Continuous The Forum Court (Tirin v. Thunder: Concluded)
- Thread starter Easy
- Start date
Oh cool I got called, let me ju-
Fuck. I was with friends for the majority of the weekend. Sorry @AndyM03 !
Right Honorable Justice Easy Rider, is the Jury allowed to deliberate openly or is this a strict vote-only deliberation?
The Jury may debate openly. Any individuals who do not qualify as voting Jurors are ethically obligated to refrain from attempting to influence the course of this discussion in any way, except (and only up to the point) where absolutely necessary to fulfill the minimum legal obligations of the offending party.
Vote NOT GUILTY
I contend that false statements are not punishable by the court under just any circumstances. Public statements and statements to the court or some law enforcement entity should be treated differently.
Tirin also cited a law that makes that distinction; it requires the false statements to have been made, you know, directly to some government entity. Walrus was just rambling at no one in particular.
That, uh, by the way, is why I was waiting on the prosecution when I was representing Walrus. Because I was wanting the prosecution to more formally throw up that same citation (which Tirin ended up using) so I could shoot it down immediately. But the prosecution never presented a damn case.
I contend that false statements are not punishable by the court under just any circumstances. Public statements and statements to the court or some law enforcement entity should be treated differently.
Tirin also cited a law that makes that distinction; it requires the false statements to have been made, you know, directly to some government entity. Walrus was just rambling at no one in particular.
That, uh, by the way, is why I was waiting on the prosecution when I was representing Walrus. Because I was wanting the prosecution to more formally throw up that same citation (which Tirin ended up using) so I could shoot it down immediately. But the prosecution never presented a damn case.
Last edited:
Your Honor, permission to point out a circumstance regarding @Firedemon's "distinction" of the law in question?
Vote Not Guilty
Frankly, I'm still questioning how Walrus could in any manner be considered sane.
It is an indisputable, incontestable, irrefutable, unassailable, incontrovertible fact that Walrus consistently says things that are absolutely false. The question is, does he do it knowingly? While I personally have a hard time accepting Walrus as "sane," I'm not about to contest the ruling of the On Her-able Judge Easy-Motherfucking-E. For that reason, I Vote Guilty.
I am at an impasse. The issue with my vote comes with whether or not Walrus can be considered a deterrent for forum crime.
If he's voted guilty, then it's safe to say he'll be punished - acting as a deterrent for forum crime because forumers will not follow his path.
I still believe that Walrus Man is insane though.
I'll be out of town for the weekend, but I'll dwell on this.
If he's voted guilty, then it's safe to say he'll be punished - acting as a deterrent for forum crime because forumers will not follow his path.
I can only see this as satire, given @Colonel Thunder and his incapability of: (A) Heroically deflecting attacks and (B) His own defenses would crumble under his own touch.
I still believe that Walrus Man is insane though.
I'll be out of town for the weekend, but I'll dwell on this.
COURT IS HEREBY INFORMED that as of 23:50 EST on Monday, the twelfth of June, in this the 2017'th year of the Lord, forumer @Walrus was found NOT GUILTY, by a majority vote of the forum's Jury, of Making False Statements in the Press. The charge is now therefore dismissed.
This CONCLUDES the case of Tirin v. Walrus. Court is now adjourned, pending any future cases to be held.
Accusations may be submitted privately, through correspondence with the Justice, or publicly, in this thread.
(Given that the Court is a public institution, and does not operate in a secretive or exclusive manner, accusations may NOT be submitted anonymously.)
COURT IS ADJOURNED.
This CONCLUDES the case of Tirin v. Walrus. Court is now adjourned, pending any future cases to be held.
Accusations may be submitted privately, through correspondence with the Justice, or publicly, in this thread.
(Given that the Court is a public institution, and does not operate in a secretive or exclusive manner, accusations may NOT be submitted anonymously.)
COURT IS ADJOURNED.
Speaking purely legally, I would like to note to the jury that the only legal requirement for the charge of making false statements (within the United States) is to "knowingly and willfully make false or fraudulent statements, or concealing information, in 'any matter within the jurisdiction' of the federal government of the United States". Noting that we are not the government of the United States, though we apply such law to the governmental structure of our forums in cases such as this, it is clear that the phrase "any matter within the jurisdiction of" the government of Mach Entertainment effectively refers to any statements made within the entirety of the forum, which moderators and administrators have jurisdiction over (though, of course, Recon has the final say in all such matters). I will be pursuing this case further in the coming weeks, as the judge appears to have insufficiently instructed the jury with respect to this important legal distinction.
Given that Walrus was "certified" sane at the time, and had been making statements that no sane man could argue as true, clearly he was aware that they were false. In addition to that, I must again admit that moderators on this forum do have the right to moderate any and all publicly made statements, and thus that their falsehood is a matter of governmental jurisdiction - unless, of course, you were to make the ridiculous assertion that moderators are not a part of the forum's governmental structure.