by Krsta » Fri Aug 06, 2010 1:39 am
by Krsta » Fri Aug 06, 2010 1:39 am
by TurtleShroom » Fri Aug 06, 2010 10:28 am
THE FUTURE
IS IN THE
PAST!!
by Maraque » Mon Aug 09, 2010 11:50 am
by Krsta » Mon Aug 09, 2010 12:40 pm
by Zeppy » Mon Aug 09, 2010 12:55 pm
by Krsta » Mon Aug 09, 2010 1:58 pm
Zeppy wrote:Questions:
Is the People's Court of Justice an international or your proper national supreme court?
What is the Krstan legal system based on: Civil law , Common law, Bijuridical (civil and common law), Customary law, or Shariah law?
What is the Jurisprudence of the majority or individual Justices?
Are the rulings of the court binding or non-binding?
What is the main document(s) that the People's Court of Justice bases their ruling(s) or interpretation(s) on?
by TurtleShroom » Mon Aug 16, 2010 10:09 am
The Supreme Court of TurtleShroom wrote:When a creature creates a horrendous public nuisance, he is, unfortunately, expressing his right to freedom of expression. HOWEVER, Mister Ronaldo was expressing his hatred of a decades-old law which, until this point, was adhered and perfectly okay to the general population. The Court notes that Mister Ronaldo was not a resident of the incorporated community of Loosefoot, and that he had come with his vuvuzela to antagonize and otherwise frustrate the community with his opinions. This is an abuse to freedom of expression.
If someone walked into a Christan convention dressed as Lucifer, should they be allowed to do that? No, such a thing violates the spirit of the law, but not the words. He only did that to purposely antogonize those who had gathered, and not to express his beleifs nor for any reason other than to upset the attendants. Hip young folks call that "trolling" despite the Internet ban.
Mister 'Old Man Snappy' also excercised his right of free speech by voicing the demands of his neighbors and the community as a whole: to "shut up".
Indeed, Mister Snappy damaged another creature's property, but he did so in the interest of his people.
Mister Ronaldo was merely, as the youngsters say, "trolling" the City of Loosefoot. Mister Snappy, meanwhile, put a just end to this.
In conclusion, Mister Ronaldo was abusing his Constitutional rights, using them in manners that the Framers never intended them to be used. I'm sure Jones Found would be bothered by a vuvuzela blasted into his ear until deaf, too.
Judging by evidence in courts prior, the Court find Old Man Snappy within perfectly legal bounds and does not see any crime in breaking Mister Ronaldo's annoying vuvuzela. The Court also requests Mister Ronaldo to respect the laws of TurtleShroom and of his neighbors. We don't want a lawsuit as trivial as this in our halls another time.
THE FUTURE
IS IN THE
PAST!!
by Krsta » Mon Aug 16, 2010 10:47 am
by Damoclea » Mon Aug 16, 2010 10:54 am
by La Habana » Mon Aug 16, 2010 10:59 am
Krsta wrote:
Ruben De Jong (born January 27, 1998), accepted nomination on December 26, 2009. Hearings (16-20 January). Confirmed on January 23, 2010 by JRC with 50 votes FOR, 2 against and 1 abstained from voting. Confirmed on January 27, 2010 by Rasfallemenn. Sworn in on February 1, 2010.
by Swilatia » Mon Aug 16, 2010 11:09 am
La Habana wrote:Krsta wrote:
Ruben De Jong (born January 27, 1998), accepted nomination on December 26, 2009. Hearings (16-20 January). Confirmed on January 23, 2010 by JRC with 50 votes FOR, 2 against and 1 abstained from voting. Confirmed on January 27, 2010 by Rasfallemenn. Sworn in on February 1, 2010.
OOC: So he is 11 years old? Is that a mistake or did you just slot it in there to see if anybody would notice?
by Krsta » Tue Aug 17, 2010 3:11 am
by Maraque » Tue Aug 17, 2010 5:11 am
Very nice to see a society where a rare mind is celebrated rather than held back because of the arbitrary age of the person.Krsta wrote:Nope, Swi, guy simply used self-determination at the age of 9 (February 26, 2007), and went to Rastwill where Rastwill Faculty of International Law noticed his talent and agreed to publish his works on international public and humanitarian law. He published 9 books and had 29 lectures at RFIL, from April 2007 to December 2009. On November 28, 2009 when a new seat in the court staid empty, the Ministry of education and Ministry of justice sent a letter to the President of the Republic nominating him for the PCJ. On December 19, 2009 President of the Republic sent a letter to Ruben De Jong asking him does he want to be a judge of the People's Court of Justice. After 7 days of reviewing the offer, Mr De Jong accepted the nomination on December 26, 2009. He was confirmed on January 23 (by JRC), confirmed on January 27 (by Rasfallemenn) and sworn in on 1 February, 2010. It has nothing to do with the age - since the moment of his self-determination he is a free person, equal to everyone other in the whole World. In fact, there is no other way to become a citizen, except using a self-determination. Someone does it at the age of 8, while someone does it at the age of 28.
It is hard to be free in Krsta (not to become free, but to be free), because that what we call "freedom" includes economic independence, too. When a child uses self-determination no one will work or buy anything for him/her, they are fighting for themselves in a big World. However, they are free - they have the voting right, right to be elected to a public office all the liberties a free individual has. That is what Constitution of the Antifascist Republic of Krsta guarantees.
by TurtleShroom » Tue Aug 17, 2010 1:10 pm
Supreme Court of TurtleShroom majority opinion wrote:Jesus emphasized peace, tolerance, and love to all. He said that everyone was His neighbor, not just fellow believers, but those we deem unlovable, like witches or ballroom dancers. Richard may not believe in our Lord, but we find no fault in him.
He has argued on the basis of our state Constitution. As we all know, Atheism is not Pastafarianism, Satanism, Discordianism, or a parody religion. He's not a witch, either. Therefore, like any legit faith, it should be guarenteed the moral protections promised to all faithful in TurtleShroom.
The court rules, based on the Honorable Deni's arguments, that Atheism is indeed a religion, and therefore, forcing this mushroom to wear a cross defies his religious beliefs. We would be hypocritacl to force a religion on another. Jesus wants people to choose Him, and forcing Him on people drives them away.
This is why we have sided with Richard. Our Constituion established Puritanical Christianity as the sole state faith, but also emphasized that no religion could be forced. The state faith recieves funds and recognition. While they do hold power, here, they do not.
Jones Found made it absolutely clear when he said that all believers of all doctrines should have their faiths protected and sanctioned from oppression. We don't force Islamics to take off their veils, nor others from doing their thing. We would not be acting in God's favor if we oppressed this mushroom simply because he denies Him. Our Lord is a Choice, not a mandate.
The state ahs no right to force this upon Richard. The debate on his immortal soul is not a question of this Court to rule. That is his responsibility.
In conclusion, the Honorable Richard Deni was acting completely within Constituional bounds in refusing to wear the holy cross, and, as an Atheist, forcing him to wear such an item would be invading his freedoms. As he has done not one illegal sin as bound in law, and has never drank in his life, there is not a single reason for this mushroom to stand before us.
Judge Richard, we commend you for your persistance, and while we all hope you'll find Jesus, we assure that if you ever wear a cross, that'll be by your will. We find all favor in Judge Richard's argument. He does not have to wear the Cross, or any other religious item on his robes.
THE FUTURE
IS IN THE
PAST!!
by TurtleShroom » Tue Aug 17, 2010 2:50 pm
Damoclea wrote:*snip*
Maraque wrote:*snip*
THE FUTURE
IS IN THE
PAST!!
by Krsta » Tue Aug 17, 2010 2:55 pm
by Krsta » Tue Aug 17, 2010 3:13 pm
by Krsta » Tue Aug 17, 2010 10:07 pm
by New Othman » Wed Aug 18, 2010 8:47 am
Krsta wrote:When it comes to Deloclea:
(1) By nine votes to two,
Finds that it has jurisdiction to give the advisory opinion requested,
IN FAVOUR: Ortwill, Peretz, Myung-Chang, De Jong, Nilsson, Rottford, Baldé, Fillderwon, Rissfold
AGAINST: Yifei, Piotrowski
(2) By six votes to five,
Decides to comply with the request for an advisory opinion,
IN FAVOUR: Ortwill, Peretz, De Jong, Baldé, Fillderwon, Rissfold.
AGAINST: Yifei, Nilsson, Rottford, Piotrowski, Myung-Chang
(3) By ten votes to one,
Is of the opinion That imposing a death sentence on Ms Calisto was contrary to the basic legal principles,
IN FAVOUR: Ortwill, Peretz, Myung-Chang, De Jong, Nilsson, Rottford, Piotrowski, Baldé, Fillderwon, Rissfold.
AGAINST: Yifei.
Done in English and in Dutch, the English text being authoritative, at the Palace of Justice, Rastwill, this twelfth day of August, two thousand and ten, in three copies of which one will be placed in the archives of the Court and the other two transmitted to the legal teams involved in the case.
(Signed) Russ ORTWILL, People's Court of Justice judge
(Signed) Theodor PERETZ, People's Court of Justice judge
(Signed) Lech PIOTROWSKI, People's Court of Justice judge
(Signed) Moon MYUNG-CHANG, People's Court of Justice judge
(Signed) Ruben DE JONG, People's Court of Justice judge
(Signed) Wilma NILSSON, People's Court of Justice judge
(Signed) Jared ROTTFORD, People's Court of Justice judge
(Signed) Mona BALDÉ, People's Court of Justice judge
(Signed) Wang YIFEI, People's Court of Justice judge
(Signed) Sarah FILLDERWON, People's Court of Justice judge
(Signed) Ciara RISSFOLD, People's Court of Justice judge
(Signed) Thijs VAN DER MEER, Registar
Judge Wilsson appends a separate opinion; Judge Piotrowski appends a separate opinion; Judge Yifei appends a dissenting opinion
by Krsta » Wed Aug 18, 2010 8:56 am
by Damoclea » Wed Aug 18, 2010 9:47 am
Krsta wrote:They are not regarded as the "youth", but as the equal citizens, because they take care of themselves and they used a self-determination law. Economic independence gives you full independence. It is just your signature on a paper called "Declaration of rights and responsibilities of a citizen."
Well, our objection to the death penalty was the objection to the whole trial process as the judgement was the capital punishment. Deloclea is a sovereign country and this is an advisory opinion it requested.
Sir Ruben De Jong had more then 30 lectures on genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, humanitarian and international public law, alternative tribunals et cetera and published 9 books on the similar topics. We are honored to have such a remarkable person in our court. He has been advocating human rights worldwide for more then 3 years.
Advertisement
Return to Factbooks and National Information
Users browsing this forum: Lehpuhrta
Advertisement