:54 PM
Quote from: Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on January 20, 2020, 06:06:12 PM
The cort decided, and then later it accepted a new case looking at the same principle with different evidence and arguments.

Which is what V said happened in New York regularly. QED.

That's not at all what I said. I said that there is such a thing as a motion to renew/reargue. You file that with the Court that decided your motion,. But so file an appeal. Motions to renew/reargue are *Rarely* granted. If pressed, I can say I've maybe come across four times (one Court of Appeals and three Appellate Division cases) it's happened in all of the extensive research I've done. In fact, I said it's extremely rare.
Title: Re: Talossan judicial precedents
Post by: Viteu on January 20, 2020, 09:54:02 PM
Quote from: King John on January 20, 2020, 04:52:19 PM
I'm "going on" about it?  Please.  You yourself had mentioned it already in that very thread, and V had talked at some length, and quite sensibly, about stare decisis and how it applies in Talossa.  I was wondering what he thought about (arguably) the most famous and (certainly) the most important case in which stare decisis was, I think we can all agree, entirely ignored.

In this case, too, I'd note that there wasn't any "petition to re-argue", nor any re-argument.  Simply the Cort announcing a different decision in a case they'd already decided.  It's certainly germane to ask the nominee whether he thought that was a good course, procedurally.

-- John R

John,

Let me clear this up for you -- I declined to answer because I haven't studied the politics of the matter. I did not know about the election and the change, as your worded it, so I couldn't speak. But I tried to answer by relating it a procedure used in common law traditions. I was not trying to evade, but not comment on something that probably needs a good few hours on Witt to learn more about.
Title: Re: Talossan judicial precedents
Post by: Viteu on January 20, 2020, 10:04:38 PM
Everyone. Stop. You're misunderstanding.

A motion to reargue/renew does not undermine stare decisis or judicial precedence.

This motion is available at all NY's court levels. They're quite common at the trial level, and maybe success is more possible but still rare. It does not upset stare decisis because it's usually the court got the facts or law wrong. The last time I saw it happen was I had won a motion to sever and then a motion to dismiss. In the underlying action, the clerk never removed my client from the matter. When the law secretary wrote up a new order after other motions, somehow I was back in a second third-party action. Surprisingly, my adversary, who lost her motion, moved to renew to clarify the parties. I was taken out.

The motions are also made at the appeallate level. They are not a bad thing. They're rarely granted. They don't hurt stare decisis because it's usually done pretty quickly.

Now, if the Court issues a decision and interprets a new law, but goes the other way, they could hurt. The Court should explain why it upsetting stare decisis.

Stare decisis is very strong in NY, and I think my analogy got misconstrued. NY courts can fix something if they got it wrong, but it's not like this is common place. So can we take a step back here?
Title: Re: Talossan judicial precedents
Post by: Miestră Schivă, UrN on January 20, 2020, 10:09:47 PM
Well, okay. But I'm interested on whether you think that the Cort agreeing to hear the second case against 47RZ28 was (a) a violation of stare decisis; (b) analogous to a NY "motion to re-argue"; (c) a different case which was presented and argued properly, which I think are all the possible options. If I'd known the King was going to bring this up I would have asked you myself.
Title: Re: Talossan judicial precedents
Post by: Viteu on January 20, 2020, 10:14:02 PM
Alright. I'm done for the night. I do believe in jurisprudence and stare decisis. I spent hours researching Talossan jurisprudence to discuss it in my interview. AD, I think you misunderstood me. I'd appreciate if you could reread.what I put. I also suggest you look up this motion in your home jurisdiction (it exists). Say what you want about me, but do not paint me as an activist judge who will cast aside jurisprudence. You will get from me not only someone who truly believes in stare decisis, but has been writing an article for three years on the topic. I'd be the first person on that Cort that can discuss the topic thoroughly. You saying that I don't care about jurisprudence or stare decisis is actually a very hurtful personal attack because it's a bedrock to my legal philosophy. I hope you will take a step back and reconsider what said.
Title: Re: Talossan judicial precedents
Post by: Viteu on January 20, 2020, 10:15:14 PM
Quote from: Miestrâ Schiva, UrN on January 20, 2020, 10:09:47 PM
Well, okay. But I'm interested on whether you think that the Cort agreeing to hear the second case against 47RZ28 was (a) a violation of stare decisis; (b) analogous to a NY "motion to re-argue"; (c) a different case which was presented and argued properly, which I think are all the possible options. If I'd known the King was going to bring this up I would have asked you myself.

Can you all give me until tomorrow to respond? I obviously have some reading to do.
Title: Re: Talossan judicial precedents
Post by: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on January 21, 2020, 12:56:04 PM
Obviously I'm not averse to bugging V with questions, but it seems unfair to grill him here informally at the same time as his hearing.  If you have follow-up questions, then you can just submit them to the hearing by sending them to Luc.  The hearing rules already provide for them to be approved.
Title: Re: Talossan judicial precedents
Post by: Viteu on January 22, 2020, 07:28:11 AM
I appreciate that.  I've decided to clarify this matter up a bit in my closing statement. I'm also weighing whether that closings statement should be video.

In the interim, you can see a recent outtake of my closing statement at: https://youtu.be/lj3iNxZ8Dww