Court Case Rulings

[kylieyogiperiod4]

Court Case Rulings

[kingp3301]

P-VILLE HIGH COURT CASE SCHEDULE

P3 v PASTA

March 10, 2016 at 12:27pm in Court Room 3301 (Court will begin promptly)

12:27 - Bailiff will call the court case into session. All present will rise upon Judges entry into room.

BAILIFF: " All rise! All rise! Please remain standing! The Honorable Elder Judges of P-ville are now present. Court is now in session."
All are to remain standing until Judges sit first and...

JUDGE 1 says: "You may all be seated."

NOTE: Bailiffs should warn before case starts: No outside entries or departures are allowed once court begins. Bailiffs man the doors while court is in session. Bailiff handle any disruptions immediately. If King P or Judge calls for a removal of someone, Bailiffs should promptly, politely but firmly remove individual from courtroom and tell them to leave Building 3 asap.

12:28 - Judges will inform all present of court room expectations for behavior

JUDGE 2: "P-Villians, elders and outside guest... we are gathered here today to hear a very important case and to seek clarity for the P-ville Constitution. To assure we can do this in a timely manner, certain behavior is expected and WILL BE FOLLOWED in the courtroom. There will be NO speaking, no outbursts, no objections or any disruptions of any kind by anyone in this courtroom during today's hearing. Anyone... (pause) ANYONE in violation will be removed from the courtroom, can and will be fined and punished.

12:29 - Judges will outline how the trial will work, what will be tolerated and NOT tolerated.

JUDGE 3: "Now, this case today is NOT a criminal case. If any parties would like to file a criminal case, they may do so separately with the Court Clerk. Instead, the Elder Judges are present to hear arguments with regards to 5 legal uncertainties currently facing P-ville. In a moment, opposing attorneys will be called forward 1 at a time by the Elder Judges. Each attorney will, having already submitted a brief to the court, make their oral arguments. We, the High Court, ask that attorneys be brief, direct and precise. All attorneys should stick DIRECTLY to the task at hand. ANSWER THE QUESTIONS: 1) How the law should be interpreted? 2) Why should it be interpreted that way? That is it. DO NOT get into specific situations or mention names of any P-Villians unless the court asks you to. If an attorney starts to babble and drifts away from answering the two questions of, once again: 1) How the law should be interpreted? 2) Why should it be interpreted that way? Judges will stop you from speaking, if you are wasting time. Furthermore, Judges can and will interrupt your argument with questions. You are expected to answer their questions in a brief, direct and precise way. Lastly, Judges will only hear the arguments today, then deliberate and issue a decision likely within a week.


12:30 - Judges will read aloud the 5 disputed areas of the law

JUDGE 1: "Now due to the limited time, we have scheduled 2 minutes of arguments to attorneys on both sides of the issue. Thus, a total of 4 minutes will be spend to hear arguments for each of the 5 legals disputes of the case. And the disputes are as follows:

1) Can a Period declare war on its own citizen in self-defense against that citizen?

2) Can a citizen be held to the same standard of the law when it comes to limitations? (STOP! START READING #3)

This is referencing Article 1 under Limitations of the DOD and SC which states:

1) DOD / SCMs shall NOT be an obstruction or embarrassment to P-ville.

2) DODs / SCMs guilty of violating the P-Ville Constitution or in violation of misconduct in the land of the West can be removed from office.

3) Can a provision in the Constitution, not currently ratified, be used against a citizen? This refers to Article 3 Number 7. Working with or helping people commit corruption is against the law.

4) Can a Period charge their own citizen with violating this provisions of the P-Ville War Article 8 Section 5 Numbers 6 & 8? Furthermore, what constitutes a “Pre-emptive Strike” and “Terror Attack” and what does NOT constitute such things. Basically, the court will listen to arguments before making a final decision on defining the above mentioned “terms.” (STOP! START READING #5) The specifics are as follows:

An attack officially referred to as “Pre-emptive strike” will cause stock decrease for the period using such a strike because that period is uncertain, showing weakness and causing a higher likelihood of war occurring in the future.

Those waging “Terror Attacks” can be brought to justice by the Supreme Council of the collective periods. If found guilty of terror, those responsible will serve a potentially harsh sentence such as suspension from P-ville and detention after school. Beware! Those who cause trouble thru terror will face trouble thru justice.


5) Does the DOD and SCMs of a period have the power to circumvent any and all activity they deem relevant to the obstruction to peace and tranquility of P-ville? Or do citizens have a right to resist such powers? If so, when and why?

This issue is a response to charges file by the state of P3 against Mr Pasta of P3. The constitutional relevance and clarity is needed for:

Article 8 Section VI Number 3: King P has little regard for foolish endeavors in barbaric battles for the sake of just having a war. War to alleviate boredom or to provide fun is NOT acceptable. Any Visigothic urges for war can be circumvented by DODs and SC Members, who can and should organize peaceful gatherings of goodwill competition (P Olympics, Vocab Game, etc).


12:32 - Judges Calls For Argument #1 to begin (order of arguments for 1-5 - 1st P3 attorney and then 2nd Pasta attorney)

JUDGE 1: "P3 you appealed to the court to hear the case, your attorney has 2 minutes to step forward and make their argument on issue # 1) Can a Period declare war on its own citizen in self-defense against that citizen?
Again, ANSWER THE QUESTIONS: 1) How the law should be interpreted? 2) Why should it be interpreted that way?"

P3 ATTORNEY: (stand up) Honorable Elders, I want to thank you for allowing me to speak before you on this matter. My name is_________from Period__. I represent (P3 or Pasta) on this matter.

JUDGE 1: Counsel, you may proceed in making your argument.

P3 Attorney: Thank you.
1) State Legal Dispute: 1) Can a Period declare war on its own citizen in self-defense against that citizen?
2) AFFIRM OR REJECT: This should be rejected by the court or This should be affirmed by the court
3) Explain HOW should the legal dispute be interpreted? The court should interpret this dispute as follows... Explain.
4) Explain WHY should it be interpreted that way? We believe the law should be this way because... explain... state reasons in constitution or because it is NOT mentioned in the constitution... or use a hypothetical to explain...

JUDGES ARE FREE TO INTERRUPT AND POSE QUESTIONS DURING THE ATTORNEY'S ARGUMENT. IF JUDGES SEE HOLES IN ATTORNEY ARGUMENT, JUDGES MAY EXPOSE THEM BY POSING QUESTIONS TO ATTORNEY, WHO IF THE ATTORNEYS ARE GOOD WILL BE ABLE TO DEFEND THEIR ARGUMENT AGAINST THE JUDGES' QUESTIONS.

(2 Minutes Later) TIMER signals to JUDGES time is up. Judges can decide if they want to grant more time beyond the 2 minutes, if needed to assist Judges in making their eventual decision. If the Judges feel they have heard enough, they will ask the Attorney to be seated.

Next, the court will call forward the opposing sides' attorney. That side will be granted 2 minutes to argue their point just as was done a moment before by the other sides' attorney.

12:37 - Judges Calls for Argument #2 to begin (order of arguments for 1-5 - 1st P3 attorney and then 2nd Pasta attorney)
(Follow same script and structure as posted above.)
2) Can a citizen be held to the same standard of the law when it comes to limitations?

This is referencing Article 1 under Limitations of the DOD and SC which states:

1) DOD / SCMs shall NOT be an obstruction or embarrassment to P-ville.

2) DODs / SCMs guilty of violating the P-Ville Constitution or in violation of misconduct in the land of the West can be removed from office.


12:42 - Judges Calls for Argument #3 to begin (order of arguments for 1-5 - 1st P3 attorney and then 2nd Pasta attorney)
(Follow same script and structure as posted above.)

3) Can a provision in the Constitution, not currently ratified, be used against a citizen? This refers to Article 3 Number 7. Working with or helping people commit corruption is against the law.

12:46 - Judges Calls for Argument #4 to begin (order of arguments for 1-5 - 1st P3 attorney and then 2nd Pasta attorney)
(Follow same script and structure as posted above.)
4) Can a Period charge their own citizen with violating this provisions of the P-Ville War Article 8 Section 5 Numbers 6 & 8? Furthermore, what constitutes a “Pre-emptive Strike” and “Terror Attack” and what does NOT constitute such things. Basically, the court will listen to arguments before making a final decision on defining the above mentioned “terms.”

12:51 - Judges Calls for Argument #5 to begin (order of arguments for 1-5 - 1st P3 attorney and then 2nd Pasta attorney)
(Follow same script and structure as posted above.)

5) Does the DOD and SCMs of a period have the power to circumvent any and all activity they deem relevant to the obstruction to peace and tranquility of P-ville? Or do citizens have a right to resist such powers? If so, when and why?

12:55 - COURTROOM IS TO REMAIN SILENT - Judges quickly discuss among each other and then announce if the case will require a 2nd day of arguments or if the judges have heard enough to deliberate and make a decision next week. COURT IS ADJOURNED!

[kingp3301]

HIGH COURT OF P-VILLE ELDERS
State v. Individual
P3 v. PASTA
Original Jurisdiction of the P-Ville High Court of Elders
________________________________________
No. 2 Argued March 10, 2016–Decided March 11, 2016
________________________________________
Abstract
Petitioner Pasil Awadallah DOD of Period 3 filed suit, on account of obstruction of peace and tranquility in the realm of P. The stock broker of Period 3, Mohammad Pasta, has reportedly displayed chaotically covert economic action and other passive-aggressive behavior mainly towards Period 3, as well as other Periods. This aggressive behavior escalated to a noteworthy level of confusion and economic uncertainty throughout all of P-ville.. In an attempt to bring about stability and peace, P3 DOD and the P3 Supreme Council on behalf of the state took action against the P3 Stock Broker Mr Pasta. A Supreme Court case was assembled to discuss the issues of state vs individual power.

Let it be known, with the absence of an attorney by arguing on behalf of the Individual (Pasta), the Court has expanded its deliberations to include the issue of “Failing to Prep for the Case.” While the Court acknowledges Pasta’s attorney being out due to family emergency, Mr Pasta was repeatedly told by King P to prepare “Plan B” and “Plan C” due to flaky attorney commitment prior to the court hearing.

________________________________________
RULINGS
I) Can a Period declare war on its own citizen in self-defense against that citizen? (3-0)
HIGH COURT RULING #1: (3-0)
This court stands with the Sara Kim Court (3-0) Decision of 2014 with regards to issues of war. However, this court is further amending that decision to address the issuance of war by a state on individuals. The 2016 court rules that a State, such as P3, cannot declare war on an individual, such as Mohammad Pasta. Wars are very serious matters to be avoided as much as possible. However, in the event of a war, they are to occur between states (Period vs Period), not in other ways (Period vs Individual) or (Individual vs Individual). The Court recognizes skirmishes, conflicts, duels and such matters may and do occur from time to time. Yet, they are NOT war. Thus, the Court recommends to the Supreme Council Law Committee address handling such issues as (Period vs Individual) or (Individual vs Individual) so problems arises in these areas can be dealt with quickly and legally. If the Supreme Council fails to pass such laws, it will give their duty and power to future courts to decide.

Justice *Sparklez* Dolan, Lauren Nuchols, Molly Molly & King P

BELOW IS THE SARA KIM COURT MARCH 2014 DECISION
I. On the Issue of War (3-0)
While the Court is aware of the ratification of Articles I and VI of the Call to Arms, it does not acknowledge it retrospectively. War is an absolutely serious matter and to be avoided at all costs. Or as Mr. Welch alludes to in his brief (submitted in a timely manner), war is out of style or obsolete. War results when citizens fail to reach their cohesive potential, fail to inspire each other, fail to motivate each other and do so in a positive manner. War is an embarrassment not to be proudly boasted. War is a distraction from a societal goal of being humanly splendid. While war has taken place in P-Ville’s past after diplomacy was exhausted over a pressing issue, it was not done, nor should it be done, to alleviate boredom. Thus, the Court rules that rumblings, open aggression or initiation of illegitimate war for the sake of stirring the pot, will be met by the bankruptcy of the Supreme Council if the Period’s plebiscite showed the overall opposition of war. As period leaders, they should reflect the period’s desires, not their own personal agendas. If the plebiscite reveals the period’s agreeance for war, shown by a 51% majority for war, then the entire period shall go bankrupt. All bankruptcies will be effective immediately. On top of the bankruptcies, the aggressor period must perform a “Lasting Deed” to the standards of King P. Refer to King P for list of Lasting Deeds. Refer to the Terrance the Terrible Clause.

Justice Sara Kim & King P
________________________________________
II. Can a citizen be held to the same standard of the law when it comes to limitations? (3-0)
This is referencing Article 1 under Limitations of the DOD and SC which states:
1) DOD / SCMs shall NOT be an obstruction or embarrassment to P-ville.
2) DODs / SCMs guilty of violating the P-Ville Constitution or in violation of misconduct in the land of the West can be removed from office.

HIGH COURT RULING #2: (3-0)
Under what is or should be “the common sense clause”, a citizen could and should be punished for making an obstruction in P-ville. However, Citizens are not to be held to the same standard as elected officials. Since elected officials accept nominations, they are in effect volunteering to a higher level than just a plain citizen. Therefore, elected officials should be held to a higher standard than ordinary citizens. This does NOT mean an ordinary citizen cannot be held responsible for his or her behavior. To the contrary citizens also should be held responsible for the their actions and can be punished for such acts as obstruction to the peace and tranquility of P-ville. Furthermore, all citizens, whether elected or ordinary, should have limitations to their behavior and actions. The High Court recommends the Supreme Council create laws to differentiate the limitations. Also, clarity is needed for the different standards for citizens and elected officials.

Justice *Sparklez* Dolan, Justice Lauren Nuchols, Justice Molly Molly & King P

________________________________________
III. Can a provision in the Constitution, not currently ratified, be used against a citizen? This refers to Article 3 Number 7. Working with or helping people commit corruption is against the law.

HIGH COURT RULING #3:
MAJORITY DECISION (2-1)
Yes, since the constitution isn’t finalized and is in revision mode, it should be available to be used in court. Yes, the line is crossed out at the moment. However, it does NOT mean the law is void but simply under reconsideration. Once again, under the “Common Sense Clause” what was once a law is still upheld even under revision and reconsideration. Furthermore, upon close examination the law, in this case, is most rational and desirable, for any decent, fair and just society.

Justice *Sparklez* Dolan, Justice Molly Molly & King P


DISSENT
No, since this law is crossed out, it is not part of the constitution. Therefore, this and any crossed out law should not be brought before a P-ville court to accuse a P-villian. Only ratified, approved, just and current law should be valid in P-ville. All other law (crossed out law, law in revision mode, etc) should not be considered to be part of the constitution. Therefore, this law should NOT be used against an individual.


Justice Lauren Nuchols & King P