I hereby submit this Amicus Brief to the court over [CASE 002][Doc][Wuufu][2018.12.28], I am going to be pinging the Justices
for providing editing, and consulting with me, for this brief.
Introduction
This Amicus Brief is filed independently by His Lordship, The Right Honourable Chanku L. Kaizer, in order to aid the court in its decision on [CASE 002][Doc][Wuufu][2018.12.28]. Due to the nature of this case, this Brief is split into seven parts, excluding this one, each dealing with a portion of this case/brief. The first section addresses the admissibility of this brief, and the ability of the court to use it. The second covers the background of the case. The third addresses whether someone can sue themselves. The fourth addresses whether the law was violated. The fifth addresses the concept of being able to hear future crimes. The sixth addresses whether the court can take certain actions. The final section concludes this brief. This layout is for the convenience of the court and all relevant parties.
Part I - Admissibility
The author states the following qualifications for his professional opinion:
1. He is the current speaker of the Underhusen.
2. He is essentially a Wintrean Jurist, as he has been solicited by the Government on multiple occasions to provide advice on legal matters.
3. He is the creator of the Code of Laws, which the Code of Criminal Laws heavily draws from. The crimes themselves are subject mostly to minor modifications, and as such, the author should be counted as co-author of the Code of Criminal Laws for this specific instance.
Due to these circumstances, the author asserts he is qualified to file this brief as an Amicus Curiae.
Next, the author holds that the court can use this brief in its decision making process as there is no legal process, nor relevant law, for the acceptance and submission of evidence in a court case, nor is there any law for the submission or consideration of a brief.
Part II - Background
The case before the court stems from a discussion between the Honourable Justice Crushita and the author over citizenship law. During the discussion, the Justice expressed hesitation at suing another member of the Underhusen, and the author stated that he could sue himself as there was no express prohibition against it, but also that there was nothing permitting it, either. This statement was not meant to be taken as legal advice, nor was it meant to be taken at face value, as it was an off-hand comment at the time. There was also no anticipation that any party would act on such advice and sue themselves. As such, the author did not fully account for the law and any necessary considerations regarding suing oneself, until the filing of this case. The author thus requests that the court disregard earlier statements as being legal advice, as the author has changed his mind upon further reflection and research.
Part III - Self-Suing
In the case before the court, there are two questions: the first and most important is whether a person can legally sue themselves. While there is no law directly prohibiting or permitting such conduct, the very nature of the courts prohibits this. The courts exist to issue remedies to those that have been wronged by defendants. In this case, the plaintiff and defendant are the same legal person, so any remedy would benefit the defendant, and any justice meted out would harm the plaintiff. As such, there is no logical reason for the court to hear such a case.
As suing oneself is not judicable, it is outside of the ability of the court to hear. Therefore the court can and should dismiss this case for lack of clear judicial question or ability to be adjudicated. This is legal, and is addressed in Part IV of this Brief. As the court lacks the ability to hear this case, all questions within the case itself are rendered moot, and it does not need to (nor can it) decide on these questions.
Part IV - The Violation of the Law
In this case, the second question is whether the Defendant has violated the law, specifically Section 4.1, Subsection 2 of the Code of Criminal Laws act. The law in question states that it is a crime to disrupt/attempt to disrupt "...legal proceedings as outlined in the Judicial Offices Act." As such, the defendant has not violated the law. The wording sets up the requirement that the procedure disrupted is the procedure of the court as required in the Judicial Offices Act, so no crime has been committed. The procedure within the Judicial Offices Act concerns that of Judicial Proceedings after a case has been filed and has begun. The filing of a case can not constitute a violation of the Judicial Offices Act, as the filing of a case does not disrupt an ongoing case. There is also not a claim that can be made that this would waste the court's resources, as it would be the only on-going case, and is only the second case to be heard in the history of the court (the first one being held years ago). Therefore, no disruption exists under Section 4.1, Subsection 2 of the Code of Criminal Laws by filing a case, no matter how frivolous it may be. No crime has thus been committed, rendering the question of any potential defendant's guilt pointless.
As stated previously, even if the court should find that it is possible to violate this by filing a frivolous and baseless suit, the defendant can not be penalized because the defendant and the plaintiff are the same legal person. As such, the defendant can not otherwise disrupt their proceedings during this stage of the act, and the defendant cannot be guilty. Should the courts thus proceed, a not guilty verdict is the only sensible one. Because the defendant has been ruled as not guilty, there are no punishments to be levied against the plaintiff, as the defendant and plaintiff are the same legal person. However, should the court find it can not hear the case, and agrees with Part II of this Brief, this question is moot and cannot be decided by the court.
Part V - Future Crimes and Violations
In this case, an additional question has been raised by the Plaintiff that the filing of the act was for a future crime, in order to allow the defense to commit the crime. As such, if he violated the law in this case, he would therefore be guilty of the crime, even though no crime was committed at the time of filing. This would mean that someone can be tried for future crimes that they may or may not commit, which would be tantamount to thought-crime. The concept of thought-crime must be repudiated, as no crime would yet have been committed. Further, while the court may consider that his statement establishes that he intends to do so, and therefore establishes a conspiracy to commit a crime, Wintrean Law does not criminalize conspiracy to commit a crime, so intending to commit a crime is not, in itself, a crime. Additionally, while Section 4.1, Subsection 2 of the Code of Criminal Laws does criminalize the attempt to commit a crime, no actions have been taken to commit any crimes yet, only a statement of intent to do so. As there has not yet been an attempt, no crime has been committed. As such, the court should rule not guilty on this basis. As an aside, even if the defendant does, indeed, violate the law at some future point, the trial can only cover actions in the past, not in the future. A separate trial would need to occur concerning the violation of the act, if such a violation occurs. As such, the court should rule Not Guilty, unless it believes it can not hear the Case.
Part VI - The Court Can Dismiss
In Part II, the court is advised to dismiss the case due to lack of standing and ability to hear the case. However, the court may worry that it lacks the authority to do this, as the procedures do not explicitly permit this. However, the court does have the authority to determine if it can hear a case, as otherwise the court would have to rule on matters it can not legally adjudicate. As such, it follows that the court must have the authority to dismiss a case due to the lack of ability to hear it, and the court can thus dismiss a case that it can not adjudicate, either due to a lack of standing as required by the Fundamental Laws, or because it can not hear the case. The court may find it can not hear the case if it is outside of the realm of adjudication. Therefore, if the court does find it can not hear this case, it can dismiss it.
Part VII - Conclusion
Because of the nature of this case, the three questions before the court are, "Can someone sue themselves?", "Was Section 4.1, Subsection 2 violated?", and "Can someone be tried for a future crime?". The author firmly believes that the answer to all questions are "no." For question one, the court cannot issue a remedy or institute any actions against the plaintiff, as the plaintiff and defendant are the same legal person. This implies the second question is irrelevant.
However, should the court disagree, no crime has yet been committed, so the answer to the second question is also no. Additionally, trying a future crime is the same as trying a thought-crime under Wintrean law, so the answer to this question is that one can not be found guilty for a violation of a law that occurred after the filing of a suit, unless a new case is filed.
Due to this, the court should dismiss the case if it believes that someone cannot logically sue themselves. In the event that the court does find a logical basis for a legal person to sue itself, a not guilty verdict is the only sensible one in this case, as no crime has been committed.
