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: Johnson v Leitch [4070]
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. [Democratic Party] Plaintiff: Mr. Matthew Leitch. [Conservative Party of Baltusia] Defendant: Madam President, Jennifer Johnson. [Freedom Party] Claim(s): Defamation including: - Libel, - Slander. Procedure: 1.) The Plaintiff will put forth his evidence for the arbitrator to review. 2.) The Plaintiff will make 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 Honor". |
Proposals
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 21:24:48, August 06, 2016 CET | From | Constitution Committee | To | Debating the Supreme Court, Civil: Johnson v Leitch [4070] |
| Message | Mr. Leitch, Please present your evidence for review. The Honorable Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Jon Robertson. |
| Date | 21:51:33, August 06, 2016 CET | From | Baltusian International Democratic Party | To | Debating the Supreme Court, Civil: Johnson v Leitch [4070] |
| Message | Leitch's Law Team: "Thank you Your Honour. I would like to present the Defendants own words, both spoken and published as evidence in this case. Exhibit A1: "All you right wings are backstabbers you put laws in place for people to follow. Then when other party become in charge you, completely break your own law when you fell fit. Your all hypocrites." http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill.php?billid=480668 Exhibit A2: "I was going to make a cross cabinet but you backstabbers decide not to include the left." http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill.php?billid=480708 Secondly I would like to present their statements about us breaking the law: Exhibit B1: "By law I have to have foreign affairs,internal affairs and fiancé if you vote no you are breaking the law." http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill.phpbillid=480654 Finally I present their bill which would create a dictatorship: Exhibit C1: http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill.php?billid=480655 This is all of my evidince at the moment however more shall be available on demand. Do you accept this evidence as words spoken and bills created by the Defendant? |
| Date | 21:54:37, August 06, 2016 CET | From | Baltusian International Democratic Party | To | Debating the Supreme Court, Civil: Johnson v Leitch [4070] |
| Message | OOC: Can we call a witness. |
| Date | 21:55:52, August 06, 2016 CET | From | Constitution Committee | To | Debating the Supreme Court, Civil: Johnson v Leitch [4070] |
| Message | Those representing Mr. Leitch, I accept A1, A2, and B1 but fail to see the relevance of C1, which is therefore rejected. You may proceed with your case, striking C1 from it. The Honorable Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Jon Robertson. |
| Date | 21:57:08, August 06, 2016 CET | From | Constitution Committee | To | Debating the Supreme Court, Civil: Johnson v Leitch [4070] |
| Message | OOC: Later on if you want, you don't have to disclose them now. But when you want to use them, say the following: I call x to the stand. Then I'll swear 'em in and you can go ahead an examine them. |
| Date | 02:10:57, August 07, 2016 CET | From | Freedom Party | To | Debating the Supreme Court, Civil: Johnson v Leitch [4070] |
| Message | Jennifer Johnson Your honour Exhibit A1 I can justify this by say that this party put a law in pace and have dismissed it because it no longer applies to them. http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill.php?billid=479308 Exhibit A2 We said that if neither the lefts or rights majority then we will make a cross cabinet and they completely went against theat. Exhibit B1 Again because this party said that in this bill that the president should have fiancé,Foreign Affairs,Internal Affairs. http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill.php?billid=479308 Exhibit C1 I could him a dictator because is trying to be he wants to make a cabinet were he still keeps his position and will do anything to make sure he is in charge. Even if it means he is breaking the law. He should accept the fact that the people don't want the conservatives as president and make a cabinet with us having those position.But no he still wants to rule the country under his party's reign, and get his little allied friends to vote yes for him. I quote "He like a secondary school bully who wants everyone to obey him,and everyone's to scared to vote no or challenge him but I will no obey him and I will challenge him". |
| Date | 04:26:19, August 07, 2016 CET | From | United Democratic Party - Liberal | To | Debating the Supreme Court, Civil: Johnson v Leitch [4070] |
| Message | What does this have to do with me!? |
| Date | 04:27:13, August 07, 2016 CET | From | United Democratic Party - Liberal | To | Debating the Supreme Court, Civil: Johnson v Leitch [4070] |
| Message | You put progressive party. I'm not president jennifer. |
| Date | 10:49:00, August 07, 2016 CET | From | Baltusian International Democratic Party | To | Debating the Supreme Court, Civil: Johnson v Leitch [4070] |
| Message | Your Honour, does the defence require some legal assistance, they have barely dismissed the evidence and in fact have added an offensive and void statement regarding evidence C1, which Your Honour dismissed. Exhibit A1: Miss Johnson, I don't understand your response. Just because I may disagree with a law, or the law doesn't apply to me- It's not an excuse for you from defaming me by calling me and the other right wing parties ''Backstabbers' and 'Hipocrites'. Exhibit A2: Your Honour, here the defence have failed again to dismiss the evidence. This cabinet was a left wing cabinet and wasn't any cross party cabinet, in fact more parties voted against it than for it, not very 'cross-party'. Your Honour the defence called us a 'backstabber' simply for voting in a cabinet, which was supposedly cross-party, yet myself nor the Patriotic Party were included in. Exhibit B1:Your honour, that previous bill stated that: "This act will mean that in all cabinet proposals the presidents party must gain at least the seats of: Internal Affairs Foreign Affairs Finance OOC: Many parties wanted this bill to make it a defining bill when cabinets are proposed. Unfortunately it is unable to be done within game mechanics so we will just have to RP this law if it passes." Your Honour, there is nothing about it being illegal not to vote in a bill just illegal not to include the presidents party in these seats in a bill. Your Honour this gives the defence no reason to accuse us of 'breaking the law'. Something which lost is voters as they felt that we were doing perhaps dodgy or shady things. Your Honour, if the defence has no response, then let's take this to the verdict. |
| Date | 10:51:23, August 07, 2016 CET | From | Baltusian International Democratic Party | To | Debating the Supreme Court, Civil: Johnson v Leitch [4070] |
| Message | OOC: Please remove statement about Exhibit A1 and use the B1 statement for both A1 and B1- I didn't understand what the defendant was getting at but now I get it |
| Date | 10:53:23, August 07, 2016 CET | From | Baltusian International Democratic Party | To | Debating the Supreme Court, Civil: Johnson v Leitch [4070] |
| Message | Also I would like to add your honour that the bill: http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill.php?billid=479308 Is not defining law as it never passed by a 2/3 majority and was simply an excuse for the Freedom Party to get us to vote for them. |
| Date | 11:13:35, August 07, 2016 CET | From | Constitution Committee | To | Debating the Supreme Court, Civil: Johnson v Leitch [4070] |
| Message | Leitch, That is understood. The "Deceleration of President's Party's Seats in Cabinet" is null and void, it has been for a long time. Johnson, you may address what has been said The Honorable Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Jon Robertson. |
| Date | 13:53:32, August 07, 2016 CET | From | Baltusian International Democratic Party | To | Debating the Supreme Court, Civil: Johnson v Leitch [4070] |
| Message | Your Honour, Does the defendant have a response? |
| Date | 14:01:02, August 07, 2016 CET | From | Constitution Committee | To | Debating the Supreme Court, Civil: Johnson v Leitch [4070] |
| Message | Leitch, I'm not in a position to say, but I welcome a response from the defendant until January. The Honorable Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Jon Robertson. |
| Date | 14:33:24, August 07, 2016 CET | From | Baltusian International Democratic Party | To | Debating the Supreme Court, Civil: Johnson v Leitch [4070] |
| Message | Thank you Your Honour |
| Date | 15:35:38, August 07, 2016 CET | From | Freedom Party | To | Debating the Supreme Court, Civil: Johnson v Leitch [4070] |
| Message | Your hounor Exhibit A1: I could his party a backstabber and a hippcrit because they said if it's a hung parliament they would make a joint party cabient.But instead make a right only party.Which is illegal as they haven't even include the president. Mr Leitch fails to understand were him and the right party's have gone wrong this completely contradicts them self.were is my party in this bill nowhere that is illegal I thought it was a attempt to gain right party dictatorship. http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill.php?billid=480668 ExhibateA2 we actually did include them if you see we clearly include them that's just a bad excuse to print false information.To make are party look bad infront of the nation. http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill.php?billid=480588 ExhibateB1 They say I am by law am meant to have those position but have no intention to give it to me.But to still want to hold on to power.They say it's not illegal to vote no then that's fine but.Why don't you make a cabient with the president included but you refuse to do so.By letting you little buddy's set up a cabient that is illegal and completely goes against your own bill.Then try and pant us out as the bad guy for piling you up on your mistakes.http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill.php?billid=480668 |
| Date | 16:09:20, August 07, 2016 CET | From | Baltusian International Democratic Party | To | Debating the Supreme Court, Civil: Johnson v Leitch [4070] |
| Message | Your Honour, Exhibit A1- Firstly, at which point did I say that I would make a cross party cabinet. Secondly, we never made that cabinet, that was the Front National Party. Thirdly, it isn't illegal not to include the President as that bill is void as it wasn't passed by a 2/3 majority. Your Honour has verified that for us- "It's null and void and has been for a long time". Fourthly, we haven't contradicted ourselves, that presidents cabinet seats bill is invalid and we didn't even create that Right Wing Cabinet Bill, again, that was the FNP. Fifthly, your party weren't included in that bill CREATED BY THE FNP, because they simply didn't have to or want you to be in the bill, and please give up on calling us Illegal. THAT BILL IS VOID. Finally, Why don't you ask the FNP why you aren't in the bill. I strongly suspect it's because you are calling us undemocratic when you are trying to force a bill through making in illegal for us not to vote 'Yes' in all cabinet bills proposed by yourselves, sounds a little like a DICTATORSHIP to me. Exhibit A2- Your Honour, that bill is irrelevant. The bill which is the actual evidence- A2 (http://classic.particracy.net/viewbill.php?billid=480708) clearly does NOT include us. Could Your Honour please remind the defence not to try and trick Your Honour by proposing a different bill as false evidence which was never in question. This is perjury! Exhibit B1: ............................. THAT BILL IS VOID................... ITS NOT ILLEGAL, IT NEVER PASSED..............WE NEVER MADE THE BILL IT WAS THE FNP.......... Your Honour this should clear everything up and give the defense nothing to question. Shall we take it to the verdict? |
| Date | 18:41:47, August 07, 2016 CET | From | Constitution Committee | To | Debating the Supreme Court, Civil: Johnson v Leitch [4070] |
| Message | All parties, After careful deliberation, I find the defendants excuses lacking and therefore find the defendant liable for defamation and therefore award the plaintiff $25,000 in damages as well as the cost of these legal proceedings to be paid by the defendant. *strikes gavel* The Honorable Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Jon Robertson. Precedent set: None. |
| Date | 18:45:26, August 07, 2016 CET | From | Baltusian International Democratic Party | To | Debating the Supreme Court, Civil: Johnson v Leitch [4070] |
| Message | Excellent, thank you Your Honour. |
| Date | 18:54:23, August 07, 2016 CET | From | Freedom Party | To | Debating the Supreme Court, Civil: Johnson v Leitch [4070] |
| Message | fine whatever I will pay your money it was a bias judge anyway who is clearly right wing and thinks I am in the wrong for telling the truth and standing up for myself and my party. I have nothing else to say to the judge or Mr Leitch about the case. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 664 | |||||||||
| no | Total Seats: 0 | |||||||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 86 |
| Random fact: Players have a responsibility to make a reasonable effort to be accurate when communicating the rules to other players. Any player who manipulatively misleads another player about the rules will be subject to sanction. |
| Random quote: "Racism isn't born, folks; it's taught. I have a two-year-old son. You know what he hates? Naps! End of list." - Dennis Leary |