eCanada Forums • View topic - Sentence: The people v.

TemujinBC

eCanada Forums
Home of eCanada's Government and Society Search… Search
Advanced search

Board index ‹ Parliament Hill | Colline parlementaire ‹ Judicial Branch | Branche judiciaire ‹ The Judge's

Chambers

User Control Panel (0 new messages) • View your posts

Canadian Dollars [ 109.00 ] Arcade News FAQ Medals Statistics Members Logout [ Steve ]

[ Moderator Control Panel ]

Sentence: The people v. TemujinBC

Moderator: Supreme Court Justices

Post a reply
Search this topic… Search 12 posts • Page 1 of 2 • 1 2

Sentence: The people v. TemujinBC User avatar

by Leps Dissim » Tue May 04, 2010 4:58 pm

Alright. Defendant has been delightfully cooperative on this one; are we allowed to be more
lenient with this?

In addition to forum bans and the like, can we do bans from public office/positions of
responsibility?

LEPS D ISSIM
S UPREME COURT J USTICE
Leps Dissim
H ONEST CORPORATION CEO Frequent Forumer

 
Posts: 169
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009
11:13 am
Cash on hand: 0.00
[Donate]

Re: Sentence: The people v. TemujinBC User avatar

by olivermellors » Tue May 04, 2010 5:36 pm

the pleas of guilt, and full unreserved truthfull account, indicate contrition and merit
consideration in mitigation. What I would like to know is why he hasn't stepped forward and
paid the money which is still missing. An honest person doesn't need the court to do the
right thing.

I flirted with the idea of directing the government to pay no money to any group of in which
olivermellors
he had any de facto position of authority. That would be the crimsons, but upon reflection Pillar of the Community
that probably goes too far - it affects the ability of government to make decisions about
military expenditure.
 
Posts: 718

file:///C|/Users/Michael/Downloads/jusitce/Tem1.htm[13/11/2010 1:47:46 PM]

eCanada Forums • View topic - Sentence: The people v. TemujinBC

I also thought of authorizing and directing that all IRC access be blocked. Joined: Wed Sep 23, 2009
6:01 pm
Cash on hand: 0.00
don't see any problem with declaring him ineligible to hold any office within government or [Donate]
Bank: 43,232.62
the military.
Medals: 5

length of bans?

It would be useful to have banach's view.

half baked ideas.

Officer of the Order of Canada

Formerly: Attorney General of Canada
Formerly: Minister of Justice, Justice of the Supreme Court
Formerly: Ambassador to eIndia and ePakistan
Formerly:Corporal 45th Flying Hellfish

Re: Sentence: The people v. TemujinBC User avatar

by Leps Dissim » Fri May 07, 2010 10:12 am

Draft Sentence:

Indefinite forum/irc ban until [4305.69 CAD] is payed to the government, from which point
the ban will continue for 8 weeks.

Indefinite ban from all positions of power and trust in the government and military.

----- Leps Dissim

Frequent Forumer
I bracketed the CAD amount because I'm not sure about it. It seemed appropriate that we
charge more than just the CAD that hasn't been returned, and the original number stolen  
seems appropriate (though most of it was returned). Posts: 169
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009
11:13 am
Cash on hand: 0.00
[Donate]
-----

Also;

TemujinBC wrote:
Losing access to the secure channel on IRC has affected me more than I could have
anticipated. Losing access to the public #eCan room is a punishment that would cause great
strain and hardship.

How long has TemujinBC been banned for? Would it be reasonable to subtract this time from
the eight weeks? Has pimpdollaz spent this time banned as well, or not?

-----

Oliver:

The IRC log you posted; was that from the day you posted it, or something older? (Or is it
from the future? )

file:///C|/Users/Michael/Downloads/jusitce/Tem1.htm[13/11/2010 1:47:46 PM]

eCanada Forums • View topic - Sentence: The people v. TemujinBC

LEPS D ISSIM
S UPREME COURT J USTICE
H ONEST CORPORATION CEO

Re: Sentence: The people v. TemujinBC User avatar

by olivermellors » Fri May 07, 2010 10:43 am

Oliver:

The IRC log you posted; was that from the day you posted it, or something older? (Or is it
from the future? )[/quote]

log is from the night/morning before i posted it: ... so just after he makes submissions with
olivermellors
all humility and respect. Pillar of the Community

I just happened to be logged on... what i pasted was the buffer from my irc client. I also
took a screen shot. I happened to be logged in during the conversation.  
Posts: 718
Joined: Wed Sep 23, 2009
Officer of the Order of Canada 6:01 pm
Formerly: Attorney General of Canada Cash on hand: 0.00
Formerly: Minister of Justice, Justice of the Supreme Court [Donate]
Formerly: Ambassador to eIndia and ePakistan Bank: 43,232.62
Medals: 5
Formerly:Corporal 45th Flying Hellfish

Re: Sentence: The people v. TemujinBC

by jfstpierre » Fri May 07, 2010 11:03 am

If he was banned since the day of action, I guess it would be since 1 month today, but I can't
find it ...
According to the little I know about the Common Law, I think it would need to be subtracted
from his ban time. jfstpierre
Reliable Spammer

Amount to be checked.
 
Agreed with the terms. Posts: 1986
Joined: Sun Jul 12, 2009
1:07 pm
Member of the Order of eCanada Cash on hand: 115.00
[Donate]
Minister of Justice
Bank: 29,791.82
Congressman for New Brunswick
Location: Montreal, QC
Membre de l'Office Francophone et du Comité de supervision Medals: 7
Cabinet and Institutions Unofficial Listkeeper
Private jfstpierre | 11th Royal Rifles

Re: Sentence: The people v. TemujinBC

by olivermellors » Fri May 07, 2010 6:52 pm

file:///C|/Users/Michael/Downloads/jusitce/Tem1.htm[13/11/2010 1:47:46 PM]

eCanada Forums • View topic - Sentence: The people v. TemujinBC

User avatar

TemujinBC's citizenship was south african. Therefore the government and administrators
could cut off his access. Now, he was probably there because of the anti pto measures.
Many crimsons went. I would imagine the government would probably not have cut off his
access were it not for his actions.

As to giving him "credit" - I see no reason to. Let us keep in mind that he has not had
olivermellors
access, of course, and determine the length of any future ban keeping that in mind as a Pillar of the Community
factor.

 
I am thinking that what leps suggests is in keeping with the crime. Posts: 718
Joined: Wed Sep 23, 2009
6:01 pm
I can think of a lot of creative alternatives, but frankly they depend on Tem's good faith and Cash on hand: 0.00
you can imagine that I am extremely reluctant to trust him to "do serious business". I would [Donate]
Bank: 43,232.62
like to hear what ideas the AG has. I don't think anything much more lenient that Lep's ideas
Medals: 5
is going to be persuasive to me, unless good reason is demonstrated.

Officer of the Order of Canada

Formerly: Attorney General of Canada
Formerly: Minister of Justice, Justice of the Supreme Court
Formerly: Ambassador to eIndia and ePakistan
Formerly:Corporal 45th Flying Hellfish

Re: Sentence: The people v. TemujinBC User avatar

by Leps Dissim » Sun May 09, 2010 2:22 am

AcaciaMason wrote:
My Lord,

TemujinBC has offered to accept this decision of this court without negotiation. He only asks
that his forum access not be too heavily impacted as he has a meeting scheduled with the
Office Of Strategic Services regarding funding for his private militia.

Leps Dissim
He does not wish leniency or any other special arrangements. I humbly submit that the court Frequent Forumer
do as it sees fit.

 
With Respect, Posts: 169
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009
11:13 am
Acacia Mason
Cash on hand: 0.00
[Donate]

Any desire for leniency with the forum access? Any alternatives, if there is such a desire?

Are you guys sure the full 4305.69 is reasonable? I feel like doing less lowers the magnitude
of the punishment too much, but it also seems like a very large sum, considering that, by
the end of this case and that of Pimpdollaz, if we go with the current planned sentences,
the government will come ahead around 4k CAD.

LEPS D ISSIM
S UPREME COURT J USTICE
H ONEST CORPORATION CEO

file:///C|/Users/Michael/Downloads/jusitce/Tem1.htm[13/11/2010 1:47:46 PM]

eCanada Forums • View topic - Sentence: The people v. TemujinBC

Re: Sentence: The people v. TemujinBC User avatar

by olivermellors » Sun May 09, 2010 8:42 am

will be back home and comment tonight about 6 o'clock

Officer of the Order of Canada

Formerly: Attorney General of Canada
Formerly: Minister of Justice, Justice of the Supreme Court
Formerly: Ambassador to eIndia and ePakistan olivermellors
Formerly:Corporal 45th Flying Hellfish Pillar of the Community

 
Posts: 718
Joined: Wed Sep 23, 2009
6:01 pm
Cash on hand: 0.00
[Donate]
Bank: 43,232.62
Medals: 5

Re: Sentence: The people v. TemujinBC User avatar

by olivermellors » Sun May 09, 2010 3:11 pm

You will no doubt share my sense of the irony of a thief asking that we not interfere with his
ability to get access to government funds!

The government has led no evidence that it's interests will be affected by a total ban.

We should of course apply principles when deciding on sentence. Those principles might
olivermellors
include: Pillar of the Community

1. express disaproval of the crime;

 
2. deterance - specific and general (the specific offender and future possible offenders) Posts: 718
3. rehabilitation Joined: Wed Sep 23, 2009
6:01 pm
Cash on hand: 0.00
The sentence suggested is clearly an application of the first two principles. The crime, in [Donate]
Bank: 43,232.62
itself, deserves a greater sanction. However, the quick plea of guilt and full admission,
Medals: 5
merit some reduction. Also very relevant is that the accused did not attempt to profit
personally. Leps' suggestion reflects that.

It was the issue of rehabilitation which held the greatest promise for mitigation of sentence.
Had the accused undertaken a concrete plan of future actions, a different result might have
been reached. For instance, an undertaking to mentor 20 new players, contribute to their
progress in specfied ways, etc., under supervision of a state official. That could have led to
a portion of the ban being terminated upon the completion of this public service. And it
would have been reason to maintain some irc access. However, without a concrete plan and
without an affirmative undertaking to be bound to such conditions, the court should be
extremely hesitant to craft such a sentence. In the present case, particularly given the
demonstrated ability of accused to fall into error about "the lulz", it is not appropriate.

The requirement to pay a sum of money should be expressed as a fine, not "repayment" or
"restitution". The amount seems appropriate to me, reflecting the gravity of the offence and
the accused's personal means - to which he alluded in his submissions. The fact that the
government "comes out ahead" is of no moment.

file:///C|/Users/Michael/Downloads/jusitce/Tem1.htm[13/11/2010 1:47:46 PM]

eCanada Forums • View topic - Sentence: The people v. TemujinBC

I must say that i am not at all happy with the government's failure to make any concrete
submissions about sentence. In future, the AG should be mindful that he has an obligation to
assist the court by leading evidence about the nation's interests and making suggestions
about what range of sentence would best serve those interests. Accused persons, although
they have no such obligation, will find that sentences are better crafted if we have evidence
and submissions from them. We would prefer to have parties say "please consider this"
before the fact, rather than "why didn't you consider this?" after the fact.

RE: the amount of the fine -- although i am okay with what is now suggested, I am open to
considering a different amount.

AND: the judgment should reference our constitution jurisdiction (see previous post - the
pimp case i think)

olivermellors

Officer of the Order of Canada

Formerly: Attorney General of Canada
Formerly: Minister of Justice, Justice of the Supreme Court
Formerly: Ambassador to eIndia and ePakistan
Formerly:Corporal 45th Flying Hellfish

Re: Sentence: The people v. TemujinBC User avatar

by Leps Dissim » Sun May 09, 2010 3:58 pm

Thanks for getting in to the principles behind sentencing.

I think I'd like to round the fine to an even 4 or 4.5k, to lessen the sense of "paying back"
the government - if the fine is exactly the same as the theft the wrong impression may be
given.

I'll message the AG about our desire for more concrete suggestions for sentencing, but my
desire is to wait until after the sentences for the current case so as to keep things moving. I Leps Dissim
may be being overly impatient though. Frequent Forumer

I'll be sure to reference the constitutional jurisdiction in both sentences.  

Posts: 169
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009
LEPS D ISSIM
11:13 am
S UPREME COURT J USTICE Cash on hand: 0.00
H ONEST CORPORATION CEO [Donate]

Display posts from previous: All

Allposts
posts Sort by Post
Posttime
time Ascending
Ascending Go Next

Post a reply
12 posts • Page 1 of 2 • 1 2

Return to The Judge's Chambers

Quick-mod tools: Locktopic

Lock topic Go
WHO IS ONLINE
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

file:///C|/Users/Michael/Downloads/jusitce/Tem1.htm[13/11/2010 1:47:46 PM]

eCanada Forums • View topic - Sentence: The people v. TemujinBC

Board index Subscribe topic Bookmark topic The team • Delete all board cookies • All times are UTC - 5 hours

Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group

file:///C|/Users/Michael/Downloads/jusitce/Tem1.htm[13/11/2010 1:47:46 PM]

eCanada Forums • View topic - Sentence: The people v. TemujinBC

eCanada Forums
Home of eCanada's Government and Society Search… Search
Advanced search

Board index ‹ Parliament Hill | Colline parlementaire ‹ Judicial Branch | Branche judiciaire ‹ The Judge's

Chambers

User Control Panel (0 new messages) • View your posts

Canadian Dollars [ 109.00 ] Arcade News FAQ Medals Statistics Members Logout [ Steve ]

[ Moderator Control Panel ]

Sentence: The people v. TemujinBC

Moderator: Supreme Court Justices

Post a reply
Search this topic… Search 12 posts • Page 2 of 2 • 1 2

Re: Sentence: The people v. TemujinBC User avatar

by olivermellors » Sun May 09, 2010 4:07 pm

entire agreement

Officer of the Order of Canada

Formerly: Attorney General of Canada
Formerly: Minister of Justice, Justice of the Supreme Court
olivermellors
Formerly: Ambassador to eIndia and ePakistan
Pillar of the Community
Formerly:Corporal 45th Flying Hellfish

 
Posts: 718
Joined: Wed Sep 23, 2009
6:01 pm
Cash on hand: 0.00
[Donate]
Bank: 43,232.62
Medals: 5

Re: Sentence: The people v. TemujinBC User avatar

by Leps Dissim » Sun May 09, 2010 4:58 pm

jfstpierre, does 4.5k fine + 8 weeks after being payed + indefinite ban from government
positions sound good to you?

LEPS D ISSIM
S UPREME COURT J USTICE
H ONEST CORPORATION CEO

Leps Dissim
Frequent Forumer

file:///C|/Users/Michael/Downloads/jusitce/Tem2.htm[13/11/2010 1:47:50 PM]

eCanada Forums • View topic - Sentence: The people v. TemujinBC

 
Posts: 169
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009
11:13 am
Cash on hand: 0.00
[Donate]

Previous Display posts from previous: All

Allposts
posts Sort by Post
Posttime
time Ascending
Ascending Go

Post a reply
12 posts • Page 2 of 2 • 1 2

Return to The Judge's Chambers

Quick-mod tools: Locktopic

Lock topic Go
WHO IS ONLINE
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

Board index Subscribe topic Bookmark topic The team • Delete all board cookies • All times are UTC - 5 hours

Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group

file:///C|/Users/Michael/Downloads/jusitce/Tem2.htm[13/11/2010 1:47:50 PM]