Case Filing: Atlasia v. Jesus

[King]

Office of the Attorney General

As the Attorney General of Atlasia, being the official legal counsel and representation for the government and its citizens, I would like to announce that I will proceed with criminal charges against Pacific Governor and Washington citizen Jesus Bgwah in front of the Supreme Court of Atlasia for one count of maliciously editing the Atlas Wiki* and, in hopes to stir up a court discussion, one count of posting content of a sexual nature.** I will enter all evidence at a later date and at the court's discretion.

This being a criminal case, I expect it to be conducted upon the guidelines set by Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution along with F.L. 15-1 Consolidated Criminal Justice Act.  Thus requiring this to be a trial by jury among impartial, and thus fantasy inactive, members of the defendant's region (Pacific) chosen mutually by the prosecution and defense with only one presiding justice chosen by the court.

I also assume Mr. Bgwah will be required to turn himself in and enter a plea.

* See F.L. 15-1, Section 1, Clause 5
** See F.L. 15-1, Section 1, Clause 6

[SPC]

Looks like they might have a Governor Alcon if this case holds.

[Ebowed]

I would be willing to represent Jesus.

[King]

*bump* For the Supreme Court and Jesus.

[bgwah]

*bump* For the Supreme Court and Jesus.

I don't know what I'm supposed to do...

[King]

*bump* For the Supreme Court and Jesus.

I don't know what I'm supposed to do...

I just want to know if you accept Ebowed as your lawyer.

[bgwah]

*bump* For the Supreme Court and Jesus.

I don't know what I'm supposed to do...

I just want to know if you accept Ebowed as your lawyer.

Yes, I do.

[King]

*bump* For the Supreme Court and Jesus.

I don't know what I'm supposed to do...

I just want to know if you accept Ebowed as your lawyer.

Yes, I do.

Alright then, now we just need the court to pick up the case and hopefully this will be over soon.

[The Dowager Mod]

I notified the associate justices.

[TomC]

I would need more specifics to know if we should proceed; however, I would prefer not to be the justice overseeing this. Just started school and am very busy. I've done the last two majority opinions for the court; someone else can take a turn here. I'd hope that would be the Chief Justice.

[opebo]

I would be happy to 'oversee' this case, but I would also prefer that we The Court not take it, as it is patently spurious.  What is the legal term for that?

[Sam Spade]

Why is it "patently spurious", opebo?

[opebo]

Why is it "patently spurious", opebo?

I am required to give a reason?  Well, what I was getting at is that it is frivolous - I can't think of the legal term for such cases, but are they not generally thrown out preemptorily? 

But aside from that the laws mentioned are unconstitutional.

[King]

Why is it "patently spurious", opebo?

I am required to give a reason?  Well, what I was getting at is that it is frivolous - I can't think of the legal term for such cases, but are they not generally thrown out preemptorily? 

But aside from that the laws mentioned are unconstitutional.

I'd think you'd support it being a tolerate person as Jesus (religious name) called dazzleman a pedophile for saying Rin-chan was attractive.

You aren't living up to your own stereotype, opebo.

[opebo]

Why is it "patently spurious", opebo?

I am required to give a reason?  Well, what I was getting at is that it is frivolous - I can't think of the legal term for such cases, but are they not generally thrown out preemptorily? 

But aside from that the laws mentioned are unconstitutional.

I'd think you'd support it being a tolerate person as Jesus (religious name) called dazzleman a pedophile for saying Rin-chan was attractive.

You aren't living up to your own stereotype, opebo.

I'm sorry councillor you're going to have to restate that, as it made no sense.  What is a 'tolerate person'?  Just because it is acceptable to use ajectives as nouns does not make it acceptable - at least in my courtroom - to use verbs as adjectives.  Harrumph!

[King]

Why is it "patently spurious", opebo?

I am required to give a reason?  Well, what I was getting at is that it is frivolous - I can't think of the legal term for such cases, but are they not generally thrown out preemptorily? 

But aside from that the laws mentioned are unconstitutional.

I'd think you'd support it being a tolerate person as Jesus (religious name) called dazzleman a pedophile for saying Rin-chan was attractive.

You aren't living up to your own stereotype, opebo.

I'm sorry councillor you're going to have to restate that, as it made no sense.  What is a 'tolerate person'?  Just because it is acceptable to use ajectives as nouns does not make it acceptable - at least in my courtroom - to use verbs as adjectives.  Harrumph!

Sorry, meant tolerant.

I'd think you'd support it being a tolerant person as Jesus (religious name) called dazzleman a pedophile for saying Rin-chan was attractive.

You aren't living up to your own stereotype, opebo.

[opebo]

I'd think you'd support it being a tolerant person as Jesus (religious name) called dazzleman a pedophile for saying Rin-chan was attractive.

Still doesn't make any sense.  While I support pedophilia, I also support free speech, and anyway thusly, it was a compliment.

[King]

I'd think you'd support it being a tolerant person as Jesus (religious name) called dazzleman a pedophile for saying Rin-chan was attractive.

Still doesn't make any sense.  While I support pedophilia, I also support free speech, and anyway thusly, it was a compliment.

Interesting position as usual.  I must ask opebo, what part of the constitution does the law in question violate?

[opebo]

I'd think you'd support it being a tolerant person as Jesus (religious name) called dazzleman a pedophile for saying Rin-chan was attractive.

Still doesn't make any sense.  While I support pedophilia, I also support free speech, and anyway thusly, it was a compliment.

Interesting position as usual.  I must ask opebo, what part of the constitution does the law in question violate?

My interpretation, you impertinent.

[bgwah]

I'd think you'd support it being a tolerant person as Jesus (religious name) called dazzleman a pedophile for saying Rin-chan was attractive.

Still doesn't make any sense.  While I support pedophilia, I also support free speech, and anyway thusly, it was a compliment.

Opebo has a good point. I never said pedophelia was bad and I never said being a pedophile made Dazzleman a bad person. As I have already said (and as you have all repeatedly ignored), Dazzleman's attraction to the young girls of Prussian Blue also led me to make that statement.

[The Dowager Mod]

Looks like i will be presiding.
https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=61156.0
Please keep disscusions about the case here and not in the trial thread.

[Sam Spade]

Why is it "patently spurious", opebo?

I am required to give a reason?  Well, what I was getting at is that it is frivolous - I can't think of the legal term for such cases, but are they not generally thrown out preemptorily? 

But aside from that the laws mentioned are unconstitutional.

How are the laws unconstitutional?  I don't see how this has anything to do with free speech, especially since I suspect the standard of review would be lower for the government to prove concerning edits to personal webpages about Atlasian members.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I looked up the Pacific laws and you are right, so I guess our only eligible jurors from Jesus' state are:

Alcon
CultureKing
jerusalemcar5
Reignman

How many people are needed on the jury? Because Alcon is a friend of Jesus and JCar is inactive.

Oh dear.

[King]

I looked up the Pacific laws and you are right, so I guess our only eligible jurors from Jesus' state are:

Alcon
CultureKing
jerusalemcar5
Reignman

How many people are needed on the jury? Because Alcon is a friend of Jesus and JCar is inactive.

Oh dear.

Indeed.  Reignman isn't very active either.  I don't know if I can get a fair trial here as there would be no point of having a required jury trial over the justices with just CultureKing as the jury.  Gotta love these constitutional loopholes that only come up at times like this...

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I would suggest scrapping regional juries (and have juries selected on a national basis instead), but I suspect that any attempt to do that would be shot down by the usual suspects.