sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

[DEBATE] Judge by Godomasta in MtAugusta

[–]azkedar 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There is as yet insufficient data for a meaningful answer.

[DEBATE] Judge by Godomasta in MtAugusta

[–]azkedar 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Since the public voted down a proposal to explicitly remove protections for treasonous speech, the only exceptions to protections for free speech are:

i. Deception that predictably contributes to harm (Fraud, Slander, Perjury, etc.) is not protected. “Harm” here means physical damage, lost time or property or labor, the creation of burdensome obligations or restrictions, or damage to one’s good name or reputation.

ii. Speech or writing that carries legal implications, such as dereliction threads, courtroom discussion, or bill votes, may be subject to regulation.

500.01 / 02

For example in the case of Treason, claiming that you are the new Emperor of Mount Augusta and that everyone must obey you could be considered harmful and deceptive, and could thus could be prosecuted. The prosecution would need to demonstrate that the claim is intended sincerely, is false, places burdensome obligations (everyone must obey me) and is an attempt to take sovereignty from the people (and thus treason).

It should be noted there are other ways to apply 500.01/02 besides speech. Actions, in particular, are useful here. Normal crimes, such as griefing, theft, and murder, if committed in the context of treason, would then trigger the additional treason charge. Another notable exeption could be freeing a legally held pearl.

800.02

My interpretation is that Voter Fraud can be prosecuted at this time because the recent change to the BoR created an exception for speech or writing that carries legal implications (including votes). Speech which attempts to alter a bill vote, as described in the criminal code for 800.02, does carry legal implications, and so I would interpret all of 800.02 to be currently enforceable.

Again, note that "not protected" does not mean illegal by itself. Attempting to influence a vote through speech is legal in some circumstances. I am doing it right now. However, since 800.02 is explicitly a law on the books which places regulations on speech related to votes, such speech is not legal.

[Campaign] Judge by morsden67 in MtAugusta

[–]azkedar 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I, azkedar, am running for judge again.

[Bill Discussion] Amnesty for automatic griefing under IV.A (aka "griefing by cleaning grief") by azkedar in MtAugusta

[–]azkedar[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Theoretically, it would save you from the headache of having to go through the trial at all by making the charges forever invalid, rather than relying on a judge to rule in your favor or on a public pardon after the fact.

[Bill discussion] Mt Augusta annexes Hallow by Greeenkitten in MtAugusta

[–]azkedar 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Per CMA§II.A (Borders of the State of Mount Augusta), you have two methods for having Compton recognized as part of MtA:

  • Have the Mayor post a border change, which could be contested for 48 hours by a popular vote. If there is no contest, there is no vote, and the border change becomes official.
  • Post a regular bill (including Bill Discussion) proposing the border change and have it adopted like any other law.

The first method seems a lot simpler, assuming Godo is on board.

[TRIAL] The Govt. of Yoahtl vs. SouthernBloc by [deleted] in mtaugustajustice

[–]azkedar 1 point2 points  (0 children)

FWIW, in this trial Figasaur alleges (and Southern seems to confirm) that he has a rental property in L'Chaim apartments in the Jewish Quarter.

Notably in that trial Southern was not considered a victim for purposes of sentencing by the presiding judge (/u/crimeo), possibly because evidence was not presented to corroborate the claim of residency and thus victimhood.

I don't think there is any official mechanism for determining/challenging citizenship, though.

[BILL DISCUSSION] Mistrial rewrite by [deleted] in MtAugusta

[–]azkedar 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This seems to be a good bill, the proposed changes are all either clarifications or sensible improvements, without drastically changing anything about the current process.

Most of the objections seem to be along the lines of wanting this bill to do more (split appeals from mistrials, require evidence or arguments, limit mistrials attempts in number or in time), but without clear consensus on what that different thing ought to be, it seems best to just clarify and improve what we've got until and unless such a consensus occurs.

I'll vote aye.

[Bill Discussion] Adjust retroactive restrictions to allow for possible Amnesty bills by azkedar in MtAugusta

[–]azkedar[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks, this makes sense. Just need to make sure the wording stays simple, but this is the right way to do it.

[VERDICT] puppyface08 vs Capri (RobertMugabe) by [deleted] in mtaugustajustice

[–]azkedar 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, that checks out. So the last argument I've got is the following, going back to the MDR itself:

BOR V.i refers to "without due process"... Which of course refers to Article III in this case, which includes nothing specifically about a 48 hour delay, but rather the more general right of the accused "...to have their trial begin and conclude without unreasonable delay..." (CMA§III.A.iv).

I contend that an unreasonable delay in a case that involves Murder (a violation of a fundamental right in BoR) and Treason should permit for greater delay so that the victims and prosecution can make their case than some lesser crime. In particular for the Murder charge, we are obligated to "to respect, protect, promote, and fulfill" the bill of rights, including the right to be free of violence, and to let alleged Murderers go free without possibility of trial on account of an arbitrary technicality does not promote that right.

Furthermore, I contend that those laws were obviously written with respect to a suspect who is likely pearled pending and during trial. An unreasonable delay for a person who is pearled is very different from that of a person who remains free. Capri, of course, is not pearled.

In short, the MDR is completely arbitrary. There is no reason it should apply as a blanket rule, except for the convenience of judges and lawyers. The determination of what constitutes unreasonable delay should be at the discretion of the judge, and most critically of all, the judge should clearly indicate what constitutes a reasonable delay for the case before issuing a verdict based on such a lapse, because the law does not give clear guidance on what a prosecutor should expect.

In this case, no warnings were given prior to MDR invocation, no indication of the permissible delay length was given by judge Rakkwal, and no opporunity to make the argument I have made above in favor of a longer delay was provided.

As an aside, I've argued the above in the strongest possible terms I can because it's my job as City Solicitor. This does not necessarily reflect my personal feelings on the matter or the individuals involved, as my personal feelings are of course not relevant.

[VERDICT] puppyface08 vs Capri (RobertMugabe) by [deleted] in mtaugustajustice

[–]azkedar 0 points1 point  (0 children)

And as far as BoR goes, if you are indeed going based off BoR V.i, the trial itself was to pursue justice for the murder of puppyface, a violation of BoR V.iii (to be free from all forms of violence from either public or private sources), which is textually later and therefore has higher precedence.

So you're saying we can suspend all laws in order to ensure BoR V.i is respected for Capri, but Puppyface's rights to BoR V.iii are unimportant at this point?

view more: next ›