WESTLAW Case: Estate of ben Iosef v. CAESAR

Eccl. 1:1 ^ | Ides of March, Year of the City CCCCLXII | West Publishing (Not)

[Ronly Bonly Jones]

<![if !vml]><![endif]>

XXXIII Imp. Supp.2d xxiv,

(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 his Next Friend and Executor of his Estate, Thomas DIDYMUS, Esq.,

v.

His Imperial Majesty CAESAR TIBERIUS CLAUDIUS DRUSUS NERO GERMANICUS, Imperator di Roma.

 

No. IC CIV. MMMMCV (BDP).

 

Ides of March, Year of the City CCCCLXIII

 

  Representative of estate, Thomas DIDYMUS, on behalf of surviving immediate family of executed defendant-decedent, a Galilean subject, convicted of sedition and executed under Imperial authority, brings habeas corpus action against Imperium 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 dilecti at issue.

 Motion dismissed as moot.

 

West Headnotes

 

[1] Imperial Courts <![if !vml]><![endif]>417

170Bk417 Most Cited Cases

 

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

 

[2] Imperial Criminal Procedure <![if !vml]><![endif]>1825

170Ak1825 Most Cited Cases

 

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.

 

[3] Imperial Criminal Procedure <![if !vml]><![endif]>1825

170Ak1825 Most Cited Cases

 

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.

 

[4]  Subordinate royal courts; venue; jurisdiction. <![if !vml]><![endif]>1742(1)

170Ak1742(1) Most Cited Cases

 

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.

 

[5] Imperial Criminal Procedure <![if !vml]><![endif]>665(1)

101k665(1) Most Cited Cases

 

Dismissal of charge of blasphemy against 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 AKing 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.

 

[5] Personal jurisdiction <![if !vml]><![endif]>79

170Bk79 Most Cited Cases

 

Roman statute permitting the general exercise of personal jurisdiction 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 measure of …

 

 

[Ronly Bonly Jones]

Geez. you can find ANYTHING on Westlaw these days.