Atlasia v. RowanBrandon

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The obvious solution is to make it a civil offense rather than a criminal one.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

I appeal this ruling.

On the grounds of ineffective counsel?

My client is, of course, guilty as hell. He has clearly committed the crime he stands accused of and does not deny this.

[minionofmidas]

The obvious solution is to make it a civil offense rather than a criminal one.

So... how do we pay damages in Atlasia? The wronged person gets to cast the wronging person's vote?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I appeal this ruling.

On the grounds of ineffective counsel?

My client is, of course, guilty as hell. He has clearly committed the crime he stands accused of and does not deny this.

Presumably you would have gone the other way had I lied. No, I didn't think so either.

My argument was that there ought to be a public interest defense in cases like this, though the real problem is with the Privacy Protection Act - it's bad law and draconian law. It wouldn't be so bad if there were (say) a test for malice in it somewhere.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The obvious solution is to make it a civil offense rather than a criminal one.

So... how do we pay damages in Atlasia? The wronged person gets to cast the wronging person's vote?

Hmm... I don't know. But it's an area we need to look at, I think.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

I appeal this ruling.

On the grounds of ineffective counsel?

My client is, of course, guilty as hell. He has clearly committed the crime he stands accused of and does not deny this.

Presumably you would have gone the other way had I lied. No, I didn't think so either.

My argument was that there ought to be a public interest defense in cases like this, though the real problem is with the Privacy Protection Act - it's bad law and draconian law. It wouldn't be so bad if there were (say) a test for malice in it somewhere.

No I probably wouldn't have gone the other way, but respectfully, it is misconduct, even though you're a volunteer defense counsel. 

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I appeal this ruling.

On the grounds of ineffective counsel?

My client is, of course, guilty as hell. He has clearly committed the crime he stands accused of and does not deny this.

Presumably you would have gone the other way had I lied. No, I didn't think so either.

My argument was that there ought to be a public interest defense in cases like this, though the real problem is with the Privacy Protection Act - it's bad law and draconian law. It wouldn't be so bad if there were (say) a test for malice in it somewhere.

No I probably wouldn't have gone the other way, but respectfully, it is misconduct, even though you're a volunteer defense counsel. 

No, don't say "respectfully", though at least it was "with all due respect".

"Not lying" as "misconduct" is certainly an interesting concept. Yes, yes, yes I do see the issue here, but I don't see the need to get so hung up over baroque technicalities here in fantasyland. Especially as in this case Rowan had admitted to the offense several times already and I didn't really want to be accused of perjury. Pretty much the only chance of getting him off seemed to be admit guilt but claim for public interest. It didn't work, sadly, but I don't think anything else would have either.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

I appeal this ruling.

On the grounds of ineffective counsel?

My client is, of course, guilty as hell. He has clearly committed the crime he stands accused of and does not deny this.

Presumably you would have gone the other way had I lied. No, I didn't think so either.

My argument was that there ought to be a public interest defense in cases like this, though the real problem is with the Privacy Protection Act - it's bad law and draconian law. It wouldn't be so bad if there were (say) a test for malice in it somewhere.

No I probably wouldn't have gone the other way, but respectfully, it is misconduct, even though you're a volunteer defense counsel.  

No, don't say "respectfully", though at least it was "with all due respect".

"Not lying" as "misconduct" is certainly an interesting concept. Yes, yes, yes I do see the issue here, but I don't see the need to get so hung up over baroque technicalities here in fantasyland. Especially as in this case Rowan had admitted to the offense several times already and I didn't really want to be accused of perjury. Pretty much the only chance of getting him off seemed to be admit guilt but claim for public interest. It didn't work, sadly, but I don't think anything else would have either.

I will admit the written evidence was overwhelming, and yes, it was with all due respect  Hey Johnny Cochran got OJ off with more evidence and didnt say OJ was guilty....though he was better at jury nullification.

[Purple State]

Yeah, this law is stupid.

Currently, we have no law repressing fraud, but a law repressing people who reveal fraud. It's just absurd.

I tried passing a libel and slander law, but that failed. I'm happy that this law passed. I don't see why private discussions should be allowed to be made public. But explain away.

[Alexander Hamilton]

Yeah, this law is stupid.

Currently, we have no law repressing fraud, but a law repressing people who reveal fraud. It's just absurd.

I tried passing a libel and slander law, but that failed. I'm happy that this law passed. I don't see why private discussions should be allowed to be made public. But explain away.

Before he does that, he first needs to point out where fraud occurred.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

To the guillotine!

[Eraserhead]

He agreed to serve on the jury.

Then tell him to swear in and take this seriously.

Christ, man. Go get laid or something.

[Alexander Hamilton]

He agreed to serve on the jury.

Then tell him to swear in and take this seriously.

Christ, man. Go get laid or something.

This. ^^^

[Badger]

He agreed to serve on the jury.

Then tell him to swear in and take this seriously.

Christ, man. Go get laid or something.

This is SO getting added to my sig.....