Just to interject this, Cormac is no longer a citizen of the region -- and, as such, cannot be tried in our courts -- and IRC communications has repeatedly been determined to be outside the jurisdiction of the government.

IRC is not outside of the jurisdiction of the government in the sense that it may as well not even exist. IRC logs can and have been used as evidence in criminal cases. The idea that it's outside of the government's jurisdiction is more about our laws not applying there-- you can't enforce our banning policies, for example. It's not about making IRC some black hole.

Anyways, the court doesn't even have the required quorum to hear this case right now. There won't be three Justices until the special election concludes.

(02-05-2015, 02:25 PM)Sandaoguo Wrote: IRC is not outside of the jurisdiction of the government in the sense that it may as well not even exist. IRC logs can and have been used as evidence in criminal cases. The idea that it's outside of the government's jurisdiction is more about our laws not applying there-- you can't enforce our banning policies, for example. It's not about making IRC some black hole.

GR -- if our laws don't apply there, you can't hold actions in IRC as defamation. That's my point.

(02-05-2015, 02:20 PM)Belschaft Wrote: Such is an argument for trial, your honours. Considering that there clearly are numerous questions and matters of dispute in regards to this, the plaintiff believes it is essential that these charges be pursued.

I would disagree. Your argument for why a trial should occur is bunk - your alibi isn't an alibi at all. 

(02-05-2015, 02:29 PM)Tsunamy Wrote:

(02-05-2015, 02:25 PM)Sandaoguo Wrote: IRC is not outside of the jurisdiction of the government in the sense that it may as well not even exist. IRC logs can and have been used as evidence in criminal cases. The idea that it's outside of the government's jurisdiction is more about our laws not applying there-- you can't enforce our banning policies, for example. It's not about making IRC some black hole.

GR -- if our laws don't apply there, you can't hold actions in IRC as defamation. That's my point.

Oh, that's true. I think Belschaft posted IRC logs simply to prove that he wasn't on IRC, which is (he thinks, at least) a central point to any possible criminal charges. I thought you were saying that IRC couldn't be used as evidence in any criminal charges anyways. My mistake.

(02-05-2015, 02:30 PM)Unibot Wrote:

(02-05-2015, 02:20 PM)Belschaft Wrote: Such is an argument for trial, your honours. Considering that there clearly are numerous questions and matters of dispute in regards to this, the plaintiff believes it is essential that these charges be pursued.

I would disagree. Your argument for why a trial should occur is bunk - your alibi isn't an alibi at all. 

Disputes regarding facts and events can only properly occur at trial. As there is such a dispute, a trial must occur.

(02-05-2015, 02:39 PM)Belschaft Wrote:

(02-05-2015, 02:30 PM)Unibot Wrote:

(02-05-2015, 02:20 PM)Belschaft Wrote: Such is an argument for trial, your honours. Considering that there clearly are numerous questions and matters of dispute in regards to this, the plaintiff believes it is essential that these charges be pursued.

I would disagree. Your argument for why a trial should occur is bunk - your alibi isn't an alibi at all. 

Disputes regarding facts and events can only properly occur at trial. As there is such a dispute, a trial must occur.

You've asserted an argument as to why a trial should occur and I  have asserted a counter-argument as to why your argument is as idiotic as a hat-eating pair of socks.  Your supposed alibi does not justify a trial - it justifies a facepalm. 

(02-05-2015, 02:45 PM)Unibot Wrote:

(02-05-2015, 02:39 PM)Belschaft Wrote:

(02-05-2015, 02:30 PM)Unibot Wrote:

(02-05-2015, 02:20 PM)Belschaft Wrote: Such is an argument for trial, your honours. Considering that there clearly are numerous questions and matters of dispute in regards to this, the plaintiff believes it is essential that these charges be pursued.

I would disagree. Your argument for why a trial should occur is bunk - your alibi isn't an alibi at all. 

Disputes regarding facts and events can only properly occur at trial. As there is such a dispute, a trial must occur.

You've asserted an argument as to why a trial should occur and I  have asserted a counter-argument as to why your argument is as idiotic as a hat-eating pair of socks.  Your supposed alibi does not justify a trial - it justifies a facepalm. 

I have submitted evidence that proves than many of the accusations against me are physically impossible - specifically, that no criminal conspiracy could possibly have been extant after August 11th at the absolute latest. At trial I will present further evidence of such, whilst you will be unable to provide any evidence to substantiate them. In fact, there is no evidence whatsoever that I was involved in any conspiracy after July the 27th, nor is there any evidence that a conspiracy, if it did occur, was criminal. Yet accusations of such are continuously made without any attempt to substantiate them or bring criminal charges. It is precisely this that is a defamatory.

Court review of these charges are on hold until such time the court posesses three Justices or Acting Justices that do not possess a Conflict of Interest.

I inform the Court that not once have I accused Belschaft of committing treason, as a search of my post history will reveal. The accusation against me has no grounds or factual basis whatsoever.