Public Discussion on the Supreme Court Cases (Avoid Cluttering Case Threads)

[Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Back when my family was wealthy enough to still have Satelitte TV and I used to watch C-span. At the beginning and end of each session of the Court they would gather a group of Lawyers and historians to discuss the up comming, or the previous session and its impacts. Since talking in the court rooms is not allowed. This could be a good place to discuss the cases. Especially since there are so many cased on the docket right now.


Please try to keep this civil.

[Purple State]

I prefer to just interject in the courtroom.

As long as you keep it short and civil, it doesn't seem to bother the justices all too much.

[Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I prefer to just interject in the courtroom.

As long as you keep it short and civil, it doesn't seem to bother the justices all too much.

When has it ever been short and civil? Besides they used to make these threads in the past for each court case. I remember there was one for the Xahar case, I think back in January.

[opebo]

While I have to admit that chitter-chatter does tend to bump the threads usefully, it is a distraction. 

Of course I'll refrain from comment here, but I'd like to applaud Sen. N. Carolina Yankee for creating this thread.

[Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The prosecution was unable to provide an adequate refutation of the defense's legitimate claims. Not only was it a joke, but it was not a performance of the SoFA's duties. Therefore, legally, we cannot prosecute East Coast Republican. The SoFA is required to open voting booths that contain the official rules and the official ballot. Without the presence of this, the actions at hand can not be considered a performance of said duties. East Coast Republican did not commit a crime and should not be sentenced.

The arguements by the defense counsel here leave me scratching my head. Does he honestly think he is doing anything other then driving the nail in his client's coffin. Especially after he requested more time and then did nothing with it. Finally this statement is completely out of order.

[Alexander Hamilton]

The prosecution was unable to provide an adequate refutation of the defense's legitimate claims. Not only was it a joke, but it was not a performance of the SoFA's duties. Therefore, legally, we cannot prosecute East Coast Republican. The SoFA is required to open voting booths that contain the official rules and the official ballot. Without the presence of this, the actions at hand can not be considered a performance of said duties. East Coast Republican did not commit a crime and should not be sentenced.

The arguements by the defense counsel here leave me scratching my head. Does he honestly think he is doing anything other then driving the nail in his client's coffin. Especially after he requested more time and then did nothing with it. Finally this statement is completely out of order.

You get what you pay for.

[Vasall des Midas]

The prosecution was unable to provide an adequate refutation of the defense's legitimate claims. Not only was it a joke, but it was not a performance of the SoFA's duties. Therefore, legally, we cannot prosecute East Coast Republican. The SoFA is required to open voting booths that contain the official rules and the official ballot. Without the presence of this, the actions at hand can not be considered a performance of said duties. East Coast Republican did not commit a crime and should not be sentenced.

The arguements by the defense counsel here leave me scratching my head. Does he honestly think he is doing anything other then driving the nail in his client's coffin. Especially after he requested more time and then did nothing with it. Finally this statement is completely out of order.

The prosecution was unable (or possibly unwilling) to provide an adequate refutation of all of the defense's claims but one - the stupid one about it being intended as a joke. it didn't answer the other ones at all and instead reverted to, basically, namecalling  - actually, in a proper courtroom or with a more worthy defendant, I'd call it character assassination. Certainly completely out of order, though. Unlike most of the statement posted.

[Fmr. Emperor PiT]

     Given the issues with disruptions in recent court cases, perhaps one or all of the Justices should be made moderators of this board, so they can delete extraneous posts.

[Purple State]

Goodness, bgwah must be a phenomenal investigator. I have never seen the court so busy. I am very much looking forward to the evidence in these cases and how they proceed.

[Alexander Hamilton]

Goodness, bgwah must be a phenomenal investigator. I have never seen the court so busy. I am very much looking forward to the evidence in these cases and how they proceed.

He should prosecute this JCP member who is impersonating Yates.

My friends, it seems as though many of you have discovered that I was telling lies.  I will be the first to admit that this is true.  First, let me explain that this is the Yates you know, not Edward.  Second, let me tell you that the prayers I asked for were not in vain and the sadness I expressed was not false.  I was, indeed, dying.  Rather, I was likely to die.  I lied to you about several aspects of the story, however, and these lies have generated the attention of some of you on the forum.  First, I reside in Florida.  I do, however, come originally from Iowa and, yes, as I told many of you, I spent many years in England for schooling.  My name is not Yatesley.  These pieces of information were provided instead of true information purely to protect my identity over the internet, similar to how many of you may give false names for the purpose of protection.
The sadness I expressed on the forum was true, my friends, and your prayers have empowered me.  I have been ill - very ill, in fact, but now I seem to be recovering.  The reason I chose brain cancer as opposed to my true ailment is that, to be frank, I would have  been humiliated to reveal my true disease.  I understand, from reading the forum, that many of you feel as though I have duped you.  No, that is not so.  Once again, thank you for your prayers, and I intend to post again after my recovery is complete, Lord willing.
 
Yates

[Purple State]

For the record, I believe people are beginning to read the Privacy Protection Act far more broadly than it was meant. It was specifically proposed to address the posting of actual correspondences, such as quoting PMs into a post or copy/pasting IMs into posts. The discussion of the content of said correspondences, without the posting of the actual content, should not be considered illegal, otherwise I could sue a few people right now.

Goodness, bgwah must be a phenomenal investigator. I have never seen the court so busy. I am very much looking forward to the evidence in these cases and how they proceed.

He should prosecute this JCP member who is impersonating Yates.

My friends, it seems as though many of you have discovered that I was telling lies.  I will be the first to admit that this is true.  First, let me explain that this is the Yates you know, not Edward.  Second, let me tell you that the prayers I asked for were not in vain and the sadness I expressed was not false.  I was, indeed, dying.  Rather, I was likely to die.  I lied to you about several aspects of the story, however, and these lies have generated the attention of some of you on the forum.  First, I reside in Florida.  I do, however, come originally from Iowa and, yes, as I told many of you, I spent many years in England for schooling.  My name is not Yatesley.  These pieces of information were provided instead of true information purely to protect my identity over the internet, similar to how many of you may give false names for the purpose of protection.
The sadness I expressed on the forum was true, my friends, and your prayers have empowered me.  I have been ill - very ill, in fact, but now I seem to be recovering.  The reason I chose brain cancer as opposed to my true ailment is that, to be frank, I would have  been humiliated to reveal my true disease.  I understand, from reading the forum, that many of you feel as though I have duped you.  No, that is not so.  Once again, thank you for your prayers, and I intend to post again after my recovery is complete, Lord willing.
 
Yates

Okay? First, bgwah can go for it if he so chooses. Second, I highly doubt the truth of that statement, but who knows. Third, I don't actually have an opinion on any of the cases yet. I have to see evidence first. I just think it is nice to see an AG really going out there and doing his job.

[Alexander Hamilton]

For the record, I believe people are beginning to read the Privacy Protection Act far more broadly than it was meant. It was specifically proposed to address the posting of actual correspondences, such as quoting PMs into a post or copy/pasting IMs into posts. The discussion of the content of said correspondences, without the posting of the actual content, should not be considered illegal, otherwise I could sue a few people right now.

You can only sue as Atlasia if you are the AG, I believe. Individuals don't have the right to sue through the Privacy Protection Act.

[Purple State]

For the record, I believe people are beginning to read the Privacy Protection Act far more broadly than it was meant. It was specifically proposed to address the posting of actual correspondences, such as quoting PMs into a post or copy/pasting IMs into posts. The discussion of the content of said correspondences, without the posting of the actual content, should not be considered illegal, otherwise I could sue a few people right now.

You can only sue as Atlasia if you are the AG, I believe. Individuals don't have the right to sue through the Privacy Protection Act.

It is still upsetting to see people throwing around threats of suits for something that wassn't (as far as I was concerned when sponsoring the bill) the intention or, as far as I see, isn't the proper reading of the law.

[Kuu ülevaade olulisematest]

Yeah, the litigous atmosphere (coupled with a hyperactive AG) is no good.

[Communists For McCain]

The judicial system has turned into a witchhunt (seriously what the hell did Sewer Socialist do to deserve a trial?)

[I left.]

The judicial system has turned into a witchhunt (seriously what the hell did Sewer Socialist do to deserve a trial?)

Well that's what the trial is for....to see what he allegedly did wrong

[Senator North Carolina Yankee]

For the record, I believe people are beginning to read the Privacy Protection Act far more broadly than it was meant. It was specifically proposed to address the posting of actual correspondences, such as quoting PMs into a post or copy/pasting IMs into posts. The discussion of the content of said correspondences, without the posting of the actual content, should not be considered illegal, otherwise I could sue a few people right now.

You can only sue as Atlasia if you are the AG, I believe. Individuals don't have the right to sue through the Privacy Protection Act.

It is still upsetting to see people throwing around threats of suits for something that wassn't (as far as I was concerned when sponsoring the bill) the intention or, as far as I see, isn't the proper reading of the law.

Why don't you write up an Amicus Brief when the trial gets under way?

[Badger]

Yeah, the litigous atmosphere (coupled with a hyperactive AG) is no good.

I don't think the seemingly constant litigation has to do with the AG overreaching than it does the AG merely doing his job in prosecuting an overreaching statute.

Blaming a lawyer for the underlying law is like blaming a linebacker for sacking the quarterback.

[bgwah]

The judicial system has turned into a witchhunt (seriously what the hell did Sewer Socialist do to deserve a trial?)

Well that's what the trial is for....to see what he allegedly did wrong

I think he would prefer to engage in unwarranted and vicious personal attacks.

And lol @ Xahar. Now I'm too active.

[Vasall des Midas]

We still haven't the slightest clue what Hamilton is supposed to have done. Though if that case, and Sewer's, have as little basis as the other suit bgwah has been threatening against Hamilton in that case, then it is high time this off-the-rocker pursuer of personal vendettas be stopped in the only constitutionally acceptable way. Which is impeachment. (Though it does seem there must be some substance to the Hamilton case - judging purely from Ham's behavior.)

[I left.]

We still haven't the slightest clue what Hamilton is supposed to have done. Though if that case, and Sewer's, have as little basis as the other suit bgwah has been threatening against Hamilton in that case, then it is high time this off-the-rocker pursuer of personal vendettas be stopped in the only constitutionally acceptable way. Which is impeachment. (Though it does seem there must be some substance to the Hamilton case - judging purely from Ham's behavior.)

We're working on getting the ball rolling, but you'll surely see soon enough

[bgwah]

We still haven't the slightest clue what Hamilton is supposed to have done. Though if that case, and Sewer's, have as little basis as the other suit bgwah has been threatening against Hamilton in that case, then it is high time this off-the-rocker pursuer of personal vendettas be stopped in the only constitutionally acceptable way. Which is impeachment. (Though it does seem there must be some substance to the Hamilton case - judging purely from Ham's behavior.)

Apologies for waiting until the trials start to post my evidence.

[Senator North Carolina Yankee]

bgwah just can't get no respect.

[Communists For McCain]

We still haven't the slightest clue what Hamilton is supposed to have done. Though if that case, and Sewer's, have as little basis as the other suit bgwah has been threatening against Hamilton in that case, then it is high time this off-the-rocker pursuer of personal vendettas be stopped in the only constitutionally acceptable way. Which is impeachment. (Though it does seem there must be some substance to the Hamilton case - judging purely from Ham's behavior.)

[Meeker]

I'm honestly very puzzled by all this. Everyone complains when people don't do anything - particularly do-nothing cabinet members - and yet when someone does actually start doing stuff people complain.