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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

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

It depends on what the evidence actually is. bgwah could very well have perfectly legitimate cases following the intent of the laws. I won't assume anything about the cases until I see where they go.

The AG is definitely keeping the Court busy though and providing a good source of entertainment in the meantime.

[Purple State]

Can the court and the AG handle the current work load? Might there be a need for more justices (or judges to try cases who are not actually on the court) and a deputy AG to help serve as a prosecutor?

Bullmoose once brainstormed the intriguing idea of expanding the amount of Justices to 5, and I liked the idea. Still do, but I'm sure people would find some sort of sinister motive in that, too.

The ever-present problem is expanding the number of offices... and how you find good justices. I would instantly recommend Dibble, who has been an excellent justice for the SE. Perhaps Peter, if he were willing to jump back into things.

[Purple State]

Can the court and the AG handle the current work load? Might there be a need for more justices (or judges to try cases who are not actually on the court) and a deputy AG to help serve as a prosecutor?

We can handle it, but it is a strain, I must confess.  At least for myself.

I would not support an increase in the number of justices, but I think that the idea of a Trial Court is an excellent one.  This way any cases appealed to us (the Supreme Court) will not have been tried by one of us.  An assistant AJ is a great idea too.

I wonder how many people think a trial court of say 1-3 justices would be a good idea?  They could be general federal trial judges or they could be assigned certain regions as their individual purview.

I apologize if it is inappropriate for a sitting justice to interject opinion in this thread, but I think we should voice our comments on practical matters such as this.

I actually think that assigning the regional judiciaries as sort of like the US Circuit Court of Appeals, but for hearing the cases from scratch, could be a very good idea.

[Purple State]

Considering the current strain on the Court, it may be wise to remand one or two cases (if this is legal) to the regional courts (such as the Southeast) to expedite the process and ensure a speedy trial.

Not sure if this is allowed though.

[Purple State]

Well that didn't work.
Then again I'm banned from doing something I can't do for months anyway

Hopefully the law will get changed.

No, we banned de-registration for a reason.

Before my time. What reason?

[Purple State]

Well that didn't work.
Then again I'm banned from doing something I can't do for months anyway

Hopefully the law will get changed.

No, we banned de-registration for a reason.

Before my time. What reason?

Someone de-registered then got voted into something.

Rather than ban voting for a de-registered person, they banned de-registration.

Seems counter-intuitive. People write-in members all the time. There is no reason to not allow de-registration. Just set a limit saying you can't re-register for a month or something.

[Purple State]

On that note, I am more than happy to defend the constitutionality of the law, whether by trying the case or submitting an amicus on behalf of the State.

[Purple State]

Other than Al and Franzl it seems all of these people complaining about this were'nt here when this law was passed and don't have any memory of the problems that happened before it was passed.  If you had been guys you would know that we need it and why it is here for the benefit of us all, except the people who want to break the law.

Trust me Hap, I know exactly what you're talking about. From only my few months in Atlasia I have a very good idea of what headaches and annoyances allowing posting of PM's will cause, and I don't like the idea.

That said, my belief is the statute so broadly chills free speech and the free press that, in this case, the cure is simply worse than the disease. Not to say the underlying disease doesn't still suck though.... :-P

I don't see how the PPA chills free speech and press. It is the equivalent, in my view, of banning wire-taps without a warrant.

[Purple State]

Something interesting I noticed while checking the Court's Wiki page that got me wondering: What is the story behind Chief Justice bullmoose88's leap-frog to the position of CJ from junior AJ. Did senior AJ opebo turn down the position of CJ?

[Purple State]

Something interesting I noticed while checking the Court's Wiki page that got me wondering: What is the story behind Chief Justice bullmoose88's leap-frog to the position of CJ from junior AJ. Did senior AJ opebo turn down the position of CJ?

There is no requirement that the replacement for the cj be the senior associate or a member of the court at all. It's at the discretion of the president with the advice and consent of the senate.

I knew that. There just seemed to be a trend (Emsworth, Colin, Texasgurl) of junior AJ to senior AJ to CJ. Of course, Peter did the same leap-frog over Ernest. I was just wondering about some Court history is all. BM has done a fantastic job as CJ and it is a shame to see him go.

[Purple State]

A very sensible ruling by the court.  It is the AG's job to prosecute violations of the law.  To say that he must be directly affected by the violation- i.e. "have standing"- prevents him from doing his job.

If standing were to be an issue, it would be predicated on the idea that the offense occurred at the regional level, beyond the jurisdiction of the federal government.

But the federal Constitution does have jurisdiction over the regions in many situations and dual office holding is one of them.

[Purple State]

I have but three letters to say:

LOL

Seriously though, even if it is frivolous as all hell, Tweed's suit is simply a stroke of genius.

I will reappear (very briefly) from my extended walk into the sunset to echo this. Leave it to the true creator of the very idea of Atlasia to provide such a brilliant effort to return excitement to the game.

I would support the lawsuit if it leads to a reset of Atlasia(constitutional convention), not just an amendment.

As the chair of the two previous Constitutional Conventions and author of the current Constitution, I can tell you that the idea of a "true reset" is nonsense that is peddled every few months. The game thrives on its history--one that includes many of the greatest posters this forum has ever seen. That is why the Boss's suit is so sound. You don't really want a reset... you want a shakeup. That's what this is and I support it.

[Purple State]

PURPLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Uh oh, I just got Yanks hopes up. The inevitable crash will be fierce and unrelenting.

[Purple State]

PURPLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Uh oh, I just got Yanks hopes up. The inevitable crash will be fierce and unrelenting.

You should know me better then that. I have you surrounded by armed guards, there is no escape from here.

And all this time I thought that was just the Secret Service that all retired Atlasian presidents get for our future protection.