Ecanada Forums: Verdict: The People V. Pimpdollaz

eCanada Forums • View topic - Verdict: The people v.
Pimpdollaz
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 ]
Verdict: The people v. Pimpdollaz

Moderator: Supreme Court Justices
Post a reply
Search this topic… Search 29 posts • Page 1 of 3 • 1 2 3
Verdict: The people v. Pimpdollaz User avatar
by Leps Dissim » Tue May 04, 2010 5:00 pm
Can we go ahead and vote on this one? I feel pretty confident that the arguments are just
going to keep circling if we wait.
LEPS D ISSIM
S UPREME COURT J USTICE
H ONEST CORPORATION CEO
Leps Dissim
Frequent Forumer

Posts: 169
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009
11:13 am
Cash on hand: 0.00
[Donate]
Re: Verdict: The people v. Pimpdollaz User avatar

by olivermellors » Tue May 04, 2010 5:41 pm
we really should invite pimpdollaz to present any evidence he may wish and to make final
arguments. I don't need to hear from the Attorney General unless some stunning new
evidence is presented.
Failing any stunning new evidence, the evidence being overwhelming: guilty.
olivermellors
Officer of the Order of Canada Pillar of the Community
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 Posts: 718
file:///C|/Users/Michael/Downloads/jusitce/PimpOld1.htm[13/11/2010 1:47:40 PM]

eCanada Forums • View topic - Verdict: The people v. Pimpdollaz
Joined: Wed Sep 23, 2009

6:01 pm
Cash on hand: 0.00
[Donate]
Bank: 43,232.62
Medals: 5

by Leps Dissim » Wed May 05, 2010 3:47 pm
I realize there's a point when we should just start ignoring people, and I feel like this might
be it, but an alternative occurred to me and I was wondering what you guys thought.
(jfstpierre, are you still around?)
If we disregard the bureacratic annoyances of ending the current trial inconclusively and
opening a new one, I think the crime in question might be phrased as simply as
"Pimpdollaz is charged with violating the people's constitutional right to security of Leps Dissim
government assets for 666 CAD of the government's property despite knowledge of it having Frequent Forumer
been acquired through illicit means."

Wouldn't even have to bring theft or the common law in to it; just the bill of rights. Posts: 169
11:13 am
LEPS D ISSIM Cash on hand: 0.00
S UPREME COURT J USTICE [Donate]

by olivermellors » Wed May 05, 2010 6:22 pm
ending one trial and starting a fresh one...... leads to automatic acquital based on double
jeopardy. - probably
the arguments raised by Pimpdollaz amount to "bullshit baffles brains": repeat something
enough, do it loud enough, add enough vulgarity, maybe they'll think there is something to
it. There isn't.
olivermellors
Pillar of the Community
Leps, i think you are initially quite right: there is a time when we should just start ignoring
noise.

Posts: 718
no matter how you define the crime, it isn't specifically written down, in specifically the Joined: Wed Sep 23, 2009
6:01 pm
right language in specifically the right statute in the Law Repository to suit the accused. Cash on hand: 0.00
That isn't surprising. EVERY accused is going to make every argument, no matter how [Donate]
Bank: 43,232.62
tangential, in order to avoid conviction.
Medals: 5
What the Court has done so far is provide a valuable service by explaining our law. It is
pretty simple to understand: you can't keep stuff that isn't yours. Everyone understands
that. Those who say they don't understand will continue to say so no matter what.
So, i think your first instinct is best.
Officer of the Order of Canada


Formerly:Corporal 45th Flying Hellfish

by olivermellors » Wed May 05, 2010 9:19 pm
i see that jfstpierre is back, at least occasionally (good luck on the final stretch at school) so
i thought to write a draft Judgement in the pimpdollaz case as follows. Shall we vote Mr.
Chief Justice?
draft Judgement:
olivermellors
The Court has set out the applicable law. The ingredients which must be proven have been Pillar of the Community
described. The prosecutor bears the onus of proving each element beyond a reasonable
doubt.

Posts: 718
The accused offers no evidence. The Court has studied and carefully considered submissions Joined: Wed Sep 23, 2009
6:01 pm
from the prosecution and the accused. The accused's submissions are, in essence, that the Cash on hand: 0.00
law does not exist. The Court has previously rejected that argument and does so again. [Donate]
Bank: 43,232.62
Medals: 5
The overwhelming weight of the evidence satisfies the Court that all of the necessary
elements of the charge have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
The accused is therefore convicted of the crime of theft contrary to the laws of eCanada.
The Court will now proceed to receive evidence and submissions about an appropriate
sentence.


by Leps Dissim » Wed May 05, 2010 11:20 pm
Alright, I'll give up trying to reason with him.
I formally vote in support of this draft Judgement.

If we can get a formal 'aye' or 'nay' from you two I'll post it in the New Cases section.
LEPS D ISSIM
Leps Dissim
Frequent Forumer

Posts: 169
11:13 am
Cash on hand: 0.00
[Donate]


by olivermellors » Thu May 06, 2010 12:02 am
aye

Formerly: Ambassador to eIndia and ePakistan olivermellors
Formerly:Corporal 45th Flying Hellfish Pillar of the Community

Posts: 718
6:01 pm
Cash on hand: 0.00
[Donate]
Bank: 43,232.62
Medals: 5
Re: Verdict: The people v. Pimpdollaz

by jfstpierre » Thu May 06, 2010 8:27 pm
I'll read the current case and I'll vote afterwards.
aye jfstpierre
Reliable Spammer
Member of the Order of eCanada

Minister of Justice

Congressman for New Brunswick Posts: 1986
Membre de l'Office Francophone et du Comité de supervision Joined: Sun Jul 12, 2009
Cabinet and Institutions Unofficial Listkeeper 1:07 pm
Cash on hand: 115.00
Private jfstpierre | 11th Royal Rifles
[Donate]
Bank: 29,791.82
Location: Montreal, QC
Medals: 7

by Leps Dissim » Fri May 07, 2010 10:00 am
Draft Sentence:
Indefinite Ban to Forums and IRC until the 666 CAD has been returned to the government,
followed by an additional 8 weeks ban from the date of return.
LEPS D ISSIM

User avatar

Leps Dissim
Frequent Forumer

Posts: 169
11:13 am
Cash on hand: 0.00
[Donate]

by jfstpierre » Fri May 07, 2010 10:58 am
I would recommend a shorter ban period for PimpDollaz. Like 4 to 6 weeks maximum,
probably 1 month from the day of banishment.
In my opinion, and it is subject to yours too, PimpDollaz's deed (or inaction) is less serious in jfstpierre
terms of crime than TemujinBC's ones. The 666CAD was received by someone else. Reliable Spammer
We came tacitely on the conclusion that PimpDollaz's mens rea is the one of a criminal. His
action (actus reus) is relevant, knowing that he received stolen money. And that is enough Posts: 1986
Joined: Sun Jul 12, 2009
to convict him guilty of a crime: the one of theft by complicity and knowledge of the whole 1:07 pm
situation. Cash on hand: 115.00
[Donate]
Bank: 29,791.82
His complaints that our laws don't take that into account is relevant -- and proves that our Location: Montreal, QC
Medals: 7
laws are weak and incomplete --, but there are proofs given that there are jurisprudences
on that case.

Minister of Justice
Congressman for New Brunswick
Membre de l'Office Francophone et du Comité de supervision
Cabinet and Institutions Unofficial Listkeeper
Display posts from previous: All

Allposts
posts Sort by Post
Posttime
time Ascending
Ascending Go Next

Post a reply
29 posts • Page 1 of 3 • 1 2 3
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

eCanada Forums
Advanced search
Chambers

Post a reply
by olivermellors » Fri May 07, 2010 7:26 pm
hmmmm...
in principle i don't have any huge difficulties with what Leps suggests, maybe cut the ban to
6 weeks after he disgorges the proceeds (whether or not Tem pays back as well) as St.
Pierre suggests.
olivermellors
But i think we should now call on the prosecution and the accused to call any evidence they Pillar of the Community
wish on sentence and to make submissions on what they wish the court to consider. I am
particularly interested in Pimp's status within the CAF since his signature line holds himself

out as a member. If he has been kicked out of the CAF as a result of this, that is a factor to Posts: 718
be considered and would definately move me toward the 6 weeks rather than 8.
6:01 pm
Cash on hand: 0.00
Officer of the Order of Canada [Donate]
Bank: 43,232.62
Medals: 5

by Leps Dissim » Fri May 07, 2010 11:17 pm
jfstpierre - Do you mean you think the ban should be lifted after 4-6 weeks regardless of
whether or not he pays the 666 CAD back, or 4-6 weeks after he pays?
LEPS D ISSIM
Leps Dissim
Frequent Forumer


Posts: 169
11:13 am
Cash on hand: 0.00
[Donate]

by jfstpierre » Sat May 08, 2010 12:48 pm
Maybe I misread a little bit your statement, Leps.

4-6 weeks after he pays only, so he can have at least that period of banishment.
Member of the Order of eCanada jfstpierre

Minister of Justice Reliable Spammer

Posts: 1986
Private jfstpierre | 11th Royal Rifles Joined: Sun Jul 12, 2009
1:07 pm
[Donate]
Bank: 29,791.82
Location: Montreal, QC
Medals: 7

by olivermellors » Sat May 08, 2010 3:26 pm
a quick word on the jurisdiction to impose these penalties:
From the constitution:
6) Right to Appeal – Any Canadian whose rights or freedoms, as guaranteed by this Charter,
have been infringed or denied may apply to Supreme Court of Canada, or the Admins to
olivermellors
obtain such remedy as the Court or Admins deem appropriate and just in the Pillar of the Community
circumstances. (emphasis added)

This section applies and grants extremely wide powers. It applies because the theft was a Posts: 718
violation of the right to security of government assets. Joined: Wed Sep 23, 2009
6:01 pm
Cash on hand: 0.00
Moreover, we should note somewhere that as the criminal code is not being applied, the [Donate]
Bank: 43,232.62
possibility of presidential pardon does not exist. This may cause us to soften somewhat the
Medals: 5
penalty imposed: i.e. it might be appropriate to grant the accused the right to petition the
court in future for a reduction in sentence if he can show cause.
Half baked notions.
olivermellors




by Leps Dissim » Sat May 08, 2010 6:31 pm
Under what circumstances of petition would you consider a reduction in sentence?
The current sentence it seems like we're going towards is indefinite ban until payed,
followed by 6 weeks more.
If he still hasn't payed I don't think I'd support a reduction, and if he has then six weeks isn't
that long.
Leps Dissim
LEPS D ISSIM Frequent Forumer

Posts: 169
11:13 am
Cash on hand: 0.00
[Donate]

by olivermellors » Sat May 08, 2010 9:09 pm
yep... seems sound to me. may not need any "come back and tell you are reformed"
provision.


Posts: 718
6:01 pm
Cash on hand: 0.00
[Donate]
Bank: 43,232.62
Medals: 5

by Leps Dissim » Sun May 09, 2010 2:16 am
Can I get a final affirmation on the indefinite ban + six weeks after paying from you
jfstpierre?
LEPS D ISSIM

User avatar
Leps Dissim
Frequent Forumer

Posts: 169
11:13 am
Cash on hand: 0.00
[Donate]

by olivermellors » Sun May 09, 2010 8:41 am
i will be back home tonight about 6 p.m. if needed further.


Posts: 718
6:01 pm
Cash on hand: 0.00
[Donate]
Bank: 43,232.62
Medals: 5

by olivermellors » Sun May 09, 2010 3:30 pm
The more i think of this and compare to TemujinBC, the more i become convinced that
Pimp's level of moral culpability is as high as the other accused.
Both were in positions of responsibility and trust. Both have betrayed that trust.
Tem's actions involved a greater sum of money, but Pimp is the only one who wishes to
profit personally.
olivermellors
Pillar of the Community
Frankly, if the AG was minded, he could make a very good case that the sentences imposed
in both cases should be about the same, including a very very hefty fine in both cases (i.e.

4k) and identical bans. However, i may be feeling particularly "retributive" today. Posts: 718


6:01 pm
Pimp and the AG should immediately be called upon to make submissions and lead any Cash on hand: 0.00
evidence they wish about an appropriate sentence. I appreciate this may just be an [Donate]
Bank: 43,232.62
invitation to more nonsense from Pimp, and lassitude from the AG. Nevertheless it should be
Medals: 5
done.


by jfstpierre » Sun May 09, 2010 3:34 pm
Leps Dissim wrote:

Can I get a final affirmation on the indefinite ban + six weeks after paying from you
jfstpierre?
jfstpierre
Reliable Spammer
I'm fine with it, Leps.

Member of the Order of eCanada Posts: 1986
Minister of Justice
1:07 pm
Congressman for New Brunswick Cash on hand: 115.00
Membre de l'Office Francophone et du Comité de supervision [Donate]
Cabinet and Institutions Unofficial Listkeeper Bank: 29,791.82
Private jfstpierre | 11th Royal Rifles Location: Montreal, QC
Medals: 7
Previous Display posts from previous: All

Allposts
posts Sort by Post
Posttime
time Ascending
Ascending Go Next
Post a reply
29 posts • Page 2 of 3 • 1 2 3

Lock topic Go
WHO IS ONLINE

eCanada Forums
Advanced search
Chambers

Post a reply
by Leps Dissim » Sun May 09, 2010 3:54 pm
I PM'd the AG about a sentence the other day in an attempt to avoid more nonsense from
Pimp and got this response:
AcaciaMason wrote:
As for recommendations, Pimp had shown no remorse for his actions and has repeatedly
abused this court. He has also demonstrated that he would find ways to keep the money for
good by threatening to leave. I therefore humbly request that the full weight of this court
Leps Dissim
be applied. Frequent Forumer

If you feel strongly that we should solicit Pimp's opinion and possibly adjust the current Posts: 169
sentence I'll make the post, but I think we should just move ahead with the current version. 11:13 am
Cash on hand: 0.00
[Donate]
LEPS D ISSIM

I see that Pimp made a submission on sentence, of sorts, which was essentially "you are
going to have to make up more bogus rules etc". I am very sympathetic to accepting that as
his submission on sentence. I find it unfortunate that the AG is making any submissions by
PM since they are not public. Given that his comments are essentially "i have nothing
concrete to suggest" I suppose it makes no difference.
olivermellors
SO: good to go. Maybe the final judgement could impress on future litigants the importance Pillar of the Community
of making concrete submissions.

Officer of the Order of Canada Posts: 718

Formerly: Attorney General of Canada Joined: Wed Sep 23, 2009

Formerly: Minister of Justice, Justice of the Supreme Court 6:01 pm
Formerly: Ambassador to eIndia and ePakistan Cash on hand: 0.00
[Donate]
Bank: 43,232.62
Medals: 5

by Leps Dissim » Sun May 09, 2010 5:05 pm
Do we need to contact an admin to enact this, or are they on top of things?
LEPS D ISSIM
Leps Dissim
Frequent Forumer

Posts: 169
11:13 am
Cash on hand: 0.00
[Donate]

I think our brother st. pierre is on the admin team. ? Might be a good idea to send off to
1ronman.
oh, by the way Leps.... your leadership is stellar.. thanks for shepherding this and the other
case, as well as the advisory opiinion we recently did, to quick sound conclusion.
olivermellors
olivermellors Pillar of the Community

Posts: 718
Formerly: Minister of Justice, Justice of the Supreme Court Joined: Wed Sep 23, 2009
Formerly: Ambassador to eIndia and ePakistan 6:01 pm
Formerly:Corporal 45th Flying Hellfish Cash on hand: 0.00
[Donate]
Bank: 43,232.62
Medals: 5

by jfstpierre » Sun May 09, 2010 11:33 pm
On this question, here is the answer.

The Admin Team, Ironman as the head of it, has the power to dismiss any request of the
Supreme Court on which they are directly related to (e.g. banishment) and on which they jfstpierre
disagree totally. As Ironman's colleague, I can be the liaison between the Admin Team and Reliable Spammer
the Supreme Court and ask my other brothers (and sister) if they agree on the Supreme
Court's request. I can do the banishment myself, but such type of banishment is particular.
Normally, the admin team will follow the Supreme Court's recommendation, but it can be Posts: 1986
possible that such recommendation could be dismissed. 1:07 pm
[Donate]
If you request it, I can ask them if they would agree with the 2 sentences on the temporary Bank: 29,791.82
banishment on the forums. Location: Montreal, QC
Medals: 7

Minister of Justice

hmmmm...
there is irc as well
It would have been good to know this before of course.
olivermellors
I note the forum TOC and Admin's own internal rules: they follow the law of Canada and the Pillar of the Community
Constitution. No use having a court or a system of laws if the Admins are going to have veto
power.

Posts: 718
olivermellors Joined: Wed Sep 23, 2009
6:01 pm
Cash on hand: 0.00
Officer of the Order of Canada [Donate]
Formerly: Attorney General of Canada Bank: 43,232.62
Medals: 5

by Leps Dissim » Mon May 10, 2010 1:29 am

User avatar
If this veto thing ever comes up we can deal with it, but for the time being I think we're safe
assuming it won't be a problem.
Thanks for the feedback, Oliver. I'm deliberately being less... formal than we've been in the
past, while still maintaining the necessary discussion. Please let me know if I take this too
far. (I don't have anything against the formality on principle, but I don't know enough law to
do it right.)
Leps Dissim
LEPS D ISSIM Frequent Forumer

Posts: 169
11:13 am
Cash on hand: 0.00
[Donate]

by olivermellors » Tue May 11, 2010 7:35 pm
as of tuesday pimpdollaz is still posting to the forums and is masked. Have we sent the order
to 1ronman and the Admins? I asked mason to follow through as well yesterday i think.
If 1ronman is just absent, can't this be done by one of the other admins, such as Fram or
jfstpierre?
olivermellors
I become apprehensive. Pillar of the Community

Posts: 718
Formerly: Minister of Justice, Justice of the Supreme Court Joined: Wed Sep 23, 2009
Formerly: Ambassador to eIndia and ePakistan 6:01 pm
Formerly:Corporal 45th Flying Hellfish Cash on hand: 0.00
[Donate]
Bank: 43,232.62
Medals: 5

by Leps Dissim » Tue May 11, 2010 10:59 pm
Leps Dissim wrote:

1ronman,
I believe jfstpierre was going to talk to you, but if he hasn't had the chance can please
enact the two bans, from IRC and the forums, for Pimpdollaz and TemujinBC?
Thanks,
Leps Dissim, acting Chief Justice
Leps Dissim
0129 05/12 Frequent Forumer


1ronman wrote:
Posts: 169
Alright. Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009
11:13 am
Acacia had messaged me and said just PimpDollaz, but I've just banned Temujin as well.
Cash on hand: 0.00
(From eCan, eCanSP, and these Forums) [Donate]
0739 05/12
LEPS D ISSIM
Previous Display posts from previous: All

Allposts
posts Sort by Post
Posttime
time Ascending
Ascending Go
Post a reply
29 posts • Page 3 of 3 • 1 2 3

Lock topic Go
WHO IS ONLINE

Ecanada Forums: Verdict: The People V. Pimpdollaz

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Ecanada Forums: Verdict: The People V. Pimpdollaz

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ecanada Forums: Verdict: The People V. Pimpdollaz

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

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

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

[ Moderator Control Panel ]

Verdict: The people v. Pimpdollaz

Verdict: The people v. Pimpdollaz User avatar

by Leps Dissim » Tue May 04, 2010 5:00 pm

Re: Verdict: The people v. Pimpdollaz User avatar

file:///C|/Users/Michael/Downloads/jusitce/PimpOld1.htm[13/11/2010 1:47:40 PM]

Joined: Wed Sep 23, 2009

Re: Verdict: The people v. Pimpdollaz User avatar

Re: Verdict: The people v. Pimpdollaz User avatar

So, i think your first instinct is best.

Officer of the Order of Canada

file:///C|/Users/Michael/Downloads/jusitce/PimpOld1.htm[13/11/2010 1:47:40 PM]

Formerly: Attorney General of Canada

Re: Verdict: The people v. Pimpdollaz User avatar

Officer of the Order of Canada

Re: Verdict: The people v. Pimpdollaz User avatar

Alright, I'll give up trying to reason with him.

I formally vote in support of this draft Judgement.

file:///C|/Users/Michael/Downloads/jusitce/PimpOld1.htm[13/11/2010 1:47:40 PM]

Re: Verdict: The people v. Pimpdollaz User avatar

Officer of the Order of Canada

Re: Verdict: The people v. Pimpdollaz

I'll read the current case and I'll vote afterwards.

Member of the Order of eCanada

Re: Verdict: The people v. Pimpdollaz

file:///C|/Users/Michael/Downloads/jusitce/PimpOld1.htm[13/11/2010 1:47:40 PM]

S UPREME COURT J USTICE

Re: Verdict: The people v. Pimpdollaz

Member of the Order of eCanada

Display posts from previous: All

file:///C|/Users/Michael/Downloads/jusitce/PimpOld1.htm[13/11/2010 1:47:40 PM]

Return to The Judge's Chambers

Quick-mod tools: Locktopic

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

file:///C|/Users/Michael/Downloads/jusitce/PimpOld1.htm[13/11/2010 1:47:40 PM]

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

[ Moderator Control Panel ]

Verdict: The people v. Pimpdollaz

Re: Verdict: The people v. Pimpdollaz User avatar

by olivermellors » Fri May 07, 2010 7:26 pm

Re: Verdict: The people v. Pimpdollaz User avatar

file:///C|/Users/Michael/Downloads/jusitce/PimpOld2.htm[13/11/2010 1:47:42 PM]

Re: Verdict: The people v. Pimpdollaz

Maybe I misread a little bit your statement, Leps.

Member of the Order of eCanada jfstpierre

Re: Verdict: The people v. Pimpdollaz User avatar

a quick word on the jurisdiction to impose these penalties:

From the constitution:

Half baked notions.

Officer of the Order of Canada

file:///C|/Users/Michael/Downloads/jusitce/PimpOld2.htm[13/11/2010 1:47:42 PM]

Formerly: Minister of Justice, Justice of the Supreme Court

Re: Verdict: The people v. Pimpdollaz User avatar

Under what circumstances of petition would you consider a reduction in sentence?

Re: Verdict: The people v. Pimpdollaz User avatar