Sun, 26 Sep 2010 05:13:14 -0500WeeblyTue, 01 Jun 2010 20:24:55 -0500http://titulianationalcourthouse.weebly.com/1/post/2010/06/writ-of-mandamus.htmlWrit of Mandamus and Order to Cease and Desist

BE IT KNOWN THAT:

On the date of June 1, 2010, The General Court of Titulia propogates this Writ of Mandamus on behalf of the People of Titulia, in response to a request by the President of the Republic, and to the EDITORS OF THE TITULIA POST.

To wit, the Legislature of the Republic of Titulia passed a proposition ensuring every citizen the right to comment upon blogs published in The Titulia Post, and Admin agreed to the implementation of said proposition in Change Request 10/2010. 

Moreover, EDITORS OF THE TITULIA POST continue to publish blog articles by authors who have banned citizens from commenting upon their published blog articles, thus rendering null the rights of the citizenry as enacted by the Legislature and confirmed by Admin.

Therefore, the General Court orders that the EDITORS OF THE TITULIA POST cease and desist publication of any person's articles who has banned the citizenry from commenting upon those articles.

Videlicet, the Executive Office has requested that this order be applied to the citizen, Tom Norton, and the General Court so orders the EDITORS OF THE TITULIA POST to comply with the laws of Titulia and cease to publish said citizen's blogs.

Failure to abide this WRIT will result in possible fines, pillory terms, or temporary banishment by the General Court in addition to whatever action the Executive Office takes as the direct supervisor of the EDITORS OF THE TITULIA POST.

Dixi.

Colonel
Chief Justice]]>Sat, 06 Mar 2010 23:10:07 -0500http://titulianationalcourthouse.weebly.com/1/post/2010/03/titulia-v-tom-norton-10gc00010.htmlMarch 6, 2010- Titulia v. Tom Norton  10GC00010
Rendered by: Chief Justice Colonel, Associate Justices Boyd X. Biggs and Scud69

Associate Justice Scud69 for the majority: 

Facts: 
The facts of this case are clearly outlined in the decision and resultant orders of case #9GC00005.

Reasoning:
The G.C. finds the arguments of the Justice Department quite persuasive and satisfactory. The Defendant has no qualified defense except the mitigation of sentence in reference to his apology and his previous work in this Republic and economic losses suffered.

It is perfectly clear that the Defendant was found guilty of a criminal offence for which this court and the Admin ordered a one week ban. Before fleeing he was found in contempt of court in addition to the criminal guilty finding. He remained away from the Republic for quite some time and only returned quite recently. He made no attempt to return soon after his departure.

The Justice Department has asked to extend the original court order by one week for a total of two weeks of being banned from this Republic. The defendant asks this to be mitigated based on the economic losses already suffered by him. This Court does not find this to be a mitigating factor. The accused willingly and with full intent of his own free thought, even though emotional at the time, pressed the emigrate button which then resulted in his economic losses. The Defendant, if he had not chosen to emigrate and instead had chosen to stay and be banned would have had access to those resources after the ban. There is also no real evidence to show that those resources are unrecoverable. There should be no leniency given by this Court for self imposed hardship , as the accused damaged himself through his own action. The defense of ‘emotional act’ also has no bearing, as the accused had weeks to compose himself and return, but he elected not to. Emotions cannot be a mitigating factor in this case.

The Court must find that the guilty party fled with intent to either avoid sanction or with purpose to obstruct or defeat justice. This is the only reasonable conclusion available to the Court.  The Defendant, however, has preformed services for this Republic in the past and for that service the Court will exercise some leniency and order a ban of 2 weeks less a day for a total of 13 days.

Conclusion:
The accused is to be banned for 13 days.]]>Mon, 08 Feb 2010 10:53:17 -0500http://titulianationalcourthouse.weebly.com/1/post/2010/02/regarding-the-case-of-titulia-v-merry-10gc00005.htmlFrom the Chief Justice of the General Court regarding the case of Titulia v. Merry 10GC00005:

Precedent states that a party displeased with the Court's decision has five   (5) days to submit an appeal.  At the time of the hearing, the Defendant's attorney announced an intent to appeal.  Upon contacting the Defendant's attorney, the Court was informed that a formal appeal would be filed within 48 hours.  Even though this time frame would have been beyond the normal period required, the Court acquiesced to the request.  That 48 hour period is at an end.  No appeal has been filed with this Court; therefore, the appellate window has closed on the matter.  Furthermore, this bars the Defendant's attorney from filing appeal with any higher Court because Defendant has failed to follow the prescribed procedure for appellate review.

Defendant is ordered to pay the T$1000 fine to the government immediately.  Failure to do so within 24 hours will result in further action by the Court.
]]>Tue, 02 Feb 2010 21:40:33 -0500http://titulianationalcourthouse.weebly.com/1/post/2010/02/titulia-v-owenmerry-10gc00005.htmlFeb. 2, 2010- Titulia v. OwenMerry  10GC00005
Rendered by: Chief Justice Colonel, Associate Justices Boyd X. Biggs and Scud69

Chief Justice Colonel for the majority: 

Facts:

On January 22, 2010 at 2032GMT, OwenMerry posted a comment for the public’s consumption in the Candidates’ Debates Forum of the republic.  He stated:

“There's two problems i have with the situation.

Colonel is being a dickhead about this. He directed me to the court website, which gives the option to file a criminal complaint. If ordinary citizens cant file criminal complaints, then why the fuck is it an option? Colonel was being abusive to me the court, and I wont have any of it. He's a fucking cunt for wasting my time. He should have said at the start that I was bring it to the attention of the AC instead of ignoring the fact the court website says I can file a criminal complaint.

The other thing is that nobody should have to hire a lawyer to bring a criminal case to court.  All citizens should have the equal chance to justice. No matter what is in their bank account. That fucking cunt mightnt care about my "egalitarian views", but fuck him and the Linardists. The general courts were brought in under Dr.manhaton without any warning to the rest of us. I have siad from day one that this unquestionable system will lead to abuse, and I was right.


Greg the slimey fucking turd still hasnt put the RNC Daily on the News stand or the other private medias. He is using his government powers to diminish the freespeech of the oppostion.

He has put his own private business in the front page. Why am I the only with a problem with that? This is the Linardist way! They abuse every power they get.

Dr.manhaton as an attorney genral now has a compiled version of the events and fresh links to eveidence. Is he pursueing it? No. He set up an unquestionable authority and he is a Linardist. If he isnt looking into the situation, its proof the all he wants is power and wealth for the boys.

I could had a Republican option, but no. We have been denied a candidate and the court and the AC dont give a shit because it profits them. Corrupt scum.” (sic)

The Department of Justice filed complaint against OwenMerry on January 24, 2010 for breach of Titulia’s Terms and Conditions citing the expressed ban on “excessive profanity.” 
Analysis:

 Before entering into the legal analysis of the specific crime, the Court will take the opportunity to discuss three legal issues raised by the Defendant’s counsel before and during the trial.  These issues are the discovery request, the attempted use of materials not in the Defendant’s submissions during the trial, accusations made at unnamed members of the Court, and the Court’s jurisdiction over this matter.   

First, the materials that Mr. McVicker requested in his Motion for Discovery fell under the Doctrine of Attorney Work Product.  The only materials due another attorney in the preparation of a defense are those materials that are central and necessary for developing that defense.  These materials must be evidence that the defense may submit to the Court to provide a reasonable doubt to the Court.  Materials gathered by the plaintiff in an effort to ascertain the truth before proceeding with a claim do not fall under this category.  They represent the labor of the opposing counsel and are not discoverable.  In this matter, Mr. McVicker had all of the necessary facts available to him to develop a defense. 

Second, defense counsel attempted to use materials and facts that were not found in his submissions to the Court.  This is not permitted in the current system because time must be provided by opposing counsel to examine and consider counterarguments to the evidence and arguments.  An exception to such a rule would be materials that were undiscoverable at the time submission was made but came to light thereafter.  Even in that instance, the Court would need proof as to why the materials were hidden and then discovered. 

Third, the Court will never countenance accusations made toward its members during the course of a trial.  In the present case, the issue was whether OwenMerry had violated the Terms and Conditions of the site.  There was no room for discussion as to whether others had ever committed a crime.  In fact, if others had committed a crime, then it was for the citizens to alert the Attorney General of the crime and allow the Department of Justice to review the matter. 

Fourth, Defense counsel argued that the General Court had no jurisdiction over the matter because Admin should adjudicate matters dealing with the Terms and Conditions and that should the Court find against the accused, the Court would breach his rights in the Bill of Rights.  Subsequently, Defense counsel agreed that Admin had ceded jurisdiction of matters of the first instance to the General Court with regard to breaches of the Terms and Conditions.  Then, Defense counsel agreed that the Terms and Conditions superseded the Bill of Rights.  Thus, the Court concludes that it has jurisdiction to hear this matter and bring judgment upon it. 

Having discussed these ancillary matters, the Court will now turn to the legal issues of the case.  Crimes consist of two portions: the actus reus and the mens rea.  In other words, one must have intent to commit the crime and then actually commit the crime.  During the trial, the accused was offered opportunity to testify on his own behalf, which his counsel refused.  When asked whether it was indeed OwenMerry who had said these things, Defendant’s counsel admitted that the accused had said them.  Thus, the actus reus was proven.  Without question from the Court, Defendant’s counsel offered that the accused had made the statements as a political speech and with purpose.  Thus, the mens rea was proven.  Thus, both portions of the crime were admitted to be true by the accused’s own counsel. 

The Court would like to take the opportunity to examine two issues attached to this examination: whether the speech was political speech and thus protected and whether the speech was excessive.  Madame Justice Scud69 closely examined the accused’s counsel as to whether the speech were political in nature.  She asked specifically how the use of the phrase “fucking cunt” could be construed as a political statement.  Defendant’s counsel failed to answer that question.  The Court will.  In order for speech to be political, it must be directed at a governmental body or position, not at an individual.  As the quoted material above demonstrates, much of Mr. Merry’s tirade was directed at individuals and consisted of ad hominem attacks.  Jurisprudence has previously allowed for profanity to be used in the expression of political views.  In particular, the American courts, world renowned for their defense of free speech, allowed garments that used profanity when it protested a war but not when it was ad hominem against a particular individual.  So, had the accused directed his diatribe at the Court or Liberty House, he would have been protected.  In this case, he directed it at individuals and is not. 

Second, the Court will examine the issue of what is considered “excessive.”  The Attorney General proposed that Court apply a reasonable person standard.  The Court agrees.  Should the average person find the language to be outside the realm of normal discourse for Titulia and should the speech be qualitatively and quantitatively offensive to the average Titutlian, then it will be deemed “excessive.”  There is little doubt that the excerpt above reaches both of these levels.  While there may be a minority of Titulians who are from a culture that ignores profanity, the average citizen finds this quantity and quality of profanity to be excessive and offensive.  To use Justice Potter Stewart of the United States Supreme Court’s comment on obscenity, “I know it when I see it.”  So too does this Court know excessive profanity when it sees it. 

Verdict:
The Court finds OwenMerry to be guilty of breaking the Terms and Conditions of Titulia by using excessive profanity in a public sphere.  He is ordered to pay T$1000 to the government of Titulia for his offense.]]>Fri, 08 Jan 2010 15:26:15 -0500http://titulianationalcourthouse.weebly.com/1/post/2010/01/report-of-the-special-prosecutor.htmlPursuant the findings of Mr. Matthews below, the matter is resolved to the Court's satisfaction.  The Court thanks Mr. Matthews for his service and discharges him of his duties.

Colonel
Chief Justice

REPORT OF INVESTIGATION BY THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR
Section 3(c) Department of Justice Act 2009


TO: Hon Colonel CJ
COPY: Clerk of the Court

REPORT IN CASE # 10GC00001

REFERENCE:

James Inglis, Bastet Apollo and Eleanor Rigby

SPECIAL PROSECUTOR:

James Joseph Matthews
(Appointed by the General Court of Titulia)


Pursuant to the order of the General Court of Titulia and empowered by the Department of Justice Act, I have been given the charge of Special Prosecutor on behalf of the Government of Titulia in the following matter.


TERMS OF REFERENCE OF THE INVESTIGATION:

That JAMES INGLIS, BASTET APOLLO and ELEANOR RIGBY (the 'Parties') may separately or collectively be MULTIPLE ACCOUNTS for use in the Republic of Titulia.


NATURE OF PRIVILEGE AND STANDING OF SPECIAL PROSECUTOR:

I, James Joseph Matthews, am a registered legal practitioner in the Republic of Titulia. I have been appointed as Special Prosecutor by the General Court of Titulia.


PROCEDURE:

The President of the Republic of Titulia, Mr. Gregory Hock, has asked that the General Court of Titulia investigate and make all reasonable enquiries to determine if the allegations made by the Government are true.


CONDUCT OF INVESTIGATION:

I issued ONE subpoena to each of the subjects of this case. The subpoena was as follows:

Name of citizen:
Email address used to register with titulia.com:
Geographical location:

(For example: Sydney, Australia or Manchester, England etc).

If it is the desire of 'the Parties' in this matter, you may also include any information you feel pertinent to this investigation *.


NOTES:

In the one day that has passed, I have sworn an affidavit to the Court that service has been confirm from Titulia mail records (Attached 'Exhibit A' which has been previously submitted to the Court). The Clerk has informed me that an application for extension of time to comply has been received from Mr. Inglis on behalf of himself and Bastet Apollo.

To date, not one of the parties to the subpoena have given evidence.


LINE OF ENQUIRY WITH THE ADMINISTRATOR:

I have also been communicating with Admin and examined them on a number of questions. I first tender 'Exhibit B' which is one communication from the Admin.


AdminTo: James Matthews  ;  Subject: Re: Investigation into Multiple AccountsDate: Jan 08, 2010 - 20:34Message text:

We have no evidence to support that these citizens are coming from the same computer.Admin

-----------------------------------------------------


SUBMISSION TO THE COURT (FINDING OF COLLECTIVE USE OF MULTIPLE ACCOUNTS):

Based on Admin's response, I am legally satisfied that the accounts of James Inglis, Bastet Apollo and Eleanor Rigby do not originate from the same computer. If the Court might so indulge, that does not necessarily prove that the subjects have not procured the use of other computers or devices for the purpose of manipulating the game.

However, I cannot bring a case against them on the strict parameters of 'one machine, one account' as defined. On that basis, I submit there is no case to answer on that particular point of the investigation.


SUBMISSION TO THE COURT (FINDING OF USE OF OTHER MULTIPLE ACCOUNTS):

The focus of my role as Special Prosecutor in this case is to also investigate the subjects singularly within my terms of reference pertaining to whether or not they have multiple accounts at all. On this point of reference, the case takes a turn of interest.


I tender 'Exhibit C' to the Court, which are an exchange of numerous communications with Admin.

To: Admin  ;  Subject: Re: Investigation into Multiple AccountsDate: Jan 08, 2010 - 23:44Message text:

*Note: No reply received to this message at the time of filing the report. Due to the tender of other evidence in this exchange, it is not required as the establishment of potential culpability has been met re: Subject(s) 'X'.

Dear Admin,

So, please let me understand this as I'm not familiar with previous action you have taken. Are you saying that one of these accounts may have used a secondary account and the voting rights of that secondary account has already been seen to?

I am trying to work within the legal parameters of your situation and I do sympathise. At this point, what I'm trying to do is find reasonable grounds to argue that a case exists without asking you something that is unreasonable as well as upholds the credibility of my conduct in this case.

I cannot speak to the General Court's decision as that is beyond my charge. But the President has asked the Court to discover whether multiple accounts have been used and named the subjects of this investigation in the line of enquiry.

To finalise this chain of evidence, I ask you one final question:

Would I be wrong in submitting to the Court that one of the subjects of this investigation has previously used a secondary account?



-----------------------------------------------------

The real issue is this: Even if we have reasonable proof that more than one citizens used the same computer at one time, this still does not prove that they are the same real person. It raises a legitimate suspicion, and upon this suspicion we automatically prohibit such groups of citizens to participate the same vote or election.Other than this, we do not see what we could do. As a matter of fact, once voting fraud is eliminated, we do not see what harm is really done by such occurrences.As to you suggestion, saying ""there may be grounds for further inquiry" amounts to saying yes, so we are still at the original legal question.-----------------------------------------------------
Dear Admin,

As a legal practitioner, I offer you an option that would both assist the investigation and not place you in a position where jurisdictional laws could be violated.

If you indicate to me that "there may be grounds for further inquiry", I will submit to the Court that upon contact with you there are such grounds and that privacy reasons prohibit further investigation on a civilian basis.

As such, I would further move that the Court should halt their investigation and it should be referred to the Admin.

As indicated, could there be grounds for further inquiry?

Sincerely,
James Matthews
Special Prosecutor
Case #10GC00001

-----------------------------------------------------

We still need to find out whether or not it would be a real world violation of privacy laws to disclose such information to third parties such as yourself. We are afraid it would be, but still investigating. Admin


-----------------------------------------------------


SUMMARY OF INVESTIGATION:


It is of my reasonable belief that in one or potentially any of the subject's scenarios there may be a case to answer. However, as we now transcend from the fantasy 'game' laws into the real life statute of privacy, I submit to the Court that as civilians the Government does not have the standing or qualification to investigate further.

Ergo, I submit my recommendation to the Court that the investigation into James Inglis, Bastet Apollo and Eleanor Rigby is temporarily deferred on the grounds of reaching the limit to our game jurisdiction and the matter be referred to Admin for further action. When Admin has completed their own investigation into the matter, now without the predicament of breaching the statute of privacy, the Court should be able to hear the matter sua sponte on the finding of Admin.

I remain of service to the Court in this matter and officially tender the report of my findings. If it is the Government's desire for me to prosecute the case, so shall it be.


FINDINGS OF INVESTIGATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE COURT:


1. There is no case to answer that James Inglis, Bastet Apollo and Eleanor Rigby are multiple accounts of the same computer or device.

2. There is a case to answer in the matter of 'X' of the subjects to this investigation to have used other accounts.

3. Recommendation for Finding #2 to be referred to Admin due to protection of the statute of privacy.

4. While Admin may argue that the violation has been discovered, it is my recommendation that the Admin be allowed to investigate to discover as an investigatory body as to prevent breach of real world law.

5. Court to hear case in Titulia's civil jurisdiction based on Admin's findings.


Those are my official findings in this matter. Good evening, Mr. Justice.


James J. Matthews
Special Prosecutor
Case # 10GC00001]]>