Petition responses discussion

B

Byardkuria

TNPer
Hers - dismissed by motion of the complainant. Easy enough.


Cathyy - denied, because the actions that were to be prevented are already illegal. To make an extreme example, this is not unlike a court order preventing someone from robbing a bank. There is no magical shield created by an injunction, so tacking a contempt citation onto the criminal penalty that would be faced is basically two punishments for one act, which violates Art 1 Sec VI of the Constitution.


Feel free to discuss amongst yourselves.
 
Thank you for your ruling. Although you have dismissed my request it seems you have confirmed my assumption that should Hersfold take the actions he has indicated he may, that those actions would be illegal.

EDIT: Grammar
 
Byardkuria:
Cathyy - denied, because the actions that were to be prevented are already illegal.  To make an extreme example, this is not unlike a court order preventing someone from robbing a bank.    There is no magical shield created by an injunction, so tacking a contempt citation onto the criminal penalty that would be faced is basically two punishments for one act, which violates Art 1 Sec VI of the Constitution.
Click to expand...
*Hersfold is mildly confused, but figures he shouldn't argue. Edit: After reading the more official thing, I think I get it.

Thank you for your time.
 
I'm confused, but I'll ask the question.

If, in the course of moderation of Insane Power, his IP address is banned from this forum and Cathyy is therefore unable to access this forum because she shares the same IP address, will the Administrators of this forum have committed a crime?
 
Former English Colony:
I'm confused, but I'll ask the question.

If, in the course of moderation of Insane Power, his IP address is banned from this forum and Cathyy is therefore unable to access this forum because she shares the same IP address, will the Administrators of this forum have committed a crime?
Click to expand...
If a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?

:P

The inference I'm getting is that the court believes such an act would be a crime, and therefore does not need to implement a court order banning such action. I'm also getting a sense the court doesn't want to deal with this prickly issue right now, and really hopes it doesn't come to that... :shifty:
 
That's true.

Both of you.

The fact is, this is a VERY VERY complicated issue, and there is no way to read it that will make everyone happy. I do happen to have a belief regarding the issue. However, I have this icky feeling that the Court is going to deal with this issue formally before long.

Therefore, much like a judge does not come out (publically) and say "Heck, I think he did it" before a trial starts, I am not going to be issuing any statements on the matter at hand, and would request all members of the Court refrain as well.

I know that isn't particularly satisfying, but I'll take just over satisfying any day.
 
I have to say, reading as much as I could find on this issue, I don't understand it at all.

As a citizen, I request a synopsis of the case around the motions filed that were addressed, preferably from a neutral party if possible.
 
Am I impartial? :unsure:

Hersfold filed a petition against Fulhead Land, on the basis that FL's UN nation as specified in his application to join the RA had participated in an invasion against which the NPA was defending. This relates back to issue about how far the laws of TNP go, and if they can apply to players non-TNP nations. The court decided to deny it, I assume because it felt the laws of TNP coudn't be applied to non-TNP nations (even if they are specified on an RA application).

Following the moderation surrounding Insane Power's recent posts, Hersfold also said if his current ban on Insane Power was broken, he would resort to a complete IP ban on Insane Power. As IP and Cathyy share a connection, Cathyy filed a petition against Hersfold, on the basis that if Insane Power was IP banned, then Cathyy would be as well, and this broke the rights laid out in the constitution. In this case, the court has said that as the constitution already provides and upholds these rights, upholding the petition would effectively be penalising someone twice for a single crime.

Is that about right? :unsure:
 
About. The Court actually made no determination of law in the Hers vs. FL case, as Hers withdrew his petition.

Other than that, yuppers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top