Unibot v. Unibot Docket

unibot

unibot

TNPer
Since it is completely noncontradictory for Blue Wolf to support citizens being able to wear TNP flags on the basis of the Freedom of Expression, but not support people who wish to wear TNP's crest. I have taken it upon myself to shockingly violate the Legal Code on the basis that us lowly citizens may have the freedom to fly TNP's crests (as if the flag wasn't good enough for us peasants) *chuckles* I mean what nonsense is that -- first purple font, now the region's official crest, what do people think a Right to Freedom of Expression is? A right to express yourself freely? Bah, that's ludicrous.

I hereby lodge a compliant of Section 7.1.4 against myself.

Criminal Complaints

Complainant: Unibot
vs.
Defendant: Unibot​

Date of Filing: November 26, 2012

Description of charges: The defendant was flying The North Pacific Coat of Arms on his nation, "Unibot III".
Summary of charges: Unauthorized Use of The North Pacific Coat of Arms.
Legal Citations: Sct. 7.1.4.
Alternative courts: No.
Plea Bargain: No.
 
For future reference,

TNP.png
 
Belschaft:
Unibot, please do not attempt to waste the courts time.
Click to expand...
I see absolutely no time wasted on an important issue of civil rights. You and the other justices recently took the Freedom of Expression, ripped it up, spit it out and then rearranged the remaining pieces of the clause to say:

2. Each Nation's rights to free [bgcolor=#000]speech, free press, and the free expression of religion shall not be infringed, and shall be encouraged, by the [/bgcolor] governmental [bgcolor=#000]authorities of the region. Each Nation has the right to assemble, and to petition the governmental authorities of the region, including the WA Delegate, for the redress of [/bgcolor] grievances [bgcolor=#000]. The governmental authorities of the region shall act only [/bgcolor] in the best interests of the Region [bgcolor=#000], as permitted and limited under the Constitution[/bgcolor] shall not be infringed.

Then you took this rearranged jumble of words and decided this was the best way to interpret Clause Two, because you had runny eggs for breakfast. Despite this thoroughly unconvincing argument, it makes no sense to argue one thing that is nearly identical to the other thing is a rightful expression, but the other is not rightful. They're both expressions and free speech that demonstrates a love of region and patriotism. We're a region that believes in liberty and I don't think it should be curtailed because someone thinks I might impersonate the region using a Coat of Arms flag .. all the while I can fly the Region Flag all I want -- that ludicrous, it's either both or not at all, the former would be outrageously illiberal, the latter is downright illogical.

So yes, I will absolutely "waste" the courts time. I was under the impression that the court was here to serve the Bill of Rights.
 
The duty of the court is to interpret, not make, the law. The Legal Code is abundantly clear upon this point, and if you disagree with it I suggest you put forward a motion to amend it in the assembly.
 
Belschaft:
The duty of the court is to interpret, not make, the law. The Legal Code is abundantly clear upon this point, and if you disagree with it I suggest you put forward a motion to amend it in the assembly.
Click to expand...
The Legal Code is -quite- clear, the Bill of Rights however is also -quite- clear -- and they conflict, your Honour. When the Legal Code and the Bill of Rights conflict, the winner of this contest ought to be the Bill of Rights. You never explained your reasoning behind the lack of conflict, nor is it possible in logic why the Bill of Rights would protect a flag but not protect a coat of arms that is nearly identical, or alternatively, why visible demonstrations of regional pride would be reasonable restrictions of the Freedom of Expression that are somehow magically authorized under the Bill of Rights.

The duty of the court is indeed to interpret laws, not make them up. A duty you chose to skip in favor of going to pub, then throwing up a ruling for us all to read the next day, dear Justices.
 
unibot:
Belschaft:
The duty of the court is to interpret, not make, the law. The Legal Code is abundantly clear upon this point, and if you disagree with it I suggest you put forward a motion to amend it in the assembly.
Click to expand...
The Legal Code is -quite- clear, the Bill of Rights however is also -quite- clear -- and they conflict, your Honour. When the Legal Code and the Bill of Rights conflict, the winner of this contest ought to be the Bill of Rights. You never explained your reasoning behind the lack of conflict, nor is it possible in logic why the Bill of Rights would protect a flag but not protect a coat of arms that is nearly identical, or alternatively, why visible demonstrations of regional pride would be reasonable restrictions of the Freedom of Expression that are somehow magically authorized under the Bill of Rights.

The duty of the court is indeed to interpret laws, not make them up. A duty you chose to skip in favor of going to pub, then throwing up a ruling for us all to read the next day, dear Justices.
Click to expand...
I invite you to identify what right guaranteed by the BoR is contradicted by the Legal Code's prohibition of the misuse of the Coat of Arms.
 
Unibot,

This seems like less of a complaint filing and more you are surrendering yourself because you are in violation of the section you have cited per an earlier court ruling. In fact, in your initial post you state that you are willfully disregarding the court's ruling as a form of expression.

I do not believe there is anything wrong with nation's turning themselves in for crimes committed, but there does not seem to be a need to have a trial here.
 
Belschaft:
unibot:
Belschaft:
The duty of the court is to interpret, not make, the law. The Legal Code is abundantly clear upon this point, and if you disagree with it I suggest you put forward a motion to amend it in the assembly.
Click to expand...
The Legal Code is -quite- clear, the Bill of Rights however is also -quite- clear -- and they conflict, your Honour. When the Legal Code and the Bill of Rights conflict, the winner of this contest ought to be the Bill of Rights. You never explained your reasoning behind the lack of conflict, nor is it possible in logic why the Bill of Rights would protect a flag but not protect a coat of arms that is nearly identical, or alternatively, why visible demonstrations of regional pride would be reasonable restrictions of the Freedom of Expression that are somehow magically authorized under the Bill of Rights.

The duty of the court is indeed to interpret laws, not make them up. A duty you chose to skip in favor of going to pub, then throwing up a ruling for us all to read the next day, dear Justices.
Click to expand...
I invite you to identify what right guaranteed by the BoR is contradicted by the Legal Code's prohibition of the misuse of the Coat of Arms.
Click to expand...
Sct. 2.

This seems like less of a complaint filing and more you are surrendering yourself because you are in violation of the section you have cited per an earlier court ruling. In fact, in your initial post you state that you are willfully disregarding the court's ruling as a form of expression.

I do not believe there is anything wrong with nation's turning themselves in for crimes committed, but there does not seem to be a need to have a trial here.
Click to expand...

I report myself on the basis that I supposedly broke the law on the basis of the Legal Code, I wish to defend myself on the basis that I am in fact, not in violation of the laws of The North Pacific.

It is called civil disobedience.

Were you or were you not elected on a mandate to put everything docked to trial?
 
unibot:
Belschaft:
unibot:
Belschaft:
The duty of the court is to interpret, not make, the law. The Legal Code is abundantly clear upon this point, and if you disagree with it I suggest you put forward a motion to amend it in the assembly.
Click to expand...
The Legal Code is -quite- clear, the Bill of Rights however is also -quite- clear -- and they conflict, your Honour. When the Legal Code and the Bill of Rights conflict, the winner of this contest ought to be the Bill of Rights. You never explained your reasoning behind the lack of conflict, nor is it possible in logic why the Bill of Rights would protect a flag but not protect a coat of arms that is nearly identical, or alternatively, why visible demonstrations of regional pride would be reasonable restrictions of the Freedom of Expression that are somehow magically authorized under the Bill of Rights.

The duty of the court is indeed to interpret laws, not make them up. A duty you chose to skip in favor of going to pub, then throwing up a ruling for us all to read the next day, dear Justices.
Click to expand...
I invite you to identify what right guaranteed by the BoR is contradicted by the Legal Code's prohibition of the misuse of the Coat of Arms.
Click to expand...
Sct. 2.
Click to expand...
I said which right, not which section. Section two guarantees the following rights;

  1. free speech
  2. free press
  3. free expression of religion
  4. to assemble
  5. to petition the governmental authorities of the region, including the WA Delegate, for the redress of grievances
Which of these rights do you believe is being contradicted?
 
You are misinterpreting the Bill of Rights. The BoR states nations have the freedom of speech, press, and freedom of expression of religion. The ruling of the Court clarifies that the stipulation of the legal code on the Coat of Arms only applies to the Coat f Arms and that it does not violate the freedom of speech, press, or expression of religion.

You argument is NOT a matter for the Court but for the RA. Please take it there.

Hile

EDIT: Bel's question is a good one.
 
unibot:
Belschaft:
unibot:
Belschaft:
The duty of the court is to interpret, not make, the law. The Legal Code is abundantly clear upon this point, and if you disagree with it I suggest you put forward a motion to amend it in the assembly.
Click to expand...
The Legal Code is -quite- clear, the Bill of Rights however is also -quite- clear -- and they conflict, your Honour. When the Legal Code and the Bill of Rights conflict, the winner of this contest ought to be the Bill of Rights. You never explained your reasoning behind the lack of conflict, nor is it possible in logic why the Bill of Rights would protect a flag but not protect a coat of arms that is nearly identical, or alternatively, why visible demonstrations of regional pride would be reasonable restrictions of the Freedom of Expression that are somehow magically authorized under the Bill of Rights.

The duty of the court is indeed to interpret laws, not make them up. A duty you chose to skip in favor of going to pub, then throwing up a ruling for us all to read the next day, dear Justices.
Click to expand...
I invite you to identify what right guaranteed by the BoR is contradicted by the Legal Code's prohibition of the misuse of the Coat of Arms.
Click to expand...
Sct. 2.

This seems like less of a complaint filing and more you are surrendering yourself because you are in violation of the section you have cited per an earlier court ruling. In fact, in your initial post you state that you are willfully disregarding the court's ruling as a form of expression.

I do not believe there is anything wrong with nation's turning themselves in for crimes committed, but there does not seem to be a need to have a trial here.
Click to expand...

I report myself on the basis that I supposedly broke the law on the basis of the Legal Code, I wish to defend myself on the basis that I am in fact, not in violation of the laws of The North Pacific.

It is called civil disobedience.

Were you or were you not elected on a mandate to put everything docked to trial?
Click to expand...
When people voluntarily turn themselves in they almost make this office moot. With the docket before us now, I should be thanking you.

I do wish to address one thing you said in your OP because I don't want you to edit it out. You said:

I have taken it upon myself to shockingly violate the Legal Code
Click to expand...

You are clearly knowingly and willfully breaking the legal code and have turned yourself in. I believe the court should indulge your complaint by agreeing with you that you have violated the legal code and you should be punished accordingly.

Additionally, you may have formalized a way for people to turn themselves in without having to go to trial.

I'll await the response from our court justices, but the attorney general's office is accepting Unibot's claims that he has violated the Legal Code and recommends that the court administer an appropriate punishment. The Office would like to also thank Unibot for his vigilance in rooting out crimes and asks the court to take this into consideration when meting out an appropriate punishment.

/straight face.
 
So you're saying that our Right to Freedom of Speech is not synonymous with the Freedom of Expression?

Bearing in mind, we cannot speak.. this is a text based game, that makes the Freedom of Speech utterly useless.

However, if this is indeed the ruling of the Court... That the Freedom of Speech is not to be extrapolated to include all form of expressions -- an extrapolation afforded by most if not all real life judiciaries when the phrase "Freedom of Speech" is used in law with no mention of "Freedom of Expression" (which is a term only included later on in new Constitutional Bill of Rights such as the 1982 Constitutional Act of Canada)....

Then why did the Court deliberately choose not to utter the significance behind this incredibly controversial ruling? Because you were worried you'd be sacked for being the first morons in robes since 1925 to not recognize Freedom of Speech as symbolic? Perhaps we do need the Regional Assembly to bring you at least to the 1960's.

You are clearly knowingly and willfully breaking the legal code and have turned yourself in. I believe the court should indulge your complaint by agreeing with you that you have violated the legal code and you should be punished accordingly.
Click to expand...

Absolutely, go right ahead.
 
Interesting you feel so strong about flags and freedom expression. I remember when you ranted on IRC about the FRA flying their flag on missions. I guess their freedom of expression did not matter.
 
Joshua:
Interesting you feel so strong about flags and freedom expression. I remember when you ranted on IRC about the FRA flying their flag on missions. I guess their freedom of expression did,not matter.
Click to expand...
That was not an exercise of Freedom of Expression, that was an exercise of the FRA Administration requiring rangers to fly the FRA Flag during missions.
 
To my knowledge no FRA ranger is penalized for not flying the flag. And the FRA as an org does have the right to freedom of expression and if they choose to have that policy then so be it. Do you claim the right to freedom of expression only when it suits your agenda?
 
Please keep all comments related to Uni's voluntary surrender in this situation. Other situations are not relevant and I'd prefer not to clutter this surrender filing with extraneous commentary.

EDIT: updated missing word.
 
Whilst, as I understand it, Unibot has confessed to the offence he has issued a complaint regarding the Court cannot issue a sentence merely upon such. Whilst in this case it would seem to be a formality charges must first be filed and approved by a justice. Once this is done, then and only then can the court accept a guilty plea and move to sentencing. If however Unibot does not then plead guilty a trial will be required.
 
I don't know, if he wants to put himself on trial in protest of some petty legal issue I say we allow it. His choice, after all, although he may not like the consequences that result.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top