Leges sine moribus vanae: The Term 5 Yasutan Supreme Court

[donsig]

Sorry I wasn't clearer. It's not, I'm afraid. Nobody gets his 36 hours.

So, to clarify, you are ruling that once the trial thread is opened, no one other than the accused or public defender can post in the thread for 36 hours?

Nobody's motion had an additional aspect - the next step can't be undertaken until 60 hours after discussion has died down instead of 48 hours. Are you also voting in favor of this?

 

[Nobody]

Dont worry don, it probably wont take me 36 hours to post. Its just at the time Joe hadn't been replying to my pms and i was worried we wouldnt speak in time.

i dont want to irritate you or anyone else, but 12 hours either side isnt really much when you consider things, we are talking about joes freedom. If i hadnt said to extend the trial lenght to 60 days then but extending the defense period to 36 i would have been robbing you 12 hours. In reality we will probably have posted within the first 24 and it wont matter.

and about the sentencing edits, dont worry too much about them, we wont be seeing them.

(if you get bored donsig, just go read the new harry potter when it comes out in about 30 hours)

 

[donsig]

Dont worry don, it probably wont take me 36 hours to post. Its just at the time Joe hadn't been replying to my pms and i was worried we wouldnt speak in time.

i dont want to irritate you or anyone else, but 12 hours either side isnt really much when you consider things, we are talking about joes freedom. If i hadnt said to extend the trial lenght to 60 days then but extending the defense period to 36 i would have been robbing you 12 hours. In reality we will probably have posted within the first 24 and it wont matter.

and about the sentencing edits, dont worry too much about them, we wont be seeing them.

(if you get bored donsig, just go read the new harry potter when it comes out in about 30 hours)

OK. Looks like I was the one guilty of mis-interpreting the judicial procedures. Once the accused and public defender post in the trial thread then anyone else can. So the 24/36 hour rule does not mean we all have to wait that long (unless the accused and PD don't post). I do have a formal question for the judicairy on this: Are the judicial procedures being officially changed to read:

Trial
The Judge Advocate will create a thread for the trial in the Citizen's forum. This initial post should contain the specific violations and the evidence for those accusations. The next two posts are reserved for the citizen accused and the Public Defender - until they post, or 36 hours from the initial post, no other citizen may post in the thread. All citizens are encouraged to post in this thread, but are reminded to respect the rights of all citizens.

Once at least 60 hours have passed, and discussion has petered out, the Chief Justice can declare the discussion closed, and post a Trial poll.

The Trial poll will be a private poll, with the options Innocent, Guilty and Abstain. It will run for 48 hours. The option receiving the most votes will determine the result. In the event of a tie, the members of the Judiciary will determine the result by posting clear opinions in the Trial thread.

If so I suggest a further clarification: Once at least 60 hours have passed from the opening of the trial thread, and discussion has petered out, the Chief Justice can declare the discussion closed, and post a Trial poll.

BTW, why the melodramatics Nobody? We are not talking about joes freedom here. It's kinda funny though how 12 hours isn't supposed to matter here but it means everything when it comes to playing that save.

 

[ori]

:

If so I suggest a further clarification: Once at least 60 hours have passed from the opening of the trial thread, and discussion has petered out, the Chief Justice can declare the discussion closed, and post a Trial poll.

I would support this - although to be honest, I already understand it that way...

 

[Lockesdonkey]

If so I suggest a further clarification: Once at least 60 hours have passed from the opening of the trial thread, and discussion has petered out, the Chief Justice can declare the discussion closed, and post a Trial poll.

I would support this - although to be honest, I already understand it that way...

Fiat.

Tenchar.

 

[Nobody]

BTW, why the melodramatics Nobody? We are not talking about joes freedom here. It's kinda funny though how 12 hours isn't supposed to matter here but it means everything when it comes to playing that save.

we dont have these things often, so dont mind me if i get a little in the character, i see myself as young Jake Brigance in a time to kill and you the evil DA Rufus Buckley, joe (carl lee) is on trial for his life and i will have to save the day. "Yes i think he deserves to play! and i hope he Plays it WELL!"

(if you aint seen the movie it wont make much sense)

 

[DaveShack]

OK. Looks like I was the one guilty of mis-interpreting the judicial procedures. Once the accused and public defender post in the trial thread then anyone else can. So the 24/36 hour rule does not mean we all have to wait that long (unless the accused and PD don't post). I do have a formal question for the judicairy on this: Are the judicial procedures being officially changed to read:

Deja vu! Seems I remember a time when someone mistakenly thought that the President had to wait 72 hours to make an appointment, even if someone eligible to be appointed had applied for the job immediately.

Sorry, couldn't resist that one.

It would be helpful if the discussion thread could be opened, so that the defense may post.

I'm willing to offer my services as a mediator in this matter. Perhaps a settlement can be reached.

 

[Nobody]

I'm willing to offer my services as a mediator in this matter. Perhaps a settlement can be reached.

no way, there will be no settlement, the dye is cast. We will have a trial, and i will win, and donsig will look the fool.

 

[donsig]

Deja vu! Seems I remember a time when someone mistakenly thought that the President had to wait 72 hours to make an appointment, even if someone eligible to be appointed had applied for the job immediately.

Sorry, couldn't resist that one.

No problem my friend. At least I'm consistent in trying to give all DG participants time to participate, unlike Joe Harker and this judiciary.

@Nobody: Remember the old song: everybody plays the fool sometimes, there's no exception to the rule.

 

[ori]

The requested investigation has just started. Please adhere to the procedural rules for this one:
The People vs. Joe Harker

 

[Provolution]

The requested investigation has just started. Please adhere to the procedural rules for this one:
The People vs. Joe Harker

Sounds like a 2003 movie made by Tom Hanks, a sort of 15 million USD budget drama with elements of morals and societal questions.

But then again, being tough on Joe Harker on his first try is a bit unfair.
I swamped him with instructions to shape up the military, and there was an underbrush of very legally difficult people.

Not the kind of maiden voyage you wish even your worst enemy.

Since I think Joe Harker is a good buddy, no need to go too far here.

 

[Nobody]

Sounds like a 2003 movie made by Tom Hanks, a sort of 15 million USD budget drama with elements of morals and societal questions.

But then again, being tough on Joe Harker on his first try is a bit unfair.
I swamped him with instructions to shape up the military, and there was an underbrush of very legally difficult people.

Not the kind of maiden voyage you wish even your worst enemy.

Since I think Joe Harker is a good buddy, no need to go too far here.

Also a great book, its sitting in my toilet right now.

 

[Lockesdonkey]

@ Provolution:

The People vs. the defendant is standard nomenclature for criminal cases at the state level in the United States. The People is usually an abbreviated form of the People of [State], so it would be The People of the State of California vs. John Doe, the People of the State of Michigan vs. Richard Roe, the people of the State of New York vs. Jane Braganza, the People of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts vs. Richard Gavin, etc., etc., etc. Roughly equivalent to The Crown or Regina or Rex in Commonwealth Realm terminology.

 

[Methos]

Also a great book, its sitting in my toilet right now.

Even though that sounds bad, any book found next to a person toilet more than likely is a very good book! We practically have a library in there.

Heads to the courtroom.

 

[ori]

Without wanting to pressure the honorable Chief Justice too much - if this court is to bring the current investigation to an end a poll would have to be started soon.

Also in light of the discussion in the current investigation's thread I do feel that quite a sizable number of citizens do want to distinguish between the question whether a law was broken (i.e. guilty or not guilty) and the question whether or not a punishment is in order.
I therefore repeat my notion to add a "no punishment" option to a putative punishment poll and ask this court to again rule on this now so that citizens can make this distinction if they want to.

 

[dutchfire]

By the way, what does "Leges sine moribus vanae" mean exactly? Something like "Laws without norms (are) vain"?

 

[Methos]

From my understanding of the laws, first we need to have a 'jury' poll. If he is found guilty, than sentencing is decided.

 

[ori]

From my understanding of the laws, first we need to have a 'jury' poll. If he is found guilty, than sentencing is decided.

This is correct, however I read some opinions that people would vote not-guilty in order to avoid punishment. I believed before starting this investigation and still do that guilty or not guilty should not be decided on whether one thinks that a punishment is necessary.
However this option can only be added by unanimous decision of the court.

 

[dutchfire]

How can we vote without knowing for sure what the implications for each option are? If a poll like that turned up about an in-game issue, it would be shot down directly.

 

[Methos]

however I read some opinions that people would vote not-guilty in order to avoid punishment.

The point of the trial is on whether or not the law was broken, not whether or not someone should be punished.