The Forums of Glennain

Full Version: COURT OF THE KING'S BENCH: Complaint
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
COURT OF THE KING’S BENCH

BERGEN


CHRISTOPHER MCQUEENY,

Plaintiff

v.


THE DUKE OF GUELPH,

Defendant

{CIVIL ACTION NO. 1}

COMPLAINT


1. The plaintiff, Christopher Livingston, resides in Emden. The defendant, the Duke of Guelph, resides in Athenoi.

2. This case falls under the jurisdiction of the Court of the King’s Bench as per the Constitution Act 2006, Subsection 3D, which states that, “The judicial power of the Kingdom shall be vested in the King, exercising it in the Court of the King's Bench.”

3. Mr. Livingston alleges that the defendant has violated the Constitution Act, Subsection 1C. The defendant, Hanover’s Lord High Chancellor, issued Letters Patent for His Majesty on November 29, 2006, appointing Sir Carson Smith and Mr. John Harvey to the respective offices of Secretary of State for Home Affairs and Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. However, those Letters did not bear the countersignature of Hanover’s Prime Minister at the time, Mr. Troy Thompson, as required in Subsection 1C.

The defendant’s attempt to rectify the situation with a November 29, 2006 statement containing a countersignature from Prime Minister Thompson is hardly effective. Countersignature is required for a reason; it must be demonstrated to the public that there was a consensus among the Sovereign and the Prime Minister as to the Cabinet appointments. There is clear legal precedent for this. A Royal Decree dated January 3, 2004, entitled “Clarification of Communication,” states that only those communications published in the Royal Gazette are valid. Thus, theoretically the Letters still do not bear countersignature.

4. We ask the Court to order the defendant to revise the Letters to publicize in the Royal Gazette a countersignature from the Prime Minister, in accordance with the Constitution Act. It is Mr. Livingston’s belief that such a ruling would send a message that the law must be obeyed in the realms and dominions of His Majesty the King, regardless of the practical situation.

ADDENDUM

We intend to request that the defendant waive formal service, and my office will shortly send the defendant a copy of this complaint along with a Notice of Lawsuit and Request for Waiver. If the defendant does not return the Waiver within 30 days, we will then prepare a summons and present it to the Court for signature and service.

Signed,
Carson Smith
Sir Carson Smith, KCH, Esq. JP
Attorney for the Plaintiff
Your Honors:

I received the following from the defendant today. I presume that you will now await his response to the complaint as explained below?

TO: Carson Smith

I, the Duke of Guelph, acknowledge receipt of your request that I waive service of summons in the action of Livingston vs. Duke of Guelph in the Court of the King's Bench.

I have also received a copy of the complaint in this action and a copy of this instrument.

I agree to save the trouble of service of a summons and an additional copy of the complaint in this lawsuit by not requiring that I be served with judicial process.

I understand that a judgment may be entered against me if an answer or motion is not served on you within a reasonable amount of time from the date of request, and that you may petition the court for a default judgment in your favor beginning 60 days after that time.

DATE REQUEST WAS SENT: November 29, 2006

Signature...[/QUOTE]
[Image: JustinSeal2.gif]
ESSEX COURT PALACE
EMEDEN

Dread Sovereign Lord,

I must ask for an immediate dismissal of this case on the grounds of the law in reference doesn't exist. I bring you to this "2. This case falls under the jurisdiction of the Court of the King’s Bench as per the Constitution Act 2006, Subsection 3D, which states that, “The judicial power of the Kingdom shall be vested in the King, exercising it in the Court of the King's Bench.”

There is no Subsection 3D...

Christopher Livingston

Dread Sovereign Lord,

Since the Complaint cites the words of the Subsection verbatim, and those words unquestionably appear in the Act, I would argue that the error in citation is irrelevant.
Reference URL's