Kingdoms Associated Press - London, England


The court of appeals once stood to uphold the rights of everyone in England who had felt the justice system wronged them. It started in 1454 differently than we have seen it recently. The justices had terms of only three months and only three terms in a year. Unlike now, where the justices once elected, held the position until they resigned or were removed from their position. This is probably where the start of the downfall happened. Once you sit in one spot too long, you are comfortable and then use it towards your own agenda.

Recently, people made it known that they were upset at how the now-former court of appeals has run. It brought a discussion to the house of parliament asking what the existence of it meant. The speaker then, Andrew Grey, who started the topic said, “It has been suggested that this house conduct a review of the Court of Appeals with an eye to its purpose, ability to deliver on the same, and what evolution might be appropriate to consider.”

In the vote to annul any reference to a court of appeals, an outstanding number of members showed up to vote. They reached a supermajority in a matter of two days. It continued to have a vote of 29 aye, 10 nays and 3 abstain to remove any reference to the former court of appeals in the national charters. It rendered the appeals court obsolete. They sent a copy of the vote to Monarch Andreas Sharpe, who could have vetoed the matter, but he did not. Instead, he opted to write a decree declaring that he the monarch is the "Temporary Substitute for the Court of Appeals" - the highest law of the land in any sort of case of appeals. Furthermore, he set up a task force of eleven members to look into matters. His decree states that “The Most Noble Garters’ Judicial Task Force is responsible for reviewing the historical and current mandate of the Court of Appeals and identifying recommendations to expand and solidify its role within our justice system.”

The members of parliament could have vetoed that decree but let it stand. Now they too discuss the legalities as brought by Speaker Vivienne De grey. Member Thancren from Westmorland started the conversation by saying that “Yes, the action was illegal.” He went even further to state that the 29 members who voted to nullify the charters of any coa reference were to be brought to court for treason.

“Lastly, by the National Treason Law it was treason to do this because the people who voted yes on this committed the following act:

Quote: 4. Claiming a false authority to act, instigate or approve an action on behalf of the Kingdom of England.“


Meanwhile, the king’s task force deliberate a new form of an appeals court. Whilst they argue among themselves about a new system, they have yet to touch on what the king requested, which is “identifying recommendations to expand and solidify its role within our justice system. . . . The focus is on maintaining a constructive, well-informed and expert-based discourse on where the COA is today and the potential it has to remain an effective tool of our judicial system.”

---

The discussions are both ongoing. Please go see the House of Parliament for up-to-date information or to see the task force go visit the old building of the appeals court.

---

Kallist0
England KAP
Editor in Chief
The International KAP offices is the place to find the right to respond to any KAP article and the International rules of KAP.