People's Court of Justice

[Krsta]

People's Court of Justice of the Antifascist Republic of Krsta

PCJ was established on December 16, 1798. Since then, it has given decisions on more then then 24 700 cases.

It consists of 11 judges which are elected through a very hard and long judicial process. A judge's term is 7 years and can be repeated twice.

[Krsta]

Russ Ortwill (born March 14, 1947), accepted nomination on December 30, 2006. Hearings (19-23 January). Confirmed on January 29, 2007 by JCR with 50 votes FOR, 1 against and 2 abstained. Confirmed by the Rasfallemenn on February 2, 2007. Sworn in on February 7, 2007.


Theodor Peretz (born February 17, 1931), accepted nomination on December 29, 2004. Hearings (11-14 January). Confirmed on January 23, 2005 by JRC with 49 votes FOR, 0 votes against and 4 abstained. Confirmed on January 29, 2005 by the Rasfallemenn on February 1, 2005. Sworn in on February 3, 2005.


Lech Piotrowski (born August 28, 1950), accepted nomination on December 28, 2005. Hearings (18-22 January). Confirmed on January 28, 2006 by JRC with 45 votes FOR, 6 against and 2 abstained. Confirmed by the Rasfallemenn on February 4, 2006. Sworn in on February 10, 2006.


Moon Myung-Chang (born February 25, 1949), accepted nomination on December 29, 2003. Hearings (12-16 January). Confirmed on January 24, 2004 by JRC with 48 votes FOR, 3 votes AGAINST and 2 abstained from voting. Confirmed by the Rasfallemenn on January 31, 2004. Sworn in on February 4, 2004.

Ruben De Jong (born February 9, 1997), accepted nomination on December 26, 2009. Hearings (16-20 January). Confirmed on January 23, 2010 by JRC with 50 votes FOR, 2 against and 1 abstained from voting. Confirmed on January 27, 2010 by Rasfallemenn. Sworn in on February 1, 2010.


Wilma Nilsson (born June 9, 1952), accepted nomination on December 25, 2007. Hearings (9-13 January). Confirmed on January 15, 2010 by JRC with 47 votes FOR, 1 vote against and 5 abstained from voting. Confirmed on January 21, 2010 by Rasfallemenn. Sworn in on February 3, 2008.


Jared G. Rottford (born September 14, 1946), accepted nomination on December 31, 2004. Hearings (27-31 January). Confirmed on February 4, 2005 by JRC with 49 votes FOR, 2 against and 2 abstained from voting. Confirmed on February 8, 2005 by Rasfallemenn. Sworn in on February 11, 2005.


Mona Baldé (born November 27, 1944), accepted nomination on December 28, 2003. Hearings (25-29 January). Confirmed on February 1, 2004 by JRC with 45 votes FOR, 3 votes against and 5 abstained from voting. Confirmed on February 5, 2004 by Rasfallemenn. Sworn in on February 9, 2004.


Wang Yifei (born December 26, 1954), accepted nomination on December 24, 2005. Hearings (8-12 January). Confirmed on January 17, 2006 by JRC with 51 votes in favor, 2 against and 0 abstained from voting. Confirmed on January 21, 2006 by Rasfallemenn. Sworn in on February 2, 2006.


Sarah Fillderwon (born October 9, 1947), accepted nomination on December 29, 2007. Hearings (23-27 January). Confirmed on January 29, 2008 by JRC with 46 votes in favor, 5 against and 2 abstained from voting. Confirmed on February 1, 2008 by Rasfallemenn. Sworn in on February 5, 2008.


Ciara Rissfold (born November 8, 1958), accepted nomination on December 27, 2008. Hearings (16-20 January). Confirmed on January 23, 2009 by JRC with 49 votes in favor, 3 against and 1 abstained from voting. Confirmed on January 27, 2009 by Rasfallemenn. Sworn in on February 3, 2009.

[TurtleShroom]

Neat! It's always good to read a post about courts, particularly Supreme Courts.

We have quite a nice system ourselves.!

[Krsta]

This will be used as some kind of Krsta's Q&A. Ask for our stance on some legal issue or whatever, as People's Court of Justice has responsibility on 99,9% issues which were ever posted on the Factbooks

[Maraque]

The Unified City-States would like to seek the opinion of the People's Court of Justice on the following case:

Complaint:

Former King Furoq stepped outside of the bounds of his powers when he declared that the institution that has served our nation for 4201 years was now "dissolved." He then creates a new position in the name of a head of government henceforth known as the "president" without first consulting the Royal Constitutional Court, the Royal Legislature, or the people of the unified city-states.

Under a law passed by the Royal Legislature, the Council of Seven, and the People of the Unified City-States, the monarch's abilities do not extend to the right to radically change the structure of government at his very whim. Indeed, royal orders must first be conferred to by the Royal Constitutional Court - something he did not do. Furthermore, he blindly sidestepped the legislative process in expanding the government by appointing undemocratically a "head of government" which is not outlined in his official powers as head of state.

In summary:

1. King Furoq illegally dissolved the monarchy.
2. King Furoq illegally appointed a "head of government" without prior approval of the Royal Constitutional Court.
3. King Furoq illegally changed the structure of government without prior approval of the Royal Legislature, and the People of the Unified City-States.
4. King Furoq sidestepped the democratic process by appointing the president.
5. King Furoq violated his oath of office by stepping outside of the powers outlined in the Declaration of Foundation which establishes what he can and cannot do as head of state.

-----------------------

Response:

Former King Furoq did nothing illegal. As monarch of the grand institution, he may dissolve the monarchy with reasonable justification, as outlined in the Declaration of Foundation. In his address to the public upon dissolving the monarchy, he said quite clearly that the monarchy was an antiquated system of governance, one which does not fulfill the idea of freedom and democracy in a country that prides itself on being "classless," - but what is a classless society if the head of state can only be from a certain family? We believe this is "reasonable justification" under the law.

Furthermore, his appointment of the office of "president" is well within his powers as the monarch. By dissolving the monarchy, there was no longer a leader, so he appointed the honorable madam Tsvarchia as president pro tempore until January, when the people could rightfully speak for themselves and elect a proper leader. He did not elect a permanent position - she will not be serving a full term. It is well within his rights to appoint temporary positions.

In regards to "radically changing the structure of government" - we disagree that he even did this. The structure of government had no been officially changed until a compromise bill was passed in the Royal Legislature, Council of Seven, and The People. He spoke of his intentions to do so - he never declared it so.

As to "sidestepping the democratic process" by appointing the president - there is no such statute that says this is even ilegally actionable. How can there have been any sidestepping of the democratic process if the position of which they speak of did not exist?

The "oath" of office is a several thousand year old verse from the Book of Xanthaiyan and has absolutely nothing to do with his coronation. It is repeated as a tradition, not as words he is held accountable for.

[Krsta]

Index of the international cases:

Vermont League of Conservative Parents v. Mapleoir (Argued: August 9, 2010 ; Decision: August 12, 2010 ; Holding: There is no legal argument in favor of limiting an individual's right to be elected/appointed to the public office because of his age or because of his life experience ; it is his personal liberty to choose does he want to talk to a psychologist/psychiatrist and it has nothing to do with his profession or position)

Unified City-States v Furoq Ajari (Argued: TBA ; Decision: TBA ; Holding: TBA)

[Zeppy]

Questions:

Is the People's Court of Justice an international or your proper national supreme court?

What is the Krstan legal system based on: Civil law , Common law, Bijuridical (civil and common law), Customary law, or Shariah law?

What is the Jurisprudence of the majority or individual Justices?

Are the rulings of the court binding or non-binding?

What is the main document(s) that the People's Court of Justice bases their ruling(s) or interpretation(s) on?

[Krsta]

Questions:

Is the People's Court of Justice an international or your proper national supreme court?

What is the Krstan legal system based on: Civil law , Common law, Bijuridical (civil and common law), Customary law, or Shariah law?

What is the Jurisprudence of the majority or individual Justices?

Are the rulings of the court binding or non-binding?

What is the main document(s) that the People's Court of Justice bases their ruling(s) or interpretation(s) on?

1. Is the national supreme court, but it may give advisory opinion(s) in the international cases.

2. It is more like a constitutional court, but it both creates and applies the law.

3. Jurisprudence of the majority, but judges may write the separate or dissenting opinion, what they always do.

4. Binding in the national cases, non-binding in the international.

5. Constitution of the Antifascist Republic of Krsta and the State of the People's Court of Justice.

[TurtleShroom]

Okay, here's a famous case from the Supreme Court of TurtleShroom: Ronaldo v. Old Man Snappy and the City of Loosefoot, et al..

---

In the case Ronaldo v. Old Man Snappy and the City of Loosefoot, et al., a human went into a sleepy village that had, for years, banned dancing and loud noisemakers.

In protest of the archaic laws, he blew his vuvuzela in front of a microphone for hours. One citizen, a one hundred ninety year old alligator snapping turtle, had enough and literally crawled up there and snapped his vuvuzela in half. Shocked and angered, he sued the turtle (for property damage), the city for turning a blind eye (the police had seen the incident and applauded it), and several others for joining and breaking his other vuvuzelas. They took it to court.

At first, the judge was going to rule in favor of the vuvuzela player, but an amicus curiæ sent in from an unknown creature, describing the "evils" of vuvuzelas and about them being a public nuisance with no benefits, the judge agreed and ruled in favor of the city.

Angered but persistant, the human appealed to a higher court, where the judges all ruled the same thing.

After two months of long, ardeous trials, the decision was presented to the [url=http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?p=1355885#p1355885]Supreme Court of TurtleShroom.


In a 5-0 ruling for the City and for Snappy, the Court wrote this as a the majority opinion.

When a creature creates a horrendous public nuisance, he is, unfortunately, expressing his right to freedom of expression. HOWEVER, Mister Ronaldo was expressing his hatred of a decades-old law which, until this point, was adhered and perfectly okay to the general population. The Court notes that Mister Ronaldo was not a resident of the incorporated community of Loosefoot, and that he had come with his vuvuzela to antagonize and otherwise frustrate the community with his opinions. This is an abuse to freedom of expression.

If someone walked into a Christan convention dressed as Lucifer, should they be allowed to do that? No, such a thing violates the spirit of the law, but not the words. He only did that to purposely antogonize those who had gathered, and not to express his beleifs nor for any reason other than to upset the attendants. Hip young folks call that "trolling" despite the Internet ban.

Mister 'Old Man Snappy' also excercised his right of free speech by voicing the demands of his neighbors and the community as a whole: to "shut up".
Indeed, Mister Snappy damaged another creature's property, but he did so in the interest of his people.

Mister Ronaldo was merely, as the youngsters say, "trolling" the City of Loosefoot. Mister Snappy, meanwhile, put a just end to this.

In conclusion, Mister Ronaldo was abusing his Constitutional rights, using them in manners that the Framers never intended them to be used. I'm sure Jones Found would be bothered by a vuvuzela blasted into his ear until deaf, too.

Judging by evidence in courts prior, the Court find Old Man Snappy within perfectly legal bounds and does not see any crime in breaking Mister Ronaldo's annoying vuvuzela. The Court also requests Mister Ronaldo to respect the laws of TurtleShroom and of his neighbors. We don't want a lawsuit as trivial as this in our halls another time.

---

If this came before the PCJ, what would have happened?

[Krsta]

It would be declared that it was a specific form of protest, a political performance, and that if a turtle was damaged in any way, it could have sued that guy and not used the violence to stop him. The ruling would also include that those "archaic laws" were contrary to the basic human rights and individual liberties and an advisory opinion demanding of the state of TurtleShroom to overturn it, would be sent to it's head of state/head of Government/head of legislative body. However, I didn't except too much of the country which allows one person to beat and physically abuse others because he/she doesn't like how that person behaves.

[Damoclea]

Bear in mind that marriage and monogamy are non-existent in Damoclean society, as far as the government is concerned.

Judge Ajax, one of the best of the new Judges under the new Judicial system, has scored the first summary execution since the new regime was established.

The case:

Callisto, a woman jealous for the affections of a man named Laertes, was judged guilty of the murders of said man and another woman named Antiope. At that point, the statutory death penalty was imposed, and Callisto was executed personally by Judge Ajax.

There was an attempt by said Callisto and a friend named Procrustes immediately prior to said execution to convince the Judge to swerve from the performance of his civic and legal duty to enforce the Law. Appeals were made to sentiment and emotion, but, as the Judge himself stated, "Even were there a social expectation of this absurd notion of 'fidelity', as is the case in some of the softer, weaker, and more perverse nations outside of our borders, it would still not excuse the murder of a citizen, let alone two, by a third citizen. The crime is still murder, she is still judged guilty, and the Law demands that I impose the sentence of death."

Callisto was executed for this double murder at precisely 3:35 am (local time) by means of an automatic pistol wielded by Judge Ajax himself. He was congratulated shortly afterward by none other than Chief Justice Deucalion for his "swift and consistent application of the Law to all citizens, regardless of the solicitations of ignorant third parties."

Procrustes, later determined to be Callisto's brother, was judged guilty of "obstruction of justice" and sentenced to 5 years of hard labor. It is a Class B felony to "attempt to dissuade a lawfully appointed Judge from the execution of his or her duty under the Law."

[La Habana]

Ruben De Jong (born January 27, 1998), accepted nomination on December 26, 2009. Hearings (16-20 January). Confirmed on January 23, 2010 by JRC with 50 votes FOR, 2 against and 1 abstained from voting. Confirmed on January 27, 2010 by Rasfallemenn. Sworn in on February 1, 2010.

OOC: So he is 11 years old? Is that a mistake or did you just slot it in there to see if anybody would notice?

[Swilatia]

Ruben De Jong (born January 27, 1998), accepted nomination on December 26, 2009. Hearings (16-20 January). Confirmed on January 23, 2010 by JRC with 50 votes FOR, 2 against and 1 abstained from voting. Confirmed on January 27, 2010 by Rasfallemenn. Sworn in on February 1, 2010.

OOC: So he is 11 years old? Is that a mistake or did you just slot it in there to see if anybody would notice?

He probably slotted it in there to show how his country has "EQUALITY FOR ALL!!!111".

[Krsta]

Nope, Swi, guy simply used self-determination at the age of 9 (February 26, 2007), and went to Rastwill where Rastwill Faculty of International Law noticed his talent and agreed to publish his works on international public and humanitarian law. He published 9 books and had 29 lectures at RFIL, from April 2007 to December 2009. On November 28, 2009 when a new seat in the court staid empty, the Ministry of education and Ministry of justice sent a letter to the President of the Republic nominating him for the PCJ. On December 19, 2009 President of the Republic sent a letter to Ruben De Jong asking him does he want to be a judge of the People's Court of Justice. After 7 days of reviewing the offer, Mr De Jong accepted the nomination on December 26, 2009. He was confirmed on January 23 (by JRC), confirmed on January 27 (by Rasfallemenn) and sworn in on 1 February, 2010. It has nothing to do with the age - since the moment of his self-determination he is a free person, equal to everyone other in the whole World. In fact, there is no other way to become a citizen, except using a self-determination. Someone does it at the age of 8, while someone does it at the age of 28.

It is hard to be free in Krsta (not to become free, but to be free), because that what we call "freedom" includes economic independence, too. When a child uses self-determination no one will work or buy anything for him/her, they are fighting for themselves in a big World. However, they are free - they have the voting right, right to be elected to a public office all the liberties a free individual has. That is what Constitution of the Antifascist Republic of Krsta guarantees.

[Maraque]

Nope, Swi, guy simply used self-determination at the age of 9 (February 26, 2007), and went to Rastwill where Rastwill Faculty of International Law noticed his talent and agreed to publish his works on international public and humanitarian law. He published 9 books and had 29 lectures at RFIL, from April 2007 to December 2009. On November 28, 2009 when a new seat in the court staid empty, the Ministry of education and Ministry of justice sent a letter to the President of the Republic nominating him for the PCJ. On December 19, 2009 President of the Republic sent a letter to Ruben De Jong asking him does he want to be a judge of the People's Court of Justice. After 7 days of reviewing the offer, Mr De Jong accepted the nomination on December 26, 2009. He was confirmed on January 23 (by JRC), confirmed on January 27 (by Rasfallemenn) and sworn in on 1 February, 2010. It has nothing to do with the age - since the moment of his self-determination he is a free person, equal to everyone other in the whole World. In fact, there is no other way to become a citizen, except using a self-determination. Someone does it at the age of 8, while someone does it at the age of 28.

It is hard to be free in Krsta (not to become free, but to be free), because that what we call "freedom" includes economic independence, too. When a child uses self-determination no one will work or buy anything for him/her, they are fighting for themselves in a big World. However, they are free - they have the voting right, right to be elected to a public office all the liberties a free individual has. That is what Constitution of the Antifascist Republic of Krsta guarantees.

Very nice to see a society where a rare mind is celebrated rather than held back because of the arbitrary age of the person.

[TurtleShroom]

OOC: I really enjoy this thread. Krsta, you're a very good writer.

IC:

Okay. Here's another: Judge Richard Deni v. State, heard in 1813. This case is considered a landmark case, as it greatly broadened TurtleShroom's definition of "freedom of religion", and served as the framework for greater religious tolerance in the country.


Judgeship in TurtleShroom has long been an easy status to aquire. A simple test on TurtleShroom law, a background check, and a few other requsites are needed. That is for the position of bureaucrat-judge. Actual presiding judges require further training and a license to sit on the bench.

Any civillian judge on the generic circuit, bureaucrat or actual, are required, at all times when not at home, to wear the regalia assigned to their position. In TurtleShroom, that's a floor-length black robe and a golden pectoral cross necklace, irregardless of species.

The country, having been founded by Puritans and the turtles and mushrooms during the 1790s, had just started off. Puritanism wasn't going to dissolve into more moderate doctrines until 1825.



The case occured in the deep southern swamplands of TurtleShroom. The Honorable Richard Deni, a strong atheist and a mushroom, objected to having to wear a pectoral cross with his robes, claiming it as a violation of his Constitutional freedom of religion. While TurtleShroom had a state faith, he pointed out that atheism is a legal doctrine in TurtleShroom and thus recieves all of the benefits of TurtleShroom's strict religious protection, including the right to reject items that violate the moral codes of the faith.

On these grounds, he removed it and wore the robes alone. For a while, this went unnoticed, because none of his peers really cared. It wasn't until an inspector from what was then TurtleShroom's largest city, Centriole, came down to Deni's court and noticed that he wasn't wearing the necklace. The inspector said that he was violating TurtleShroom law and its dress code, and could not preside on the bench without the pectoral cross.
As history books would tell you, Puritans saw things that brought attention to the user and not the Judeo-Christian God, even fiction or drama, were sinful and thus banned. This, plus what was made above, were the citations for the order.


His town, a sleepy religious community with nine little churches and a population of 100, had long respected Richard despite his convictions. The mushroom was the town's only atheist. Richard was a hero to the community and well-loved by other judges and by the court of apepals he answered to, even though they strongly disagreed with his convictions.

His record was spotless and he was considered one of the most neutral judges of his time. Even the most hardcore fundamentalists had to commend him for his tolerance and deep respect for others. He was as moralistic as any Christian of the day, in support of Prohibition and the decency laws, or simply, most everything TurtleShroom believed in... except the state faith. He later softened on that, seeing that people wouldn't be forced to convert, and happily lived his days as an atheist... until this.


Judge Richard sued the state for overstepping the grounds of both Constitutional religious freedom and for using the state faith (it was then Puritanical Christianity) in an unconstitutional, invasive manner.

Taken the nearest court (eighty miles away), the case quickly became a legal battle of outright wits. Both sides tried all they knew to persuade the judge, a rookie and his first case, to agree with them in application of law. TurtleShroom's law had yet to be as coded as it is today, so judicial fiat was very strong.


It took about a month for the judge to decide his case. He ruled in favor of the state. Richard appealed.

Three months passed for the next agonizing trial. In a split 2-1 decision, they ruled for the state, too. So tight was religious conviction that the Richard was losing by that alone. Distraught but relentless, he appealed again, and lost, and then, at last, came to the Supreme Court of TurtleShroom.


Richard's hometown poured out their wallets. They sold most of what they owned and sent it for Ruchard's legal fees and counsel. They began to plea for the Court to listen to Richard. They even prayed for him, believing that a man must choose Jesus, and that He can't be forced, lest they turn away even more.


This and more were argued by Richard, who represented himself. The opposition put up a strong fight. The country was rocked by the trial, and everyone took sides.


At last, after a year of hearings, the Supreme Court of TurtleShroom, in a 4-1 decision, ruled in favor to Richard. In a majority opinion, this was what was written.

Jesus emphasized peace, tolerance, and love to all. He said that everyone was His neighbor, not just fellow believers, but those we deem unlovable, like witches or ballroom dancers. Richard may not believe in our Lord, but we find no fault in him.

He has argued on the basis of our state Constitution. As we all know, Atheism is not Pastafarianism, Satanism, Discordianism, or a parody religion. He's not a witch, either. Therefore, like any legit faith, it should be guarenteed the moral protections promised to all faithful in TurtleShroom.

The court rules, based on the Honorable Deni's arguments, that Atheism is indeed a religion, and therefore, forcing this mushroom to wear a cross defies his religious beliefs. We would be hypocritacl to force a religion on another. Jesus wants people to choose Him, and forcing Him on people drives them away.

This is why we have sided with Richard. Our Constituion established Puritanical Christianity as the sole state faith, but also emphasized that no religion could be forced. The state faith recieves funds and recognition. While they do hold power, here, they do not.

Jones Found made it absolutely clear when he said that all believers of all doctrines should have their faiths protected and sanctioned from oppression. We don't force Islamics to take off their veils, nor others from doing their thing. We would not be acting in God's favor if we oppressed this mushroom simply because he denies Him. Our Lord is a Choice, not a mandate.

The state ahs no right to force this upon Richard. The debate on his immortal soul is not a question of this Court to rule. That is his responsibility.

In conclusion, the Honorable Richard Deni was acting completely within Constituional bounds in refusing to wear the holy cross, and, as an Atheist, forcing him to wear such an item would be invading his freedoms. As he has done not one illegal sin as bound in law, and has never drank in his life, there is not a single reason for this mushroom to stand before us.

Judge Richard, we commend you for your persistance, and while we all hope you'll find Jesus, we assure that if you ever wear a cross, that'll be by your will. We find all favor in Judge Richard's argument. He does not have to wear the Cross, or any other religious item on his robes.

Richard v. State was a landmark case. In the coming years, other institutions would try and forbid other religions from wearing or expressing their beliefs, such as an Islamic judge wearing a crescent instead of a cross (Abdullah v. State, ruled 5-0 for Abdullah). This case would be cited again and again in saying that Christianity can't be forced on a citizen, and that no creature could be made to follow a faith they do not believe in.


In 2009, the TurtleShroom Congress passed a concurrent resolution honoring Richard for his perserverence for tolerance.

An enormous granite statue of Richard Deni, in judge's robe, with a pectoral cross at his feet, stands outside of Centriole's courthouse. Funded and erected by the TurtleShroom Atheist and Agnostic Club, the statue reads "DEDICATED TO JUDGE RICHARD DENI AND HIS DEDICATION TO TOLERATION AND PROTECTION OF ATHEISM IN TURTLESHROOM. THANK YOU."


If this case went before the PCJ in the early 1800s- assuming it was heard at all -what would have happened? Would Richard have won, as he did here? Would it have been extremely difficult, and would it have been considered "landmark", as it was here?

[Krsta]

Of course the decision would be that and no one would except a different judgement. In Krsta, we don't have mandatory robes, although all of them are secular.

[TurtleShroom]

*snip*

*snip*

Friend, you missed these guys' cases. Remember to judge everyone's items!

[Krsta]

Maraque can except the advisory opinion around August 24, as we are reviewing the case with a great interest in it's background and all that stuff. Judges are currently discussing it.

[Maraque]

If you need more info, documents, etc just ask.

[Krsta]

When it comes to Deloclea:

(1) By nine votes to two,
Finds that it has jurisdiction to give the advisory opinion requested,

IN FAVOUR: Ortwill, Peretz, Myung-Chang, De Jong, Nilsson, Rottford, Baldé, Fillderwon, Rissfold

AGAINST: Yifei, Piotrowski

(2) By six votes to five,
Decides to comply with the request for an advisory opinion,

IN FAVOUR: Ortwill, Peretz, De Jong, Baldé, Fillderwon, Rissfold.

AGAINST: Yifei, Nilsson, Rottford, Piotrowski, Myung-Chang

(3) By ten votes to one,
Is of the opinion That imposing a death sentence on Ms Calisto was contrary to the basic legal principles,

IN FAVOUR: Ortwill, Peretz, Myung-Chang, De Jong, Nilsson, Rottford, Piotrowski, Baldé, Fillderwon, Rissfold.

AGAINST: Yifei.

Done in English and in Dutch, the English text being authoritative, at the Palace of Justice, Rastwill, this twelfth day of August, two thousand and ten, in three copies of which one will be placed in the archives of the Court and the other two transmitted to the legal teams involved in the case.

(Signed) Russ ORTWILL, People's Court of Justice judge
(Signed) Theodor PERETZ, People's Court of Justice judge
(Signed) Lech PIOTROWSKI, People's Court of Justice judge
(Signed) Moon MYUNG-CHANG, People's Court of Justice judge
(Signed) Ruben DE JONG, People's Court of Justice judge
(Signed) Wilma NILSSON, People's Court of Justice judge
(Signed) Jared ROTTFORD, People's Court of Justice judge
(Signed) Mona BALDÉ, People's Court of Justice judge
(Signed) Wang YIFEI, People's Court of Justice judge
(Signed) Sarah FILLDERWON, People's Court of Justice judge
(Signed) Ciara RISSFOLD, People's Court of Justice judge

(Signed) Thijs VAN DER MEER, Registar

Judge Wilsson appends a separate opinion; Judge Piotrowski appends a separate opinion; Judge Yifei appends a dissenting opinion

[Krsta]

On this day in PCJ history (18th of August):

-A 1962 ruling which prohibited possession of hand-guns in the case "Marfellie v. Alexei" (argued June 27 and 28, 1962).

-A 1984 ruling in the "Smäthreiin et al. v. Ministry of human and minority rights", which confirmed that Ministry of human and minority rights violated the Constitution of the Antifascist Republic of Krsta by listing a specific languages as the minority languages in The Antifascist Republic in a communique official about the integration of minorities in the krstan society, on July 14. The case was argued on July 30 and July 31. Under the "Language rights section", "The Equal Rights Act", everyone has a fundamental and unalienable right on use of his language, no language(s) are considered or shall be treated as official, national or compulsory to use and no language(s) shall be treated as more important or authoritative to any other, while Ministry of human and minority rights wrote 7 minority languages without even adding "et cetera" or anything similar, although using the same would be considered violation of the Constitution, too. (sometimes we are crazy when it comes to absolute and total equality).

-The second day of discussion in the case "Woltfin v. Vorden-Novstfort" (a journalist claiming his texts were censored by a local newspaper). Decision on September 20, 2009 confirmed that Maxim Woltfin's texts were censored by the Vorden-Novstfort newspaper. Vorden-Novstfort agreed to apologize publicly and publish the full texts.

[New Othman]

When it comes to Deloclea:

(1) By nine votes to two,
Finds that it has jurisdiction to give the advisory opinion requested,

IN FAVOUR: Ortwill, Peretz, Myung-Chang, De Jong, Nilsson, Rottford, Baldé, Fillderwon, Rissfold

AGAINST: Yifei, Piotrowski

(2) By six votes to five,
Decides to comply with the request for an advisory opinion,

IN FAVOUR: Ortwill, Peretz, De Jong, Baldé, Fillderwon, Rissfold.

AGAINST: Yifei, Nilsson, Rottford, Piotrowski, Myung-Chang

(3) By ten votes to one,
Is of the opinion That imposing a death sentence on Ms Calisto was contrary to the basic legal principles,

IN FAVOUR: Ortwill, Peretz, Myung-Chang, De Jong, Nilsson, Rottford, Piotrowski, Baldé, Fillderwon, Rissfold.

AGAINST: Yifei.

Done in English and in Dutch, the English text being authoritative, at the Palace of Justice, Rastwill, this twelfth day of August, two thousand and ten, in three copies of which one will be placed in the archives of the Court and the other two transmitted to the legal teams involved in the case.

(Signed) Russ ORTWILL, People's Court of Justice judge
(Signed) Theodor PERETZ, People's Court of Justice judge
(Signed) Lech PIOTROWSKI, People's Court of Justice judge
(Signed) Moon MYUNG-CHANG, People's Court of Justice judge
(Signed) Ruben DE JONG, People's Court of Justice judge
(Signed) Wilma NILSSON, People's Court of Justice judge
(Signed) Jared ROTTFORD, People's Court of Justice judge
(Signed) Mona BALDÉ, People's Court of Justice judge
(Signed) Wang YIFEI, People's Court of Justice judge
(Signed) Sarah FILLDERWON, People's Court of Justice judge
(Signed) Ciara RISSFOLD, People's Court of Justice judge

(Signed) Thijs VAN DER MEER, Registar

Judge Wilsson appends a separate opinion; Judge Piotrowski appends a separate opinion; Judge Yifei appends a dissenting opinion

Speaking as a third party observer, we are curious as to the legal logic regarding your objection. It seems to oppose all capital punishment, but not the right of the Judge to try the case on the spot. Are we correct regarding your legal opinion here? Obviously, this is not a binding position, since Damoclea is a sovereign nation, but we are stunned because most democracies would object to the abbreviated trial process, rather than to the death penalty itself. Could you perhaps clear up this confusion? Mind you, this is an outside viewpoint regarding democracies, since we're not a democracy ourselves. From what we gather, neither is Damoclea, come to think of it.

Also, on an unrelated matter, what is the philosophical basis for the belief that prepubescent youth can be legally emancipated to the extent of enfranchisement and holding public office?

[Krsta]

They are not regarded as the "youth", but as the equal citizens, because they take care of themselves and they used a self-determination law. Economic independence gives you full independence. It is just your signature on a paper called "Declaration of rights and responsibilities of a citizen."

Well, our objection to the death penalty was the objection to the whole trial process as the judgement was the capital punishment. Deloclea is a sovereign country and this is an advisory opinion it requested.

Sir Ruben De Jong had more then 30 lectures on genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, humanitarian and international public law, alternative tribunals et cetera and published 9 books on the similar topics. We are honored to have such a remarkable person in our court. He has been advocating human rights worldwide for more then 3 years.

[Damoclea]

They are not regarded as the "youth", but as the equal citizens, because they take care of themselves and they used a self-determination law. Economic independence gives you full independence. It is just your signature on a paper called "Declaration of rights and responsibilities of a citizen."

Well, our objection to the death penalty was the objection to the whole trial process as the judgement was the capital punishment. Deloclea is a sovereign country and this is an advisory opinion it requested.

Sir Ruben De Jong had more then 30 lectures on genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, humanitarian and international public law, alternative tribunals et cetera and published 9 books on the similar topics. We are honored to have such a remarkable person in our court. He has been advocating human rights worldwide for more then 3 years.

So, in principle, you're opposed to our present Judicial system of immediate justice by street Judges. It is not just an objection to the death penalty per se, we perceive. Incidentally, our name is Damoclea, not Deloclea. In any case, we must respectfully disagree, but we do appreciate your honest opinion, given that we asked for it. While not binding, it does make us more aware of the nature of your system of criminal justice.

We are also relieved that you're not one of those countries who automatically sided with a jealous woman just because she had to share a man's affections. As monogamy is rare enough to be abnormal in our country, we appreciate that refreshing difference.

Regarding the young Justice, that's not an issue for us. We respect that some cultures might have different attitudes regarding maturity and age, even if they seem unusual to us, just as some of our customs may to them.