Re: [RP] High time for frankness and honesty

[arthur_loxley]

Faradorn, my comments were not directed to you but were directed to Chrisiusmaximus. He is clearly saying that in the event of a war, it will be entirely Duke Loxley's fault. I am simply appalled at his statement, which is basically saying that Chester has full reason to attack Stafford. Besides, you probably should know that it won't be very simple for robbers to hop the border whenever they commit a crime, as they would have to wait for a time limit to pass or they will face prosecution upon entering the county they broke the law in or a county with which it has a judicial treaty.

[arthur_loxley]

We have not tried to force Chester into doing anything. We have simply taken steps to remedy the delitourious effects Chester's laws and policies have on Stafford, communicate the problems to Chester, and offer helpful suggestions to resolve them. Chester refused to consider them and rebuffed us entirely.

Since Chester is not serious in maintaining harmonious and friendly relations with Stafford, we had no choice but do what we did in order to protect our interests and the integrity of our institutions.

Since then, Stafford and the democratically elected Council have been repeatedly threatened, including with military action, by Chester officials. We have caught the same attempting to recruit spies and a fifth column in Stafford. We have already exposed one such spy, who has since gone on to launch two revolts against Stafford.

Stafford has sent her diplomats to Chester concerning these matters, and they have yet to respond. In absence of a complete and total denunciation of these acts, we can only assume Chester endorses them.

A judicial treaty is a privilege, not a right to be expected. Stafford will not be used as a tool to enforce unjust laws. Sadly, the all or nothing nature of effective judicial treaties, makes 'compromise' impossible.

If Chester wants to return to the prior good relationship with Stafford, then I suggest they mitigate the extreme and hostile elements in their government.

[arthur_loxley]

Slon, my unreserved apologies for misinterpreting what you have said. On the other matter, perhaps they will get caught in time, it depends on the workload of the PP really and whether the person gets around to filing the report on time. Two constraints. It is possible.

A non resident to both counties involved could still mess around and steal on our borders. I just do not wish such people to be present under any circumstances.

Red, Do you speak of actual attempts to take, by force a TH or Castle?

[arthur_loxley]

I keep asking for proof that it was Chester's involvement that had a hand in all of that.

Other then being told "either change your laws or stop people for using your autobuy, or we are going to take steps..." I don't see that as trying to work with Chester.

The market laws are the same as they were for the year before. Nothing changed. So i don't see why there is a problem now instead of over the past year.

[arthur_loxley]

Red, Do you speak of actual attempts to take, by force a TH or Castle?

Yes, I prosecuted two of these cases and won convictions.

The market laws are the same as they were for the year before. Nothing changed. So i don't see why there is a problem now instead of over the past year.

Don't lie about the Chester Legal corpus, Lord Dragon, especially not to me.

The Chester Criminal Law Act of 1456 for what we'll call economic crimes has only a sentence of a few days of mine work, and an return of a portion (~2/3's) of the mine wage. For the 4th and further offenses a couple says of jail time are included. The punishments are to be multiplied by the defendants level.

Vol 2 Chester Criminal Law 1457, not only substantially expands the definition of the economic crimes, but drastically increases the punishments, by imposing much larger fines (by over a factor of 5!), and jail time instead of mine work . Further, banishment is now mandated as a sentence.

This was simply the straw that broke our patience.

It's ironic that you take issue with the Stafford citizens complaints that your citizens abusing our towns autobuy, seeing as how Chester has criminalized use of the autobuy.

Stafford welcomed your citizens and traders with open arms and you threaten ours with fines and imprisonment.

You know, I'm especially glad now that Stafford sundered the treaty with Chester. If it was still in place, I'd be facing one of the spurious defamation charges Chester seems so found of, for the crime of accurately discussing their law. No wonder Chester councilors are trying to compromise English free speech rights in the National House of Parliament.

[arthur_loxley]

Taz smiles, you guys wasted 2 hrs of my time reading this junk.

Lord Arthur, if you think you can send me letters about ending our treaties with Chester and I won't share them with my council then I am concerned about you sense of logic. Maybe this how you guys do it in Stafford but not here sir.

And and frankly , since this is the topic, I am not surprised to hear you think we are planning in the back room to take over Stafford, because you are the kind of person who would think to do something like that and say the other people are doing it, so maybe you guys are doing that and you just showed us your card.

Lord Red, you keep saying I have not responded to your threat comment. I have.

From: Tazatron
To: Deekay
Posted: 04 Sep 2009 01:53
Subject: Re: Question
Quote:
From: Deekay
To: Tazatron
Posted: 03 Sep 2009 21:51
Subject: Question Quote message
Duke Tazatron
I deliver the following message from Stafford

A councilor of chester has threatened stafford with physical harm via armed forces. He has also indicated that he will seek a sanctioned revolt by the house of parliament for our withdrawal from a judicial treaty. Does Chester Council support this statement?



I will also send a copy to the Ambassador
Deekay, Ambassador

Greetings Deekay,

Who, what, where and when?

Thank you,

Taz

I did on the 4th of September, I have not heard from Stafford back.

Allow me to be clear about the treaty, we don't care you ended it and we are not looking to have another one with you.

As to the army, you guys are concerned, good you should, we might be the the smallest, but we are mean and lean..boo..lol

Don't worry, we are not raising an army.

Now good night all and don't call me, lol no call , but be nice

[arthur_loxley]

Red, Do you speak of actual attempts to take, by force a TH or Castle?

Yes, I prosecuted two of these cases and won convictions.

The market laws are the same as they were for the year before. Nothing changed. So i don't see why there is a problem now instead of over the past year.

Don't lie about the Chester Legal corpus, Lord Dragon, especially not to me.

The Chester Criminal Law Act of 1456 for what we'll call economic crimes has only a sentence of a few days of mine work, and an return of a portion (~2/3's) of the mine wage. For the 4th and further offenses a couple says of jail time are included. The punishments are to be multiplied by the defendants level.

Vol 2 Chester Criminal Law 1457, not only substantially expands the definition of the economic crimes, but drastically increases the punishments, by imposing much larger fines (by over a factor of 5!), and jail time instead of mine work . Further, banishment is now mandated as a sentence.

This was simply the straw that broke our patience.

It's ironic that you take issue with the Stafford citizens complaints that your citizens abusing our towns autobuy, seeing as how Chester has criminalized use of the autobuy.

Stafford welcomed your citizens and traders with open arms and you threaten ours with fines and imprisonment.

You know, I'm especially glad now that Stafford sundered the treaty with Chester. If it was still in place, I'd be facing one of the spurious defamation charges Chester seems so found of, for the crime of accurately discussing their law. No wonder Chester councilors are trying to compromise English free speech rights in the National House of Parliament.

You are the dumbest smart person i know RedChef.. It's almost too funny.

Yes we changed the punishment because our citizens complained that the case would read Dismissal instead of guilty even though punishment was given. You can't force someone into the mines. So in order to take care of two birds with one stone... Guilty verdict with days in jail and/or a fine.

You talk about the punishment not the actual laws themselves. I am sure you also saw that little thing that says judges may adjust the punishments as they see fit... I think it is in the King's Edicts as well.. But just so everyone can get a nice look at it..

1. Sentencing
1. On the determination of guilt for any of the listed offences, it is in the powers of the Judge to pass sentence. He may award any punishment of, up to, and including the relevant grade below and including additional requirements as defined in 2.4{Person Restitution}.
2. Class A (may also use Class B or C):
1. 1st Offence £60 fine and/or 1 days Jail.
2. 2nd Offence £120 fine and/or 2 days Jail.
3. 3rd Offence £180 fine and/or 3 days Jail or Banishment as defined by King’s Edict.
4. Subsequent Offences £180 fine and Banishment by King’s Edict or Death by Hanging.
3. Class B (may also use Class C):
1. 1st Offence £50 fine and/or 1 days Jail.
2. 2nd Offence £100 fine and/or 2 days Jail.
3. 3rd Offence £150 fine and/or 3 days Jail.
4. Subsequent Offences £150 fine and Banishment.
4. Class C: (A County Fine sentence will be accompanied by a Trade Grant with full instructions on how to comply with the payment of a county fine.)
1. 1st Offence 1 day working in the mine plus £10 County Fine plus a £5 court fine.
2. 2nd Offence 2 days working in the mine plus £20 County Fine plus a £5 court fine.
3. 3rd Offence 3 days working in the mine plus £30 County Fine plus a £5 court fine.
4. Subsequent Offences 3 days jail plus £50 fine.
5. These are the basic levels of punishment. For each level the player has attained the punishment may be raised by that factor. So a level 3 player would have his reward multiplied by 3, a level 2 by 2 etc.
6. Level 0 offenders will have their punishment reduced to a one(1) pound fine, and will receive a reprimanding letter from the Judge or Town Mentor informing them of their wrongdoings, and to advise them not to repeat their mishaps.
7. For the purposes of the setting of fines and awards only previous offences in that category are to be classed as a prior offence.
8. Crimes of RL abuse by IG or Forum Mail, harassment, racial or sexual abuse, falsification of evidence, witchery aka multi-accounting and others as dictated by Long John Silver or other such personages now or future will be passed direct to the Admin staff for consideration of eradication.

As you can see in our laws, a judge can file a lower class of crime. So a treason charge could get away with a 10 pound fine and a day in the mines. Pretty good for someone who tried to abuse their power or raise an army.. or even provide an illegal army points.

It's a fair shake truly. I can imagine how someone who break the law from time to time might not like it, but we are all forever not liking something.

[arthur_loxley]

Faradorn, and interested parties:
Duke of Chester has answered your concerns.

Allow me to be clear about the treaty, we don't care you ended it and we are not looking to have another one with you.

[arthur_loxley]

LordDragon-

If you actually read CCLA 1456, you will notice a fine is mandated for economic crimes, which would result in the IG link to the trial reading guilty, §5.1, §9.2, and §10 (which mandates fines for "restitution" which are explicitly unlimited under Chester Law). It has provisions that do force people to complete their mining work, §9.2 and §7.2(f). Again, don't lie to me about Chester law, or at the very least read it.

Since you expressed concern for your citizens who are too illiterate to read a judges verdict, I will point out that it only takes a fine of 1 pound at minimum to make the IG link read guilty, not 150+ pounds of fines and days on end of jail.

Further, you seem to have confused the legal system with a game of limbo. It's not how low you can go. The problem is what your law allows, and it allows some very bad things for people that venture into your county.

I'd tell you to consult with Chester's legal scholars to further your education of Chester law, but... I don't give bad advise.

[arthur_loxley]

LordDragon it would seem that Staffords advice to legal matters are to consult a crimminal in thier mist, I suppose we should pity the average Stafford Citizen for having to follow those who would follow crimminals

[arthur_loxley]

LordDragon it would seem that Staffords advice to legal matters are to consult a crimminal in thier mist, I suppose we should pity the average Stafford Citizen for having to follow those who would follow crimminals

Think before you speak.

I've lost count of how many times I've destroyed Chester in court. They were so fully beaten, the only way they could save face in the disgrace of their incompetence was to whine about corruption in Court of Appeals, and try to get the House of Parliament to dismantle the Court.

[arthur_loxley]

Redchef it does not change the fact that you are crimminal. In nature and deed you repeatedly return to your basic element of crimminality, it is your nature. You may be playing the good boy atm but you are a crimminal eventually your true colors will again be shown, just as they were shown many times before.

[arthur_loxley]

Thank you for using the extra m in my official title. You should have seen the look on the typesetters face when I stole it.

[arthur_loxley]

Salter relaxed in his chair as new members showed .. hearing allegations of Spying and attempted Espionage he shouts down from his Seat in a rough tone ..

"Spying ? Espionage ? ... Who ?... and to what degree of evidence does the Stafford government have to make this not slander ?

[arthur_loxley]

OOC: Don't make references about the player behind the character like that please. /OOC

My questions were not exactly answered by my Duke not wanting to make a new treaty but I have long given up on them so that doesn't matter.

However, thank you for now mentioning what you feel is wrong with those laws because that was one of my questions. I personally don't see anything wrong with them. I cannot see how they violate King's laws.

When a judge rules that an accused is guilty of punishable or criminal acts, each such act is given a punishment proportional to the act. The judge is responsible for matching the punishment of the accused with the gravity of the offences.

The judge is legally bound to make a proportionate sentence. Would I be right in thinking that if a judge did fine way out of proportion, that they would, through violating the King's laws, have acted out of their jurisdiction? Thus incorrect jurisdiction would work in the CoA. Incorrect sentence where the law gives parameters would probably fit too since, following the CoA's narrow interpretations that technically means "The sentence is rubbish, there are guidelines for this sentence." It doesn't say anything about the sentence being outside of the parameters and I highly doubt they would change their method of interpretation in a hurry.

A punishment that is disproportionate for the actions taken; "doubt over the dispensation of fair and equitable justice"; "doubt over proper application of noble prerogative"; violation of the present Charter; and the discretion of the Prosecutor of the Court of Appeal, may lead to a review of the original process by said Court.

Even more evidence that there are balances in place. It can only be abused as much as a judge eradicating someone on a whim.

[arthur_loxley]

OOC: Don't make references about the player behind the character like that please. /OOC

????


Anyway, this philosophy of yours, that Chester can do what it likes, because the CoA (the same CoA that you and your ilk tried to compromise), may or may not clean up your mess is morally and ethically repugnant. Even if it does, it takes them forever to do it, at that point the affect players have been driven from the game. The last case of Chester's that I had to fix, took what, over 5 months for the CoA to correct. This was after Chester knowingly, while ignoring all warnings, violated it's own law and completely disregarded English rights in it's rush to convict people. Need I remind you of the time that Chester executed somebody in direct violation of the Court of Appeals order?

[arthur_loxley]

Salter relaxed in his chair as new members showed .. hearing allegations of Spying and attempted Espionage he shouts down from his Seat in a rough tone ..

Salter? Is that you? I heard you were coming back home to Stafford and my jurisdiction. Let me know when and we'll have a party... just for you.

[arthur_loxley]

Before you start, I did not mean you could cry to them to fix up the mess. However, saying that they arent there to solve problems is silly.

The courts presence is enough really. I do not see the problem in allowing leeway for a judge, he has the King's law to abide by when he or she does it. We all know that judges can end up in SERIOUS trouble if they don't abide by it.

Last time I checked, that CoA case didn't say anything about English rights, either through King's law or the Endowment of Humanity. It did use a screenshot of a different defendant as admissable evidence though.

[arthur_loxley]

Salter rises from his Seat , taking a slight nod to the debating group ..

"Aye, your eyesight doth not deceive you ... Salter grins , trying to hide his various contempt for the man they called "red" .."ahh .. Yes, i may soon be coming home to my Castle of Bromwich, i have been receiving tax Bills from the Lord Mayor, and i am coming to maybe try and help alleviate beautiful Birmingham's situation.Salter smiled sarcastically as the man mentioned Jurisdiction and the veiled threat ..Oh .. Red .. How 'kind' of you ? .. I dont believe your named stafford however, one wouldn't like for another assume you was the sole owner of Jurisdiction aye ?.. anyway .. enough of personally niceties .. Do you offer any answer to my previous question ? ... or are you somehow "out of the loop" ?

[arthur_loxley]

Mayor Redchef,

I believe what Lord Faradorn pointed to was that there is nothing in Kings edict in this that is violated, that 'should' Chester's punishments be considered out of context or overly harsh, the the accused themselves do have an avenue for complaint

The Chester Criminal Law Act of 1456 for what we'll call economic crimes has only a sentence of a few days of mine work, and an return of a portion (~2/3's) of the mine wage. For the 4th and further offenses a couple says of jail time are included. The punishments are to be multiplied by the defendants level.

Vol 2 Chester Criminal Law 1457, not only substantially expands the definition of the economic crimes, but drastically increases the punishments, by imposing much larger fines (by over a factor of 5!), and jail time instead of mine work . Further, banishment is now mandated as a sentence.

This was simply the straw that broke our patience.

Please do not take offense but I would like to clarify that Banishment has always been in the Chester Laws.

Below I offer the facts on this, and include clarification that the acts of 'basic economic crime' now falls into the acts of fraud as correctly suggested by Mayor Redchef, however not all the actions defined as fraud were part of the older 'acts of basic economic crime' and they were always defined as crimes punishable with banishment.
Simplification of Chester Law was one of the suggestions handed down by the CoA and the classification of crimes to those available in a court room seemed to be one that would be easily followed.

I apologise if the simpler use only five(5) classes of crimes causes confusion in some.

Those who may look for a more granular and precisely worded law, may look to conversations in this house, in the HoP and in the Regents palace that the intention of the law is always remember and held, that protection of the state and its charters stands over the rights of humanity a stance held by many it seems.

9. Sentencing

1. On the determination of guilt for any of the listed offences, it is in the powers of the Judge to pass sentence. He may pass an award of community service, donation to church, banishment, monetary fine or jail time dependant on the offence or the severity of the crime.
   
   
2. The basic awards for basic economic crimes are as follows:
   1st Offence 1 days working in the mine plus £10 donation
   2nd Offence 2 days working in the mine plus £20 donation
   3rd Offence 3 days working in the mine plus £30 donation
   Subsequent Offences 2 days Jail plus £50 donation

Anyone found guilty of Economic Malfeasance failing to provide evidence within one week of the charge of their completion of their award will be tried under Section 7 paragraph 2.f.

The basic awards for crimes against the state are as follows:

1st Offence £60 fine and/or 1 days Jail
2nd Offence £120 fine and/or 2 days Jail
3rd Offence £180 fine and/or 3 days Jail or banishment
Subsequent Offences £180 fine and banishment or Death by Hanging

4. The basic awards for crimes against person, property and common welfare are as follows:

1st Offence £50 fine and/or 1 days Jail
2nd Offence £100 fine and/or 2 days Jail
3rd Offence £150 fine and/or 3 days Jail
Subsequent Offences £150 fine and banishment

Theses are the basic levels of reward. For each level the player has attained the punishment will be raised by that factor. So a level 3 player would have his reward multiplied by 3, a level 2 by 2 etc. Level 0’s are not to be fined or jailed, just remanded by letter and helped with their errors.

.....

[rp]
Section 3.Punishments:

1. Sentencing
   1. On the determination of guilt for any of the listed offences, it is in the powers of the Judge to pass sentence. He may award any punishment of, up to, and including the relevant grade below and including additional requirements as defined in 2.4{Person Restitution}.
      
   2. Class A (may also use Class B or C):
      1. 1st Offence £60 fine and/or 1 days Jail.
         
      2. 2nd Offence £120 fine and/or 2 days Jail.
         
      3. 3rd Offence £180 fine and/or 3 days Jail or Banishment as defined by King’s Edict.
         
      4. Subsequent Offences £180 fine and Banishment by King’s Edict or Death by Hanging.
   3. Class B (may also use Class C):
      1. 1st Offence £50 fine and/or 1 days Jail.
         
      2. 2nd Offence £100 fine and/or 2 days Jail.
         
      3. 3rd Offence £150 fine and/or 3 days Jail.
         
      4. Subsequent Offences £150 fine and Banishment.
   4. Class C: (A County Fine sentence will be accompanied by a Trade Grant with full instructions on how to comply with the payment of a county fine.)
      1. 1st Offence 1 day working in the mine plus £10 County Fine plus a £5 court fine.
         
      2. 2nd Offence 2 days working in the mine plus £20 County Fine plus a £5 court fine.
         
      3. 3rd Offence 3 days working in the mine plus £30 County Fine plus a £5 court fine.
         
      4. Subsequent Offences 3 days jail plus £50 fine.
   5. These are the basic levels of punishment. For each level the player has attained the punishment may be raised by that factor. So a level 3 player would have his reward multiplied by 3, a level 2 by 2 etc.
      
   6. Level 0 offenders will have their punishment reduced to a one(1) pound fine, and will receive a reprimanding letter from the Judge or Town Mentor informing them of their wrongdoings, and to advise them not to repeat their mishaps.
      
   7. For the purposes of the setting of fines and awards only previous offences in that category are to be classed as a prior offence.
      
   8. Crimes of RL abuse by IG or Forum Mail, harassment, racial or sexual abuse, falsification of evidence, witchery aka multi-accounting and others as dictated by Long John Silver or other such personages now or future will be passed direct to the Admin staff for consideration of eradication.

[/rp]

[rp]
Volume 2. Chester Criminal Law Act {August 1457}
Section 2. Crimes:
Acts of Treason shall be considered Class A crime for the purpose of Punishments, unless otherwise stated.
Acts of Betrayal shall be considered a Class A crime for the purpose of Punishments, unless otherwise stated.
Acts of Public Disorder shall be considered a Class B crime for the purpose of Punishments, unless otherwise stated.
Acts of Fraud shall be considered a Class B crime for the purpose of Punishments, unless otherwise stated.
Acts of Slavery shall be considered a Class C crime for the purpose of Punishments, unless otherwise stated.

[/rp]

[arthur_loxley]

I use the term 'economic crime' because it easily explains the torts, and because the terminology used by Chester has changed between the acts of 1456 and 1457.

You are not accurately describing the laws you quote. Banishment was NEVER a punishment for economic crime in the act of 1456. It became a mandated punishment in the act of 1457.

Neither crimes against the state or against person/general welfare include economic crimes, except for the connected crime of not reporting completion of a mining sentence as a result of an economic crime.

I don't understand the point of your parsing. "Economic Malfeasence" (the act of 1456 term) encompassed 'fraud' and 'slavery' torts. They were separated in the act of 1457. So what?

Faradorn- I'm saying why not get it right the first time. For example, your old judge, Steei, got remanded by the Court of Appeals for High Treason for his extensive and highly illegal serial misconduct in the court room. Chester, as usual, ignored this and let him off without even a warning. Later, he was made prosecutor, and shock, he bungled those cases too.

Edited to add a response to faradorn, whom I'd overlooked.

[arthur_loxley]

Okay, law school's out. Pay tuition next time.

I think we've reached the useful end to this topic. "Why is Stafford such a big meanie poopiehead? " has been answered in exhaustive detail. Perhaps it's time for a lock.

Slater- What threat? Sounds like you're giving me permission to post. Comon, Salty, say those magic words, baby.

[arthur_loxley]

Lord Birmingham sighs as red goes off on another tirade about injustices of Laws .. he wondered and came to the conclusion that maybe he had been tried and found guilty of so many crimes, that he just didn't like law and order .. and would try and easy its force as much as possible .. another point for another time ..".. Threat ? .. you must have been drinking too much meade , as depressing as you are .. Alcoholism is not the answer! .. seek Jahs refuge from the sins of too much indulgence !.. If you would disclose to me what you are proposing to deliver to this Lobby , i will happily sort through and give permission to whatever i deem is in line with the topic ..

[arthur_loxley]

Let's not, and just say everything.

[arthur_loxley]

Having been listening to this for a while, Liza shakes her head, disgusted.

As long as everyone is speaking frankly, I'll follow suit and put in my two cents worth.

Ok, Stafford doesn't like Chester. Chester doesn't like Stafford. We aaaalllll get that. What I don't get is this constant bickering, insults, and baiting, and I'm sorry, but it's from both sides. And it's accomplishing absolutely nothing. It looks to me as if both sides are just pushing the other to make the first aggressive move because of personal animosity. Something that is definitely not in the best interests of anyone.

If Stafford wants to pull it's treaties, as long as their citizens agree and it's done for the good of the county, let them. Stafford has stated it will not consider any Judicial Treaty with Chester. Whether this is wise or not time will tell, but that is their prerogative. To my way of thinking that's isolationism at work, but if that's what Stafford wants, more power to them. They're free to run their county anyway they wish. If Chester wants to complain about it, let them as well. But please. Do not subject all of England to your arguments and personal insults. Duke to Duke, Embassy to Embassy, Council to Council. All appropriate means. What is not appropriate is voicing your personal opinions, whether stated out loud or insinuated in manner (thoughts) in public with only one goal in mind, to bait the other side. This is not the way professionals should be representing their citizens. It is shameful, and I for one am tired of hearing about it. Either address the actual issues or button it.

^

[Sponsored content]