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: Supreme Court, Civil: Horncastle v Burgmuller [4069]
Details
Submitted by[?]: Constitution Committee
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: July 4077
Description[?]:
| Arbitrator: The Honorable Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Jon Robertson. [Nation Master] Plaintiff: Mr. William J. Horncastle. [Democratic Party] Defendant: Madam President, Alexandra Burgmuller. [Conservative Party of Baltusia] Claim(s): Defamation including: - Libel, - Slander. Procedure: 1.) The Plaintiff will put forth his case. 2.) The Defendant will have to opportunity to scrutinize the case of the Plaintiff. 3.) The Plaintiff will have an opportunity to respond to the scrutiny of his case. 4.) This shall repeat until the Plaintiff rests his case. 5.) The arbitrator shall decide the outcome of the case either by awarding damages to the Plaintiff or dismissing the claim. Rules and Etiquette: - The arbitrator must be addressed as "your Honour". - Both parties will swear, either by oath or affirmation as will any witnesses. |
Proposals
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 20:47:30, August 04, 2016 CET | From | Constitution Committee | To | Debating the Supreme Court, Civil: Horncastle v Burgmuller [4069] |
| Message | [Clark to Plaintiff]: Do you solemnly swear that you will tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, under pains and penalties of perjury? [Plaintiff, hereby "Horncastle", holding right hand in the air and [placing left hand on the Annunciation]: I do. [Horncastle]: Your Honour, let me present to you the words of the defendant as evidence. Exhibit A: "Mr Horncastle, your party claims to be the Democratic Party, it is the least Democratic Party I have ever seen. Your politics are dirty..." [http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill.php?billid=480461] Exhibit B: "It cant be enforced, because it is totally illegitimate and undemocratic, a bit like yourself." [http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill.php?billid=480352] Exhibit C: "Mr Horncastle, give up on the shady politics would you?" [http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill.php?billid=480352] That is all, for now, your Honour and more will be produced if necessary. Do you accept the aforementioned pieces of evidence as representative of the true words, spoken and or written by the defendant, thereby accepting them as evidence? |
| Date | 21:43:41, August 04, 2016 CET | From | Baltusian International Democratic Party | To | Debating the Supreme Court, Civil: Horncastle v Burgmuller [4069] |
| Message | President Burgmuller's law team- "Your honour, in response to the plaintiffs claims the statements made by Mrs Burgmuller are true and can be backed up. Exhibit A: The President was referring to Mr Horncastle's undefinitive political position. Evidence for this is that at the end of a previous election Mr Horncastle blackmailed Mrs Burgmuller saying that unless the he joined the right alliance and the Conservatives endorsed him as their presidential candidate he would join the left wing alliance and block all of their views. This was him simply wishing to gain power. Mrs Burgmuller was saying that it is undemocratic to only look for power and that it is dirty to blackmail her for power. Exhibit B: This particuar statement was in response to Mr Horncastle's failed attempt to dismantle the Right Coaltion after the Supreme Court (Moderation) dismissed it and said it wasn't possible as it didn't gain a 2/3 majority and wouldn't be possible even if it had passed in Congress. Mrs Burgmuller again referred to the undemocratic nature of his blackmailing and undefinitive political position. The illegitimacy is regarding his inactivity which she felt was hypocritical after his party being inactive for a lot longer than Mrs Burgmuller took for vacation. Exhibit C: The shady politics Mrs Burgmuller was talking about was Mr Horncastle's left bloc and his blackmailing again. Your Honour, clearly we can see hear that these claims are backed up by facts and hard evidence. The statements were fully legitimate and should not be punished. May I finally ask what the rough damages and sentencing would be for these offences Your Hounour? Thank you." |
| Date | 22:05:57, August 04, 2016 CET | From | Constitution Committee | To | Debating the Supreme Court, Civil: Horncastle v Burgmuller [4069] |
| Message | OOC: Hold your horses there, the arbitrator has to accept my evidence before you can go ahead and scrutinize it. Retract that, hold it, and wait until he does so. |
| Date | 22:11:08, August 04, 2016 CET | From | Baltusian International Democratic Party | To | Debating the Supreme Court, Civil: Horncastle v Burgmuller [4069] |
| Message | OOC: Ok that's fine it is held until evidence is accepted. |
| Date | 22:13:02, August 04, 2016 CET | From | Constitution Committee | To | Debating the Supreme Court, Civil: Horncastle v Burgmuller [4069] |
| Message | OOC: Cool cool. |
| Date | 22:30:57, August 04, 2016 CET | From | Constitution Committee | To | Debating the Supreme Court, Civil: Horncastle v Burgmuller [4069] |
| Message | OOC: Even after he accepts it, I have to present my case which involves it. Then you can scrutinize. Okay? |
| Date | 22:37:34, August 04, 2016 CET | From | Baltusian International Democratic Party | To | Debating the Supreme Court, Civil: Horncastle v Burgmuller [4069] |
| Message | OOC: Ah ok thanks for the clarification. |
| Date | 22:45:18, August 04, 2016 CET | From | Constitution Committee | To | Debating the Supreme Court, Civil: Horncastle v Burgmuller [4069] |
| Message | OOC: No Problem. |
| Date | 22:55:45, August 04, 2016 CET | From | Patriotic Party of Baltusia | To | Debating the Supreme Court, Civil: Horncastle v Burgmuller [4069] |
| Message | ***** Letter to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court **** Your Honour, I ask that you halt the proceedings to look into a matter of legality relating to this civil action. Under our laws the legislature i.e Congress does not have parliamentary privilege. However, we do not believe this extends to the Office of the President. We believe like other countries of our culture the President has immunity to civil and criminal proceedings while in office and therefore this action cannot go ahead. Now, we believe that President Burgmuller having nothing to hide would waive this right and face this civil action anyway but we think it is right and proper to make a ruling on whether this immunity is indeed in place so that she has the option to waive this right in a proper fashion. It also needs to be ruled on so that future heads of state know where they stand. I thank you for your time and ask that you rule on the matter before we proceed any further - if you are not able to rule I will move to the international court of justice and ask them to arbitrate. (This letter is copied to Mr Horncastle and President Burgmuller.). Bathsheba Grey, Justice and Legal Spokesperson for the Patriotic Party. OOC - This is a RP question. We are based on a USA culture. We voted on it a little while back. So I assume we take a lead from that if the constitution, which is limited to game mechanics, does not cover it. Maybe the nationmaster could let us know or find out how this works? |
| Date | 22:59:48, August 04, 2016 CET | From | Baltusian International Democratic Party | To | Debating the Supreme Court, Civil: Horncastle v Burgmuller [4069] |
| Message | OOC: Thanks for the letter I look forward to the ruling and clarification. |
| Date | 23:06:17, August 04, 2016 CET | From | Constitution Committee | To | Debating the Supreme Court, Civil: Horncastle v Burgmuller [4069] |
| Message | OOC: From an RP standpoint, the President is not immune from civil actions that are against what he has done outside of his official duty. For instance, you can't sue the president for passing a law, but you can if he causes you injury in a car accident. The Supreme Court ruled in Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 117 S.Ct. 1636, 137 L.Ed.2d 945 (1997), that a sitting president does not have presidential immunity from suit over conduct unrelated to his official duties. The holding came in a civil suit brought by Paula Corbin Jones against President Clinton. Jones's suit was based on conduct alleged to have occurred while Clinton was governor of Arkansas. Clinton had sought to postpone the lawsuit until after he left office. The Court stated that it had never suggested that the president or any other public official has an immunity that "extends beyond the scope of any action taken in an official capacity." The Court has based its immunity doctrine on a functional approach, extending immunity only to "acts in performance of particular functions of his office." It also rejected Clinton's claim that the courts would violate the separation of powers between the executive and judicial branches if a court heard the suit. Finally, the Court rejected the president's contention that defending the lawsuit would impose unacceptable burdens on the president's time and energy. It seemed unlikely to the Court that President Clinton would have to be occupied with the Jones lawsuit for any substantial amount of time. The Court also expressed skepticism that denying immunity to the president would generate a "deluge of such litigation." In the history of the presidency, only three other presidents had been subject to civil damage suits for actions taken prior to holding office. So if we are going off of America, which I believe we are, this lawsuit has nothing to do with Burgmullers official duty but private conduct. |
| Date | 23:16:08, August 04, 2016 CET | From | Baltusian International Democratic Party | To | Debating the Supreme Court, Civil: Horncastle v Burgmuller [4069] |
| Message | Seems like a fair statement if we are basing our nation upon American culture although we are currently culturally open and we are not officially based on the Us. |
| Date | 23:23:17, August 04, 2016 CET | From | Patriotic Party of Baltusia | To | Debating the Supreme Court, Civil: Horncastle v Burgmuller [4069] |
| Message | Ooc - Yes. Fair point. But was this outside his official duty? He was responding in congress to an attempt to impeach him. Not try to be difficult here just get to the bottom of it. Ic - we await the supreme court's judgement with interest. |
| Date | 23:26:27, August 04, 2016 CET | From | Constitution Committee | To | Debating the Supreme Court, Civil: Horncastle v Burgmuller [4069] |
| Message | OOC: Yes it was outside HER official duty as president as it was clearly in her official duty as a party leader. It wasn't even in congress. |
| Date | 23:27:32, August 04, 2016 CET | From | Baltusian International Democratic Party | To | Debating the Supreme Court, Civil: Horncastle v Burgmuller [4069] |
| Message | OOC- Indeed, it should be an enjoyable and interesting court case indeed though. IC- We hope that this is quickly clarified and ruled upon. |
| Date | 23:51:08, August 04, 2016 CET | From | Freedom Party | To | Debating the Supreme Court, Civil: Horncastle v Burgmuller [4069] |
| Message | We Theo smith justice leader promise to tell the truth and nothing but the truth. |
| Date | 23:53:01, August 04, 2016 CET | From | Constitution Committee | To | Debating the Supreme Court, Civil: Horncastle v Burgmuller [4069] |
| Message | OOC: What? |
| Date | 00:04:26, August 05, 2016 CET | From | Freedom Party | To | Debating the Supreme Court, Civil: Horncastle v Burgmuller [4069] |
| Message | Order order in the court. We have come to a census that the Mrs Burgmuller conservative leader will resign now.As Well the leader will go to jailed for two weeks for his crimes against human rights. Mr Horncastle will also resign as leader of democratic leader and will be fined 20,000 Baltusian dollar.for attempted coup. If you refuse to do so your party's will have sanctions and your party will resign. Thank you and this is Theo Smith ministry of justice leader for freedom party. |
| Date | 00:08:52, August 05, 2016 CET | From | Baltusian International Democratic Party | To | Debating the Supreme Court, Civil: Horncastle v Burgmuller [4069] |
| Message | What!? The court hasn't even proceeded. |
| Date | 00:12:34, August 05, 2016 CET | From | Freedom Party | To | Debating the Supreme Court, Civil: Horncastle v Burgmuller [4069] |
| Message | Oh sorry |
| Date | 00:13:41, August 05, 2016 CET | From | Freedom Party | To | Debating the Supreme Court, Civil: Horncastle v Burgmuller [4069] |
| Message | I approve all evidence that Mr Horncastle is saying |
| Date | 00:14:44, August 05, 2016 CET | From | Baltusian International Democratic Party | To | Debating the Supreme Court, Civil: Horncastle v Burgmuller [4069] |
| Message | It's ok- Mr Horncastle proceed with your case and then we will scrutinise and cross examine your case. |
| Date | 02:36:16, August 05, 2016 CET | From | Constitution Committee | To | Debating the Supreme Court, Civil: Horncastle v Burgmuller [4069] |
| Message | OOC: I question whether Freedom Party should remain as arbitrator. |
| Date | 04:42:53, August 05, 2016 CET | From | Freedom Party | To | Debating the Supreme Court, Civil: Horncastle v Burgmuller [4069] |
| Message | Order order in the court may I justice inform you Mr Horncastle Anything you say and do can be used against you in court of law. |
| Date | 10:01:42, August 05, 2016 CET | From | Baltusian International Democratic Party | To | Debating the Supreme Court, Civil: Horncastle v Burgmuller [4069] |
| Message | Mr Horncastle is welcome to proceed with his case. OOC: Only if the Freedom Party are comfortable with that. |
| Date | 11:19:53, August 05, 2016 CET | From | Patriotic Party of Baltusia | To | Debating the Supreme Court, Civil: Horncastle v Burgmuller [4069] |
| Message | OOC - I love this judge - I hope this is being televised!! |
| Date | 12:05:44, August 05, 2016 CET | From | Patriotic Party of Baltusia | To | Debating the Supreme Court, Civil: Horncastle v Burgmuller [4069] |
| Message | ***** Second Letter to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court **** CC'd to relevant parties. Your honour, Have you come to a decision over whether the President is immune from prosecution under the laws of Baltusia and whether she was acting within an official capacity or not when she made the speech on which the Plaintiff has based his civil action? The case seems to be proceeding without this matter being addressed. Please could you make a ruling or if you feel you are not able to, we respectfully suggest you stand down and let another judge take your place or refer it to the international court. In anticipation, Bathsheba Grey, Justice and Legal Spokesperson for the Patriotic Party. |
| Date | 13:22:37, August 05, 2016 CET | From | Constitution Committee | To | Debating the Supreme Court, Civil: Horncastle v Burgmuller [4069] |
| Message | OOC: Please be serious freedom party. Patriotic Party, I've explained why the civil action is lawful and the president isn't immune. I'll proceed with my case now. |
| Date | 13:41:43, August 05, 2016 CET | From | Baltusian International Democratic Party | To | Debating the Supreme Court, Civil: Horncastle v Burgmuller [4069] |
| Message | Thank you democrats. |
| Date | 13:56:25, August 05, 2016 CET | From | Patriotic Party of Baltusia | To | Debating the Supreme Court, Civil: Horncastle v Burgmuller [4069] |
| Message | OOC: Yes, and I totally get your argument, Democratic Party, but from a RP point of view surely it needs the judge to rule on it not the plaintiff! IC: We thank Mr Horncastle for his considerable legal knowledge and advice and would ask the judge to take this into account when making a ruling - but we would like a ruling. Ms Grey |
| Date | 14:12:01, August 05, 2016 CET | From | Constitution Committee | To | Debating the Supreme Court, Civil: Horncastle v Burgmuller [4069] |
| Message | Bathsheba, you are a third party, you have no authority over this courtroom. Please allow the legal process to take place. Horncastle's Spokesman |
| Date | 14:52:38, August 05, 2016 CET | From | Constitution Committee | To | Debating the Supreme Court, Civil: Horncastle v Burgmuller [4069] |
| Message | Your Honor, it is my privilege to bring this case to you: As the plaintiff, I must prove that the defendant, Alexandra Burgmuller, either negligently or maliciously, published or otherwise broadcasted an unprivileged false statement about me which caused harm to my reputation by decreasing the respect, regard, or confidence which was previously held in me or induced hostile, disparaging or disagreeable opinions of feelings towards me. Your Honor, with this in mind, I'd like to turn your attention to exhibit A. The defendant stated the following: "Mr Horncastle, your party claims to be the Democratic Party, it is the least Democratic Party I have ever seen." Such a statement is entirely false, given that my party, over the years, has won a lot of votes. 10,942,244 to be exact. You're telling me that a party which takes part in elections, believes strongly in the rule of law, the rights of man and the system by which we elect our representatives, democracy, is somehow undemocratic? I'd also like to point out the latter part of exhibit A in which the defendant stated: "Your politics are dirty..." Such a statement is nothing more than an ad hominem attack aimed at destroying good perceptions about me and my party. It's not justifiable in any sense. Now, if you'll let me, I'd like to point your attention towards exhibit B in which the defendant stated: "...it is totally illegitimate and undemocratic, a bit like yourself." Again, I'm called undemocratic but interestingly, I'm called "illegitimate". I'd like to press the defendant to explain herself regarding this particular word. Finally, I'd like to point you to exhibit C in which the defendant stated: "Mr Horncastle, give up on the shady politics would you?" Again, another ad hominem attack aimed at destroying my reputation. This has got to stop. No further points your Honor. |
| Date | 14:58:34, August 05, 2016 CET | From | Patriotic Party of Baltusia | To | Debating the Supreme Court, Civil: Horncastle v Burgmuller [4069] |
| Message | OOC - I appreciate that, just want the judge to make a ruling so we have a legal precedent going forward. You never know when you/me/anyone may want to sue a president in the future and then we can refer back to this case. I'll put what I said above in a letter to the judge and leave it to you both - best of luck! IC - ***Leave the courtroom passing letter three to the clerk*** |
| Date | 15:15:14, August 05, 2016 CET | From | Constitution Committee | To | Debating the Supreme Court, Civil: Horncastle v Burgmuller [4069] |
| Message | OOC: he's obviously going on with it. |
| Date | 15:50:56, August 05, 2016 CET | From | Patriotic Party of Baltusia | To | Debating the Supreme Court, Civil: Horncastle v Burgmuller [4069] |
| Message | OOC - I don't think anything is obvious with this judge!! |
| Date | 16:57:43, August 05, 2016 CET | From | Freedom Party | To | Debating the Supreme Court, Civil: Horncastle v Burgmuller [4069] |
| Message | Mr Horncastle Is it true that you tried to discriminate against LGBT community by banning them from Adopting kids and joining the army.To me that sounds very undemocratic. |
| Date | 17:01:39, August 05, 2016 CET | From | Constitution Committee | To | Debating the Supreme Court, Civil: Horncastle v Burgmuller [4069] |
| Message | Your Honor, We democratically proposed legislation supporting traditional family values. Everyone voted, it didn't pass because people voted against it, in other words, we democratically proposed legislation that was democratically defeated. That is democratic, that is democracy. Horncastle |
| Date | 17:07:35, August 05, 2016 CET | From | Freedom Party | To | Debating the Supreme Court, Civil: Horncastle v Burgmuller [4069] |
| Message | Mr Horncastle Did you or didn't you know that this bill goes against The comprehensive gay rights treaty that is a national law. |
| Date | 17:08:01, August 05, 2016 CET | From | Freedom Party | To | Debating the Supreme Court, Civil: Horncastle v Burgmuller [4069] |
| Message | Mr Horncastle Did you or didn't you know that this bill goes against The comprehensive gay rights treaty that is a national law. |
| Date | 17:08:48, August 05, 2016 CET | From | Freedom Party | To | Debating the Supreme Court, Civil: Horncastle v Burgmuller [4069] |
| Message | Mr Horncastle Did you or didn't you know that this bill goes against The comprehensive gay rights treaty that is a national law. |
| Date | 17:09:15, August 05, 2016 CET | From | Freedom Party | To | Debating the Supreme Court, Civil: Horncastle v Burgmuller [4069] |
| Message | Mr Horncastle Did you or didn't you know that this bill goes against The comprehensive gay rights treaty that is a national law. |
| Date | 17:12:36, August 05, 2016 CET | From | Constitution Committee | To | Debating the Supreme Court, Civil: Horncastle v Burgmuller [4069] |
| Message | Your Honor, The comprehensive gay rights treaty was introduced after I proposed this legislation. Horncastle |
| Date | 18:11:09, August 05, 2016 CET | From | Baltusian International Democratic Party | To | Debating the Supreme Court, Civil: Horncastle v Burgmuller [4069] |
| Message | President Burgmuller's law team- "Your honour, in response to the plaintiffs claims the statements made by Mrs Burgmuller are true and can be backed up. Exhibit A: The President was referring to Mr Horncastle's undefinitive political position. Evidence for this is that at the end of a previous election Mr Horncastle blackmailed Mrs Burgmuller saying that unless the he joined the right alliance and the Conservatives endorsed him as their presidential candidate he would join the left wing alliance and block all of their views. This was him simply wishing to gain power. Mrs Burgmuller was saying that it is undemocratic to only look for power and that it is dirty to blackmail her for power. Exhibit B: This particuar statement was in response to Mr Horncastle's failed attempt to dismantle the Right Coaltion after the Supreme Court (Moderation) dismissed it and said it wasn't possible as it didn't gain a 2/3 majority and wouldn't be possible even if it had passed in Congress. Mrs Burgmuller again referred to the undemocratic nature of his blackmailing and undefinitive political position. The illegitimacy is regarding his inactivity which she felt was hypocritical after his party being inactive for a lot longer than Mrs Burgmuller took for vacation. Exhibit C: The shady politics Mrs Burgmuller was talking about was Mr Horncastle's left bloc and his blackmailing again. Your Honour, clearly we can see hear that these claims are backed up by facts and hard evidence. The statements were fully legitimate and should not be punished. May I finally ask what the rough damages and sentencing would be for these offences Your Hounour? Thank you." |
| Date | 19:12:50, August 05, 2016 CET | From | Freedom Party | To | Debating the Supreme Court, Civil: Horncastle v Burgmuller [4069] |
| Message | Mrs Burgmuller The left bloc was to formed to stop the rights from gaining power Is it true that you're party has been stoping every other party from forming a left cabinet. Is it also true that your party put laws unplaced to stop party's from becoming fiancé Minster,forging affairs Minster and international affairs Minster. To me that sound like a dictatorship are you clear that ever party is aloud to form a cabinet of their choose. |
| Date | 19:33:50, August 05, 2016 CET | From | Constitution Committee | To | Debating the Supreme Court, Civil: Horncastle v Burgmuller [4069] |
| Message | Your Honor, Such a response is inadequate. (To Burgmuller & Co) You've failed to outline how your comments were truthful, instead, you've created fresh, false allegations which will only serve to harm your case. For instance, in your response to exhibit A, you accuse me of blackmail. What you've described, even if it was true, is not blackmail. I urge you to retract this if your case is to retain any weight. In your response to exhibit B, you prove my point about your defamation. When the Supreme Court ruled that the Dismantling of the Right-Coalition was unlawful and unenforceable. Do you know what else is unlawful and unenforceable? The act which calls for the first four cabinet positions to be filled by the President's party for the exact same reasons. We use the correct response, we highlight, in a polite way, how such an attempt at carrying the aforementioned bill is unlawful*. We do not insult people in an attempt to destroy their character. In your response to exhibit C, you use the same points as in your response to A, therefore I refer you to my counter response. No further points, your Honor. Horncastle. *I can provide examples as evidence if requested. |
| Date | 19:35:21, August 05, 2016 CET | From | Constitution Committee | To | Debating the Supreme Court, Civil: Horncastle v Burgmuller [4069] |
| Message | *corrections to the above* In your response to exhibit B, you prove my point about your defamation. When the Supreme Court ruled that the Dismantling of the Right-Coalition was unlawful and unenforceable and you responded with insults and defamation. Do you know what else is unlawful and unenforceable? The act which calls for the first four cabinet positions to be filled by the President's party for the exact same reasons. We use the correct response, we highlight, in a polite way, how such an attempt at carrying the aforementioned bill is unlawful*. We do not insult people in an attempt to destroy their character. |
| Date | 19:44:22, August 05, 2016 CET | From | Baltusian International Democratic Party | To | Debating the Supreme Court, Civil: Horncastle v Burgmuller [4069] |
| Message | Your Honour, You are supposed to be the moderator and the arbitrator. Not the questioner of our political choices. Firstly how have we been stopping every other party from forming a left cabinet.? Your honour, is it really a crime to vote no in a cabinet in which we are not included, does not abide by the law and simply we don't even have a seat in? We have proposed a cross party cabinet which is fair so please be unbiased and not complain about our political choices and preferences. We did put in a law to allow the presidents party guarentee 3 seats to make the value of presidency more important and historically this happened anyway, actually this law received an overwhelmingly large support from most parties, remember this law will be applied to whichever presidents party gets in. This is hardly an unfair law and especially if most parties voted yes. I am clear they every party can propose a cabinet and I haven't disagreed with that, we can vote no to it though, just like you voted no to our recent right party cabinet. Please stop the hipocracy. Our law team respectfully requests that the judge step down unless he stops questioning resonable democracy. |
| Date | 19:45:55, August 05, 2016 CET | From | Baltusian International Democratic Party | To | Debating the Supreme Court, Civil: Horncastle v Burgmuller [4069] |
| Message | Mr Horncastle our statements are perfectly correct and dismiss your allegations completely. Anyway please may the Judge make a decision on the case. Thank you |
| Date | 19:46:07, August 05, 2016 CET | From | Constitution Committee | To | Debating the Supreme Court, Civil: Horncastle v Burgmuller [4069] |
| Message | OOC: That cabinet law isn't law. Moderation wouldn't enforce. |
| Date | 21:14:35, August 05, 2016 CET | From | Baltusian International Democratic Party | To | Debating the Supreme Court, Civil: Horncastle v Burgmuller [4069] |
| Message | OOC: Yes but they all voted for it so that's fair. |
| Date | 21:33:20, August 05, 2016 CET | From | Constitution Committee | To | Debating the Supreme Court, Civil: Horncastle v Burgmuller [4069] |
| Message | OOC: Doesn't matter, isn't binding. |
| Date | 21:39:56, August 05, 2016 CET | From | Baltusian International Democratic Party | To | Debating the Supreme Court, Civil: Horncastle v Burgmuller [4069] |
| Message | OOC: Ok so I have looked up the rough sentencing guide for Slander in the US- MAXIMUM SENTENCE- UP TO 6 MONTHS IMPRISONMENT AND UP TO A $500 FINE. |
| Date | 21:41:09, August 05, 2016 CET | From | Constitution Committee | To | Debating the Supreme Court, Civil: Horncastle v Burgmuller [4069] |
| Message | OOC: This is a civil case, I'm suing for damages, not pressing charges. |
| Date | 21:42:12, August 05, 2016 CET | From | Baltusian International Democratic Party | To | Debating the Supreme Court, Civil: Horncastle v Burgmuller [4069] |
| Message | OOC: Is my job at risk? Or will I just have to pay? |
| Date | 21:43:52, August 05, 2016 CET | From | Baltusian International Democratic Party | To | Debating the Supreme Court, Civil: Horncastle v Burgmuller [4069] |
| Message | Damages Available to be used by the judge: General Damages – these include "damages for loss of reputation, shame, mortification, and hurt feelings"; Special Damages – these "are all damages plaintiff alleges and proves that he has suffered in respect to his property, trade, profession or occupation including such amounts of money as the plaintiff alleges and proves he has expended . . ."; and Exemplary Damages – "are damages which may be in the discretion of the court or jury to be recovered in addition to general and special damages for the sake of example and by way of punishing a defendant who has made the publication or broadcast with actual malice." |
| Date | 21:48:07, August 05, 2016 CET | From | Constitution Committee | To | Debating the Supreme Court, Civil: Horncastle v Burgmuller [4069] |
| Message | OOC: Your job is not at risk, just your bank account and reputation. |
| Date | 21:58:05, August 05, 2016 CET | From | Baltusian International Democratic Party | To | Debating the Supreme Court, Civil: Horncastle v Burgmuller [4069] |
| Message | We have received a message that the Judge has made his decision- Your Honour present your verdict. |
| Date | 21:58:51, August 05, 2016 CET | From | Constitution Committee | To | Debating the Supreme Court, Civil: Horncastle v Burgmuller [4069] |
| Message | OOC: Yup, Just to clarify for the judge: You can either dismiss my claim or award me damages, you can even prolong the case by asking more questions to make a decision. |
| Date | 21:59:42, August 05, 2016 CET | From | Baltusian International Democratic Party | To | Debating the Supreme Court, Civil: Horncastle v Burgmuller [4069] |
| Message | OOC: Can damages include a prison sentence? |
| Date | 22:00:27, August 05, 2016 CET | From | Constitution Committee | To | Debating the Supreme Court, Civil: Horncastle v Burgmuller [4069] |
| Message | OOC: Nope. |
| Date | 22:01:16, August 05, 2016 CET | From | Constitution Committee | To | Debating the Supreme Court, Civil: Horncastle v Burgmuller [4069] |
| Message | OOC: Remember that this is a civil case, meaning that there is no guilty party, just a party that may or may not be liable. |
| Date | 22:01:49, August 05, 2016 CET | From | Freedom Party | To | Debating the Supreme Court, Civil: Horncastle v Burgmuller [4069] |
| Message | I have come to a dission that Mrs Burgmuller will be put in jailed for week for crimes against human rights. Aswell the democrats will pays fine of 20,000 to Mrs Burgmuller for starting a coup. |
| Date | 22:03:43, August 05, 2016 CET | From | Baltusian International Democratic Party | To | Debating the Supreme Court, Civil: Horncastle v Burgmuller [4069] |
| Message | Your honour, this is a civil case. You cannot give us a prison sentence. There are no charges or damages currently pressed upon Mr Horncastle. |
| Date | 22:09:36, August 05, 2016 CET | From | Constitution Committee | To | Debating the Supreme Court, Civil: Horncastle v Burgmuller [4069] |
| Message | OOC: This isn't possible. You can only choose to award Horncastle money, or dismiss the claims. |
| Date | 22:13:14, August 05, 2016 CET | From | Baltusian International Democratic Party | To | Debating the Supreme Court, Civil: Horncastle v Burgmuller [4069] |
| Message | OOC: Ok, your honour what is your new verdict then? |
| Date | 22:22:53, August 05, 2016 CET | From | Baltusian International Democratic Party | To | Debating the Supreme Court, Civil: Horncastle v Burgmuller [4069] |
| Message | Democrats- Lets settle this 1000 BLD in damages and then leave it at that? |
| Date | 22:35:21, August 05, 2016 CET | From | Constitution Committee | To | Debating the Supreme Court, Civil: Horncastle v Burgmuller [4069] |
| Message | With the amount of money you make a year? Times that by 50. |
| Date | 22:38:16, August 05, 2016 CET | From | Baltusian International Democratic Party | To | Debating the Supreme Court, Civil: Horncastle v Burgmuller [4069] |
| Message | No way, you will bankrupt me. |
| Date | 22:44:05, August 05, 2016 CET | From | Constitution Committee | To | Debating the Supreme Court, Civil: Horncastle v Burgmuller [4069] |
| Message | You earn $400,000 minimum a year, $50,000 isn't much in comparison. |
| Date | 22:47:51, August 05, 2016 CET | From | Baltusian International Democratic Party | To | Debating the Supreme Court, Civil: Horncastle v Burgmuller [4069] |
| Message | We accept the settlement fees in order to get on with running the nation. |
| Date | 22:51:59, August 05, 2016 CET | From | Constitution Committee | To | Debating the Supreme Court, Civil: Horncastle v Burgmuller [4069] |
| Message | We thank you for your maturity. Your Honor, I rest my case and thank you for your service. |
| Date | 22:53:52, August 05, 2016 CET | From | Baltusian International Democratic Party | To | Debating the Supreme Court, Civil: Horncastle v Burgmuller [4069] |
| Message | Thank you Your Honour, I shall now return to my duty as President for the last month. |
| Date | 23:14:50, August 05, 2016 CET | From | Constitution Committee | To | Debating the Supreme Court, Civil: Horncastle v Burgmuller [4069] |
| Message | OOC: This case will now set the following precedent: Civil action against the President for his actions outside of his official duty are acceptable. Civil actions may be settled during the case. |
| Date | 23:38:30, August 05, 2016 CET | From | Freedom Party | To | Debating the Supreme Court, Civil: Horncastle v Burgmuller [4069] |
| Message | Okay then we dismiss charges then |
| Date | 23:39:47, August 05, 2016 CET | From | Baltusian International Democratic Party | To | Debating the Supreme Court, Civil: Horncastle v Burgmuller [4069] |
| Message | The charges are settled anyway, the TU justice is making an unofficial ruling to see what the actual outcome would have been. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 664 | |||||||||
| no | Total Seats: 0 | |||||||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 86 |
| Random fact: Party candidates for head of state elections are not visible to the public. This means that you cannot see who will run and who will not, which adds another strategic element to the elections. |
| Random quote: First and second class seats on public transport shall be BANNED! We are all FIRST CLASS people, regardless of whether we are rich or poor and can afford or not afford to pay for a more expensive seat. From now on, all seats on trains, buses, trams, planes and so on shall be the SAME. We will all travel in the SAME way, TOGETHER. ~ Friedrich Pfeiffer General Secretary of the Dorvish Communist Party |