We are working on a brand new version of the game! If you want to stay informed, read our blog and register for our mailing list.
Bill: In Re Jarvis (CC003/2546)
Details
Submitted by[?]: Judicial Union Party
Status[?]: passed
Votes: This bill is a resolution. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: September 2548
Description[?]:
| (OOC: Well last time we dealt with contract and property law, lets move on to some criminal law. This case will be open until January 2448. If you do give a judgment, please prefix it with the name of your judge, otherwise the judgment can't be recorded. It's like the Great Chieftain elections, if you don't specify a name for your GC, then you're not in the elections. The facts of this case are based on a series of cases from around the world which had to deal in the very same matter. Will Tukarali follow the approach taken by the RL Courts? Let's find out... Number of judges (should the relevant parties choose to participate): TPP: 2 (Chancellor) RP: 2 (Minister of Justice) NUA: 2 (Opposition) JUP, JDW, TDP, TGP, GLDS, PP: 1 And remember, Court decisions may or may not be law, depending on where you come from. :D) FACTS: The plantiff, Catherine Jarvis, was a waitress in Palira, Morata Valley. Since August 2540, she has been living with the Frank Welsh, a police officer for the Morata Valley Police Force. Their relationship was a violent one. According to coworkers, Ms Jarvis' have mentioned that she would often come into work with new injuries, and Ms Jarvis was hospitalised for injuries caused by Mr Welsh three times over their relationship, in January 2543, January 2545 and August 2545. Each time she declined to press charges against him. After the second incident, police attempted to bring a case for criminal battery against Mr Welsh, but Ms Jarvis refused to allow her injuries to be presented as evidence, and it failed on summary proceedings. In October 2545, while Mr Welsh was sleeping, she took a knife from the kitchen and stabbed him twelve times in quick succession. Immediately after doing so, she called the police. The Coroner who examined the wounds found that Mr Welsh would have died before the call could be made. Ms Jarvis was then arrested. While imprisoned awaiting trial, and at the beheast of her lawyer, Ms Jarvis was interviewed by a counsellor. The counsellor said Ms Jarvis described her relationship as one where she could not leave him or seek help, and despite the common violence against her, she still wanted to remain in a relationship with him. It is accepted that Ms Jarvis suffered from battered woman's syndrome. She described the murder as one which happened "on the spur of the moment". She explains that she wished she never committed the act, but she is relieved to have him out of her life. Ms Jarvis is charged with intentional homicide. LAW: There is no statute law on this matter directly. As for punishments, the Crimes Act allows the death penalty to be applied for "terrorism, treason and crimes against mankind". PROSECUTION: The prosecution argues that Ms Jarvis intentionally committed an act of homicide against Mr Welsh, that there can be no defence of self-defence as there was no threat of immediate harm to her and no defence of provocation, as Mr Welsh was sleeping, and that at all relevant times she was in control of her actions. DEFENDANT: The defendant admits to intentionally killing the victim. The defendant argues for a defence on three alternative bases: (1) that the act was committed in self-defence and she had no other alternative available to her; (2) that the act was one committed while she was suffering from a mental illness, namely battered woman's syndrome, and she was not responsible for her actions; (3) that the defendant was temporarily insane, and not responsible for her actions; and (4) that the act was a provoked act which cannot attract a full sentence. Judges must rule on (1) whether any defences to homicide exist; (2) whether they are available to the defendant; and (3) if the defendant is guilty and has no full defence, prescribe a punishment to fit the crime. |
Proposals
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 11:43:32, March 16, 2008 CET | From | Judicial Union Party | To | Debating the In Re Jarvis (CC003/2546) |
| Message | Chieftain Hayes: The defendant has admitted to the intentional killing of Mr Welsh, and so it is unnecessary to consider this point further. The issues are whether there are any defences available to the defendant. I shall deal with each proposed defence individually in a different order than they were given. (1) Self-defence There is most certainly a defence of self-defence in the law of Tukarali, and perhaps it would even extend to defence of another, but that is not at issue here. It would be completely unnatural for the law to require a person to lie down while another attacks them. While in theory that would be a tidy way to deal with the issue, I cannot accept that that is the case. I would say that a person may rely on this defence when their life or health is threatened, and they have no other reasonable alternatives. This harm should not have to be immediate, as long as they have no other alternatives, and an inescapable harm down the track is still going to come eventually. In this case however, the defendant did have alternatives. She could have approached the police, among other things. I would hold therefore that she cannot rely on self-defence. (2) Insanity I could not apprehend any way in which the defendant could be legitimately called "insane". I reject this argument outright. I reserve judgment on whether this is even a legitimate defence in the law of Tukarali. (3) Provocation It is a most human thing to respond to provocative acts. The defendant suggests that because of the extent of the provocation by the victim, in the form of violence, she lost control of herself. I should suggest that if the defendant was provoked by the victim immediately before the event, this may be a factor the Courts take into consideration in determining punishment. I would not go so far as to say this would be a defence, as people must have restraint, and we cannot let individuals ignore the law on the basis of "natural human urges". In this case however, the victim was asleep, and so could not have possibly provoked her immediately before. I will therefore not consider this further. (4) Diminished mental capacity (Battered woman's syndrome) It is suggested that the defendant was blinded because of the extent of the past violence to her that she could not control herself. This argument bears similarity to the suggested provocation, and I would suggest both are elements in a larger defence of diminished capacity. The difference between the two would be that while provocation must be immediately before the act, it is suggested that by the very nature of the syndrome, it will occur later down the track, apparently unprompted. I think this must be right, but for the same reasons, I must suggest this is not a full defence, and that the defendant still be held accountable. However, I would accept that in the circumstances of the case, she was in fact suffering from diminished mental capacity and I will take this into consideration in determining punishment. I therefore hold that the defendant is guilty of intentional homicide. In light of the circumstances, in particular the diminished mental capacity resulting from battered woman's syndrome, I would sentence her to 4 years imprisonment during which time she must undergo psychological evaluation and counselling. |
| Date | 17:21:29, March 16, 2008 CET | From | Rightist Party | To | Debating the In Re Jarvis (CC003/2546) |
| Message | Lawmakers in the United Tribes of Tukarali have voted against the Supreme Court of Tukarali. There were 200 votes for and 245 votes against, with 55 abstaining. As minister of Justice, I hereby dissolve this court in pursuant that this is an illegal court as the Supre Court of Tukarali Act was defeated. |
| Date | 21:36:43, March 16, 2008 CET | From | Greenish Liberal Democratic Socialists | To | Debating the In Re Jarvis (CC003/2546) |
| Message | heheh |
| Date | 21:41:17, March 16, 2008 CET | From | Judicial Union Party | To | Debating the In Re Jarvis (CC003/2546) |
| Message | It doesn't matter, the constitution and the ordinary law of Tukarali guarantee its existence. |
| Date | 00:03:51, March 17, 2008 CET | From | Patriot Party | To | Debating the In Re Jarvis (CC003/2546) |
| Message | Actually...it does matter as the resolution presented by you, the JUP, was defeated. Yes it is in our constitution, you are right about that, but your resolution was defeated and as such, this is illegal. |
| Date | 00:13:41, March 17, 2008 CET | From | Judicial Union Party | To | Debating the In Re Jarvis (CC003/2546) |
| Message | Do you even know what illegal means? This is certainly not illegal. You could possibly try to advance the argument that this is extrajudicial, but the idea that it is illegal is untenable. |
| Date | 00:15:14, March 17, 2008 CET | From | Patriot Party | To | Debating the In Re Jarvis (CC003/2546) |
| Message | The problem is...under what you wanted the bill to do, it was categorically defeated which means these cannot be brought forward. If you want them to be brought forward, then do it where it rightfully belongs. IN THE PARTICRACY CHAT FORUMS!!!! And yes...I know what illegal means and this is, in reality, illegal because of the fact that your very own resolution was defeated. As such, you are now violating the law and you should be arrested. |
| Date | 00:19:31, March 17, 2008 CET | From | Patriot Party | To | Debating the In Re Jarvis (CC003/2546) |
| Message | Article 8: The Judiciary The judicial authority shall be vested in a system of courts, both lower and constitutional. These courts shall have absolute power to ensure enforcement of the laws and constitution of the United Tribes of Tukarali. I stand corrected. We do not have an established Supreme Court and since the Supreme Court bill was defeated, makes this an illegal court. |
| Date | 00:29:08, March 17, 2008 CET | From | Judicial Union Party | To | Debating the In Re Jarvis (CC003/2546) |
| Message | You clearly do not know what illegal means. Illegal means it is contrary to the law, and at no point has their been an act passed making a supreme court illegal. Indeed, quite the opposite, as our constitution guarantees that we must have a supreme court. You are trying to advance the idea that the court is not empowered by the law because the resolution was defeated, that is, that this court is ultra vires or extra-judicial. This is very different from illegal. Please do learn the difference. |
| Date | 00:38:48, March 17, 2008 CET | From | Patriot Party | To | Debating the In Re Jarvis (CC003/2546) |
| Message | Article 8: The Judiciary The judicial authority shall be vested in a system of courts, both lower and constitutional. These courts shall have absolute power to ensure enforcement of the laws and constitution of the United Tribes of Tukarali. Your "court" is illegal under the law. Sorry but that is a cold hard fact. Not my fault you do not know what illegal means. There is nothing in Article 8 about a Supreme Court. You tried to pass a resolution creating one. It was defeated 200-245 with 55 abstaining. As such, under Article 8, this is illegal. You really need to learn how to read JUP if you intend to actually argue something. It is clear from research, which is important in this debate, that we never have had a Supreme Court. Your resolution failed. As such, Supreme Court was not established. Ar you understanding this or do I have to use simplier words for you? Oh and if a court is extra-judicial, that means it is not an established court. As such, it is illegal. Oh and you missed used the term ultra-virus: "Under constitutional law, particularly in Canada and the United States, constitutions give federal and provincial or state governments various powers. To go outside those powers would be ultra vires; for example, although the court did not use the term, in striking down a federal law in United States v. Lopez on the grounds that it exceeded the Constitutional authority of Congress, the Supreme Court effectively declared the law to be ultra vires." Basically means that you tried someone under a law that the person should not have been tried under: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Lopez "The Supreme Court held that while Congress had broad lawmaking authority under the Commerce Clause, it was not unlimited, and did not apply to something as far from commerce as carrying handguns, especially when there was no evidence that carrying them affected the economy on a massive scale. (A later case, United States v. Morrison (2000), ruled that Congress could not make such laws even when there was evidence of aggregate effect.)" And this from Merriam-Webster Dictionary on extrajudicial: Main Entry: ex·tra·ju·di·cial Pronunciation: \-jü-ˈdi-shəl\ Function: adjective Date: 1630 1 a: not forming a valid part of regular legal proceedings <an extrajudicial investigation> b: delivered without legal authority : private 2a(2) <the judge's extrajudicial statements> 2: done in contravention of due process of law <an extrajudicial execution> — ex·tra·ju·di·cial·ly \-ˈdish-lē, -ˈdi-shə-\ adverb In other words...illegal. not according to or authorized by law : In other words....you have failed utterly. |
| Date | 01:03:06, March 17, 2008 CET | From | Judicial Union Party | To | Debating the In Re Jarvis (CC003/2546) |
| Message | It stands to reason that if there is a hierarchy of courts, then one court will sit above others - that is the supreme court. The name is irrelevant, the Australia calls theirs the High Court, England calls theirs the House of Lords, Hong Kong calls theirs the Court of Final Appeal, but they're all the same, they're all Supreme Courts. Do we have a hierarchy of courts? Why yes: "every person has the right to appeal against a judgement and to have it reviewed by a higher court" as well as "the judicial authority shall be vested in a system of courts, both lower and constitutional". Illegal means that it is contrary to the law, ie, that the law explicitly declares something to be illegal. There is nothing in the Tukarali law saying a supreme court would be illegal. Would you say that breathing is illegal too, simply because the law doesn't say you can do it? No, what you are contending is that it is outside of the law, that the law doesn't empower it, and therefore it is extra-judicial, not illegal. You are contending that my actions are ultra vires, that I am acting outside of my power in purported to represent a supreme court. Do not quote American law to me. |
| Date | 01:21:08, March 17, 2008 CET | From | Patriot Party | To | Debating the In Re Jarvis (CC003/2546) |
| Message | I will stop quoting American Law when you stop quoting common law. This is illegal pursuant to Article 8 of the Tukarali Constitution as it does not establish the supreme court. Article III of the US Constitution establishes a supreme court: "Section 1. The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court," The Constitution of Tukarali does not call for a Supreme Court nor does it establish one. As such...there is no Supreme Court of Tukarali. There never has been one in our entire history and we still don't as your resolution establishing it was defeated. |
| Date | 01:44:00, March 17, 2008 CET | From | Rightist Party | To | Debating the In Re Jarvis (CC003/2546) |
| Message | The Patriot Party is correct and as I've stated before, this is now officially closed. There will be no verdict in this case and the last court case has been declared null and void. The Supreme Court Authorization Act was indeed defeated and since Article 8 does not call for nor establish a Supreme Court, there is no Supreme Court. The Ruling is as follows: The Supreme Court of Tukarali has been declared null and void due to the defeat of the Supreme Court Act. Wendy Rice Minister of Justice |
| Date | 03:21:43, March 17, 2008 CET | From | Judicial Union Party | To | Debating the In Re Jarvis (CC003/2546) |
| Message | A minister can't do anything of the sort, given that they have no legislative power per se. Nor can you overrule the constitution, which is abundantly clear in this matter. |
| Date | 09:19:33, March 17, 2008 CET | From | Rightist Party | To | Debating the In Re Jarvis (CC003/2546) |
| Message | Are you blind or something? Please show me in Article 8 where the Supreme Court of Tukarali was established please? |
| Date | 09:25:12, March 17, 2008 CET | From | Judicial Union Party | To | Debating the In Re Jarvis (CC003/2546) |
| Message | The constitution provides: "The judicial authority shall be vested in a system of courts, both lower and constitutional". (a) "A system of courts" implies that there is more than one court. (b) "Both lower and constitutional" specifies that there must be at least one constitutional court, which sits above the "lower" courts. This would be a supreme court, as it would be superior to the "lower courts". Our law also provides: "every person has the right to appeal against a judgement and to have it reviewed by a higher court". (a) "A higher court" presupposes that a higher court exists. (b) If there is a "higher court", then there is a supreme court, for a supreme court is just one which has none higher than it. Is that clear enough for you? |
| Date | 09:32:48, March 17, 2008 CET | From | Rightist Party | To | Debating the In Re Jarvis (CC003/2546) |
| Message | And define that higher court means a supreme court. It could also mean a court of appeals which is not the samething as a supreme court. And no. A constitutional court does not mean a Supreme Court either. I see you really suck at differentiating between the various steps of the judicial system. |
| Date | 09:35:20, March 17, 2008 CET | From | Judicial Union Party | To | Debating the In Re Jarvis (CC003/2546) |
| Message | A supreme court is just that, the court of final appeal from which there is no right of appeal. If the Court of Appeal is the final court in the hierarchy of courts, then it is the supreme court. The name given to it is irrelevant. A constitutional court can overrule lower courts, and if it cannot be itself overruled, then it is also a supreme court. |
| Date | 09:37:27, March 17, 2008 CET | From | Rightist Party | To | Debating the In Re Jarvis (CC003/2546) |
| Message | Not necessarily true JUP! They do not call it the court of appeals for nothing. |
| Date | 09:42:19, March 17, 2008 CET | From | Judicial Union Party | To | Debating the In Re Jarvis (CC003/2546) |
| Message | It is called a Court of Appeal, because you appeal to it from a lower court. In the majority of cases, it is not the court of last resort, but there is no inherent reason for that. |
| Date | 09:46:33, March 17, 2008 CET | From | Rightist Party | To | Debating the In Re Jarvis (CC003/2546) |
| Message | And each region has its own court of appeals. There is no national final stopping point. As I said...you totally suck at this. |
| Date | 09:56:15, March 17, 2008 CET | From | Judicial Union Party | To | Debating the In Re Jarvis (CC003/2546) |
| Message | Each region will have a court system, as well as there being a national system. The constitutional court would be, by necessity, a national court, as the constitutional has national implications. It would be superior to all other courts, since the constitution is superior to all other legislation. Given it's superior status, one might call it a "supreme court". Seriously, this isn't a difficult topic, it's hard to see why you are your sister are having so much trouble with it. |
| Date | 10:08:40, March 17, 2008 CET | From | Rightist Party | To | Debating the In Re Jarvis (CC003/2546) |
| Message | I see you failed to understand what I was hinting at. Not surprising since it is apparent you need everything to be spelled out. |
| Date | 10:11:31, March 17, 2008 CET | From | Judicial Union Party | To | Debating the In Re Jarvis (CC003/2546) |
| Message | You are saying there is no national court of last resort, when there clearly is. |
| Date | 10:16:19, March 17, 2008 CET | From | Rightist Party | To | Debating the In Re Jarvis (CC003/2546) |
| Message | Um no! It is not clear at all that we do have one final stop. The authorization act was defeated which implies that we do not have a court of last resort. If we did have a court of last resort, the resolution you tried to pass would have been redundant. BTW: Your authorization act was defeated which means we do not have a court of last resort. |
| Date | 10:20:32, March 17, 2008 CET | From | Judicial Union Party | To | Debating the In Re Jarvis (CC003/2546) |
| Message | The act was a statement of intent and discussion than anything legislative, which is the reason the entire opening paragraph was OOC. |
| Date | 10:26:43, March 17, 2008 CET | From | Rightist Party | To | Debating the In Re Jarvis (CC003/2546) |
| Message | Which was patently ignored and focused on the debate. It was still defeated so your intent was defeated which means that we did not establish a Tukarali Supreme Court. You really cannot follow the logic can you? |
| Date | 10:37:19, March 17, 2008 CET | From | Judicial Union Party | To | Debating the In Re Jarvis (CC003/2546) |
| Message | "Which was patently ignored and focused on the debate" I think the entire debate was whether we should use one actually. "Your intent was defeated" Well, no, my intention was still there. It always was and still is. You cannot "defeat someone's intention", unless you overbear their will. Of course then you would come into other legal difficulties. A person who's will is overborne can't agree to a contract for instance. That's not really an issue here though. "We did not establish a Tukarali Supreme Court" It existed beforehand already. Your opinion on the matter is your choice. "You really cannot follow the logic can you?" You know what logic is? I never would've guessed. |
| Date | 10:46:26, March 17, 2008 CET | From | Rightist Party | To | Debating the In Re Jarvis (CC003/2546) |
| Message | "I think the entire debate was whether we should use one actually." In that case, we voted not to use one! You still lost. "It existed beforehand already. Your opinion on the matter is your choice." If it existed before hand then why was your bill description as follows: An act to establish the Supreme Court of Tukarali If it pre-existed then we did not need an act to establish it. As such, since you proposed an act to establish a Supreme Court, that implies that we did not have one before hand. As minister of Justice, I say we never had a Supreme Court based on the Constitution as well as the fact that you propsed a law trying to establish one. And then there is this little gem from your opening post: We would FORM A COURT to determine... IF it existed then why the need to state that the act will form a court to determine breach of law? All of this implies that you yourself believed that we never had a national supreme court to begin with either. I guess you are right. It does not take much to get a degree in anything. |
| Date | 10:48:56, March 17, 2008 CET | From | Judicial Union Party | To | Debating the In Re Jarvis (CC003/2546) |
| Message | We, as in the people playing this game. The description of the act had to be something. |
| Date | 11:00:24, March 17, 2008 CET | From | Rightist Party | To | Debating the In Re Jarvis (CC003/2546) |
| Message | Then explain the rest of the following comments: "And that's just one particular issue, among others, WHICH NEEDS TO BE DETERMINED BY A COURT." "If WE DON'T HAVE A COURT, then we won't ever know." "Our constitution REQUIRES US TO HAVE A SUPREME COURT after all." "But if a party wished to suggest such a thing, they'd be able to TAKE IT TO THE COURT" "PERHAPS A COURT OF SOME KIND?" These statements tell me a whole different story. You sir, have been served. I'm done debating this. We do not have a Supreme Court and TGP was right when he stated: yeah, you're just gonna do it anyway I find you in contempt of the law but I am willing to let it go if you renounce the Supreme Court. |
| Date | 11:05:47, March 17, 2008 CET | From | Judicial Union Party | To | Debating the In Re Jarvis (CC003/2546) |
| Message | Yes, a court under our control. Tukarali will have had, since the forming of that constitution, a supreme court. It's not really relevant what your opinion is. In addition, /you/ can't find anyone in contempt of anything. That would be an act ultra vires. |
| Date | 11:09:16, March 17, 2008 CET | From | Rightist Party | To | Debating the In Re Jarvis (CC003/2546) |
| Message | Um actually...that's not true as I control the Ministry of Justice and as such can find people in contempt. Maybe if you knew what the Justice Department does (ya know...they do these pesky things like investigations which can and does lead to contempt charges as well as criminal charges), you would know that yes I can. As such, this debate is effectively closed and anyone else caught posting in it will also be held in contempt. |
| Date | 11:11:20, March 17, 2008 CET | From | Rightist Party | To | Debating the In Re Jarvis (CC003/2546) |
| Message | edit: if this is even moved to a vote, it will be non-binding |
| Date | 11:11:47, March 17, 2008 CET | From | Rightist Party | To | Debating the In Re Jarvis (CC003/2546) |
| Message | and will not be used as precedent. |
| Date | 11:19:23, March 17, 2008 CET | From | Judicial Union Party | To | Debating the In Re Jarvis (CC003/2546) |
| Message | Yes, they lead to charges, not rulings, you impotent little man. Nor do you have power to close debate, only I have the power to do that, at such a time as I choose, and not a moment before. Nor can you indicate whether a particular decision will be binding or not, for that is the exclusive realm of the judiciary. |
| Date | 11:25:26, March 17, 2008 CET | From | Rightist Party | To | Debating the In Re Jarvis (CC003/2546) |
| Message | The Ministry of Justice has hereby declared that they are charging the JUP with contempt as well as violation of the law by running a court that has not been sanctioned by the Grand Tribal Council of Tukarali. As such, all Supreme Court cases are hereby suspended and any decisions that were rendered prior to suspension are hereby declared null and void. Wendy Rice Minister of Justice |
| Date | 11:28:21, March 17, 2008 CET | From | Judicial Union Party | To | Debating the In Re Jarvis (CC003/2546) |
| Message | The executive government cannot interfere with the judiciary, that is the basis of the rule of law, and any action purporting to do so must necessarily be ultra vires. |
| Date | 11:30:45, March 17, 2008 CET | From | Rightist Party | To | Debating the In Re Jarvis (CC003/2546) |
| Message | You are running an illegal court. You got caught. You are being charged in accordance with all applicable laws as stated in the indictment. And yes we can suspend it because the leader of this court (muah) has been given this authority by you of all people. |
| Date | 11:32:47, March 17, 2008 CET | From | Judicial Union Party | To | Debating the In Re Jarvis (CC003/2546) |
| Message | The Court has no leader. The executive government cannot do anything about the judiciary unless explicitly authorised by the legislature. It is not illegal, for reasons that were made sickeningly clear before. |
| Date | 11:35:30, March 17, 2008 CET | From | Rightist Party | To | Debating the In Re Jarvis (CC003/2546) |
| Message | We are using our votes to suspend the case as we feel that this is an illegal court. |
| Date | 11:36:57, March 17, 2008 CET | From | Judicial Union Party | To | Debating the In Re Jarvis (CC003/2546) |
| Message | That you are entitled to do, insofar as it is the impartial judges that you are allowed to appoint in a politically neutral way that decide that. |
| Date | 11:41:09, March 17, 2008 CET | From | Rightist Party | To | Debating the In Re Jarvis (CC003/2546) |
| Message | Justice Williams looks over that the JUP justice. "We are neutral and this is indeed illegal and as such, we are using our votes to close the court." |
| Date | 11:45:28, March 17, 2008 CET | From | Patriot Party | To | Debating the In Re Jarvis (CC003/2546) |
| Message | Justice Katherine spoke up "We echo the statement made by Justice Williams. We cast our ballot to close the Supreme Court on the premise that it is also illegal." |
| Date | 23:35:58, March 19, 2008 CET | From | JDW Tukarali Greens Party | To | Debating the In Re Jarvis (CC003/2546) |
| Message | Justress NoTellaLie concludes JUP was acting outside the constitution in bringing this matter up and allocating votes on an ad hoc basis |
| Date | 23:41:40, March 19, 2008 CET | From | Rightist Party | To | Debating the In Re Jarvis (CC003/2546) |
| Message | Two things JDW: 1) There is no such word as Justress. It is just Justice NoTellaLie. 2) Voting against this pretty much means you vote against the verdict established. |
| Date | 23:49:18, March 19, 2008 CET | From | Rightist Party | To | Debating the In Re Jarvis (CC003/2546) |
| Message | With that said, we will vote as well so that we can officially close this illegal court. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 231 | ||||
| no | Total Seats: 57 | ||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 212 |
| Random fact: Character names must appear plausible and should consist of at least a first name and a surname. Exceptions to this will only be granted at Moderation's discretion and where a very strong case has been presented |
| Random quote: "Politics is too serious a matter to be left to the politicians." - Charles de Gaulle |