Sunday, December 22, 2013

The Resurrection: Now Available on WESTLAW!


It is a well known fact that Thomas the Twin (aka Didymus) was not present at the first appearance of the Risen Christ to the Apostles. His absence was attributed to his being in private mourning. However, recent research into Roman legal archives, and their incorporation into the WESTLAW database, reveals that it is apparent that in the days immediately following the Crucifixion, St. Thomas was filing an emergency motion before the Imperial appeals court at Caesarea......

 






(Cite as: XXXIII Imp. Supp.2d xxiv, XVII Med.Rep. ix.)
                        
In the Name of the Senate and People of the City of Rome

Estate of Decedent Yeshua ben Iosef, AKA Yeshua ben Yahweh, By and Through Next Friend and Executor Thomas DIDYMUS, Esq.,
v.
His Imperial Majesty CAESAR TIBERIUS CLAUDIUS NERO AUGUSTUS fili AUGUSTUS, Imperator di Roma.

No. IC CIV. MMMMCV (BDP).

Ides of April, Year of the City CCCCLXIII

Representative of decedent's estate, Thomas DIDYMUS, on behalf of surviving immediate family of executed defendant-decedent, Yeshua ben Iosef, a Galilean subject, convicted of sedition and executed under Imperial authority, brings habeas corpus action against Imperium in the Imperial Territorial Court In and For the Territory of Judea at Caesarea for relief from judgment and for release of body of executed seditionist.
 
Representative also moves for review of case and reversal of judgment on grounds that trial below was null and void, in violation of Imperium procedural guarantees, violated norms of imperial jurisdiction, violated rights to counsel, right of silence, and separation of Imperium and religious court authority wherein sedition case was improperly brought below and charge of blasphemy, unenforceable in imperial court, improperly held as grounds to grant capital punishment by crucifixion.

Held: While profound procedural irregularities abound in this case accused's failure to object in face of both accusations and of irregular procedure constituted adoption by  silence of both accusations against him and acceptance of irregular procedures.  While many irregularities clearly violated Imperial judicial and procedural norms, allegations of improper pendant jurisdiction rejected on grounds of adoption by silence by defendant. Furthermore motion rendered moot by reason of fulfillment of capital sentence. Finally, release of corpus of decedent, otherwise grantable to family on compassionate grounds, cannot be completed due to lack of continued imperial control over corpus delicti at issue.
 
Motion dismissed as moot.

West Headnotes
 





In a diversity action, personal jurisiction is governed by the law of the forum territory.

In responding to a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, defendant in criminal law action bears the burden of proving at the time of trial by a preponderance of the evidence that personal jurisdiction does not exist; silence in face of assertion by the State imputing jurisdiction constitutes adoption by silence of claims by representative of State.  Imp.Rules Crim.Proc.Rule 12(b)(2), 28 Imp.C.A.


Where court had not held a hearing on a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, defendant in criminal action had to make a prima facie showing of lack of  jurisdiction, with all pleadings and affidavits to be construed in the light most favorable to the defendant and all doubts would be resolved in the criminal defendant's favor; however, defendant's lack of response in face of challenge by Imperium indicated adoption of Imperial position by silence and defendant or succeeding interest thereto would not be later heard to gainsay same.  Imp.Rules Crim.Proc.Rule 12(b)(2), 28 Imp.C.A.

Possible impropriety of transfer of venue from Imperial to Galilean royal court rendered moot upon refusal of Galilean royal court to accept jurisdiction and return jurisdiction of case to Imperial authority. ImpRules Crim.Proc.Rule 12(b)(2), 28 R.C.A.
 





Dismissal of charge of blasphemy brought by local religious authority against defendant held proper when Imperial court lacked jurisdiction to prosecute same; however, preservation of secondary charge of sedition against defendant held proper, based on imputed defendant's claim to be 'King of the Jews,' in spite of belief of Roman judicial authority in innocence of party in question, when silence of party in question in face of questioning by court constituted adoption by silence of charge of sedition.
 





Roman statute permitting general exercise of personal juris-diction over seditionist engaged in a continuous and systematic course of sedition within realm of authority of Judean protectorate requires that the defendant be present in Judea not occasionally or casually, but with a fair...
 
 

 

No comments:

Post a Comment

Keep it clean for gene.