Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

News: Devote pure conscience to forum maintenance like the martyr Limitless Events!

Author Topic: The Supreme Court Docket  (Read 6496 times)

Offline Zimmerwald

  • *
  • Posts: 2414
  • Demon Barber of Taijitu
Re: The Supreme Court Docket
« Reply #15 on: December 18, 2007, 11:17:30 PM »
As you wish.


ProP Spokesperson

Offline Durnia

  • Full of Imperial Mattyness
  • *
  • Posts: 756
Re: The Supreme Court Docket
« Reply #16 on: December 18, 2007, 11:32:55 PM »
I remove my request for a trial from this pathetic joke of a court system which has made it clear that it has no capacity to function effectively.

Good, good.
Nobody of importance.

Offline Zimmerwald

  • *
  • Posts: 2414
  • Demon Barber of Taijitu
Re: The Supreme Court Docket
« Reply #17 on: December 18, 2007, 11:35:38 PM »
Taco, check your PMs


ProP Spokesperson

Offline The G Rebellion

  • Your favourite Taiji.
  • Founders
  • *
  • Posts: 952
  • TGR
Re: The Supreme Court Docket
« Reply #18 on: December 18, 2007, 11:43:45 PM »
Osamafune - As I see it, your request is flawed. Mostly because it does not actually state what it is referring to... Therefore, attempting to take action against an ambiguous statement, into which you have read a meaning that you have only assumed. I realise that I am not a justice, other than for the purposes of the Govindia trial, but I would suggest that you don't have a case...



Offline Of Crazed

  • The most Ancient and Noble House of Black
  • *
  • Posts: 848
  • Let's do this.
Re: The Supreme Court Docket
« Reply #19 on: December 19, 2007, 12:46:31 AM »
That's unnecessary, as we've already made a polite post about it. And it doesn't change the harassment during the trial.

No, it's very necessary.
05/04/2008- Never Forget

Offline Osamafune

  • *
  • Posts: 961
    • Myminicity
Re: The Supreme Court Docket
« Reply #20 on: December 19, 2007, 01:02:12 AM »
The request has already been made, so perhaps you can explain why it's needed?

Offline Zimmerwald

  • *
  • Posts: 2414
  • Demon Barber of Taijitu
Re: The Supreme Court Docket
« Reply #21 on: December 19, 2007, 01:04:40 AM »
That's unnecessary, as we've already made a polite post about it. And it doesn't change the harassment during the trial.

No, it's very necessary.
Please keep all posts in this thread germane.


ProP Spokesperson

Offline PoD Gunner

  • Praefectus praetorio.
  • Citizen
  • *
  • Posts: 1935
  • Egrota Egrota Egrota!!!
Re: The Supreme Court Docket
« Reply #22 on: December 21, 2007, 11:40:32 AM »
Incredible. I have accepted Flemingovia as my counsel. He will speak in my behalf.
Co-Founder of Taijitu
Former Delegate of The Lexicon (by mistake), The Rejected Realms (par force) and Taijitu (elected)
*Home of GMT* / www.nationstates.net/nation=red_kagran


Offline Flemingovia

  • *
  • Posts: 669
  • Official Taijitu Minister of Apathy
Re: The Supreme Court Docket
« Reply #23 on: December 21, 2007, 11:52:22 AM »
Quote
I, Osamafune, do file a complaint against PoD_Gunner due to their violation of Article I, section 6 of the Taijitan Code of Laws in his insulting signature and continued harassment of Govindia and his defense team which was to my detriment because he is in clear violation of the aforementioned law, and helps prevent justice from being properly served in the Taijitu vs. Govindia trial.

In this Civil Proceeding I am petitioning for the removal of "Taijituan Kensatsu-Kan Taijitu's line of defense against the worst scum of the NS Universe" from his signature and any other punishment the court may see fit.

I also request a forum trial.

If it please the court, I have been asked by PoDGunner to represent him in this matter, and to act as defence counsel.

As it is the season of goodwill, we agree to a forum trial, and enter an immediate plea of "not guilty".

Further, my client wishes to enter a countersuit against Osamafune, as follows...

I, Flemingoivian Legal services, on behalf of PoD Gunner, do file a complaint against Osamafune due to their violation of Taijitu Code of Laws article 1, clause 4 and 6. It is our contention that He has libelled my client by calling him a lair in a public thread and has not, despite invitation and opportunity, withdrawn and/or apologised for his comments. We contend that he has also entered into a malicious prosecution against my client with the purpose of further blackening his name in this region.



In this Civil Proceeding my client is petitioning for the following:
1. The withdrawal of all criminal proceedings against my client and
2. A full and public apology to be issued to my client by Osamafune, the wording of which will be agreed by my client, and
3. the publication of the apology in Osamafune's signature for a period not less than one week.

Please note that, should these petitions be met before this comes to trial, this suit will be withdrawn.

To aid speedy resolution of this matter, we ask that this petition be heard on IRC chat.


We would also ask the court not to simply dismiss these suits. My client's good name is important to him, and he is happy to answer all charges. If this is not allowed to come to trial, then there is a danger that the mud that has been scurrilously thrown at my client will stick.


« Last Edit: December 21, 2007, 12:00:06 PM by Flemingovia »

Offline Osamafune

  • *
  • Posts: 961
    • Myminicity
Re: The Supreme Court Docket
« Reply #24 on: December 21, 2007, 08:19:32 PM »
At this rate, it will be Christmas time next year by the time the court gets around to that trial. I don't have any problems with that though.

I, naturally, also request that the court does not dismiss the trials.

Oh and GMT, check your pms shortly.

Offline Durnia

  • Full of Imperial Mattyness
  • *
  • Posts: 756
Re: The Supreme Court Docket
« Reply #25 on: December 21, 2007, 10:46:56 PM »
Quote
At this rate, it will be Christmas time next year by the time the court gets around to that trial.

It's quicker to either make an effort to resolve it civilly, grow a thicker skin, or ignore it.

Flemingovia's petition has been noted by the Court.
« Last Edit: December 21, 2007, 10:48:35 PM by Durnia »
Nobody of importance.

Offline Osamafune

  • *
  • Posts: 961
    • Myminicity
Re: The Supreme Court Docket
« Reply #26 on: December 21, 2007, 11:32:52 PM »
Simple insults over the internet don't bother me. It's deception and double standards that annoy me.

So Flem's has been noted, what of mine?

Offline Durnia

  • Full of Imperial Mattyness
  • *
  • Posts: 756
Re: The Supreme Court Docket
« Reply #27 on: December 22, 2007, 12:58:44 AM »
Indeed.

Your request? Why, it has too been noted by the Court of course.
« Last Edit: December 22, 2007, 01:03:57 AM by Durnia »
Nobody of importance.

Offline Zimmerwald

  • *
  • Posts: 2414
  • Demon Barber of Taijitu
Re: The Supreme Court Docket
« Reply #28 on: December 22, 2007, 02:26:20 AM »
Both have been noted and both are in my opinion absurd.  I'd rather not have Taijitu become a suit-happy region, and granting a writ of certiorari to either Osamafune's suit or PoD Gunner's countersuit seems to me to be just the sort of action that would encourage the development.

Be sure that if the other Justices overrule me and wish to hear this case, I will be recusing myself.


ProP Spokesperson

Offline Osamafune

  • *
  • Posts: 961
    • Myminicity
Re: The Supreme Court Docket
« Reply #29 on: December 22, 2007, 03:51:06 AM »
I will withdraw my suit since I really don't want to go through that many trials. But since I have nothing to apologize for yet, PoD vs. Osa appears to still be on.