Jump to content

Midsummer Night's Dream

Platinum Donator
  • Posts

    711
  • Joined

8 Followers

About Midsummer Night's Dream

Personal Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Ontario, Canada

Character Information

  • Character Name
    Juno Midsomer

Donator Features

  • Custom Song
    EY72Qqj7G6M

Recent Profile Visitors

8,782 profile views

Midsummer Night's Dream's Achievements

201

Reputation

  1. Username: JMidsomer Comment: Does Truman Stein ever say anything other than “Yea”? It seems like they didn’t program him to say anything else. Yesman Stein would be a more fitting name.
  2. Username: J.Midsomer Comment: Weak-minded and persecution. Mr. Spencer should be nowhere near public office. Fortunate for the decent and civilized, and unfortunate for Mr. Spencer, a lot stands in his way to prevent him from having his way — including fundamental rights, constitutional proscriptions and constitutional prescriptions. There are also the various actors who keep these enduring. Mr. Spencer, and anyone else of his ilk, is why many of us in the law profession continue to do what we do and and why we will continue to rise in defense of these rights and limits.
  3. Username: JMidsomer Comment: While some parts were interesting to read, I was alarmed by the misunderstanding and misstatement of the standard of proof in civil proceedings. The statement in question is also somewhat inaccurate, when read literally, for criminal proceedings too. The standard of proof in criminal proceedings is "beyond a reasonable doubt" — to describe this as beyond a "trace of doubt" would be too excessive because it suggests the proper test is beyond all doubt. The standard is not beyond all doubt. Expecting the government to bring a case without "even so much a trace of doubt" is the equivalent of saying the case must be beyond all doubt; which is, again, not the standard. The government is not required to extinguish all doubt; they are only required to dispel all reasonable alternative explanations. Without "a trace of doubt" is also not at all the standard of proof in civil proceedings! Thus, to say a plaintiff must "leave no trace of doubt" is alien to civil proceedings and plainly wrong! To succeed, a plaintiff is not required to instill confidence to the level of beyond a reasonable doubt; the standard that a plaintiff must meet in most civil proceedings is actually significantly lower than "beyond a reasonable doubt" and permits a lot more leeway for doubt. The standard applied to most civil trials is "preponderance of the evidence" and, for certain claims such as defamation involving public figures, the standard is pegged slightly higher at "clear and convincing," which is still below the standard in criminal proceedings. For an illustration, with mark-ups and notation in blue, see:
  4. Username: J.H.Midsomer Comment: PUBLIC RELEASE _________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ MIDSOMER P.L.L.C. || Los Santos, San Andreas August 8, 2023 Mr. Spencer continues to play fast and loose with the truth, and his press release of August 7, 2023 is no different. His release is full of half-truths, equivocation, embellishment and fluff. He also misrepresents the record. Allow me to set the record straight: "In a recent legal battle, Jonathan Spencer, Chairman of the GOP, emerged victorious against a First Amendment lawsuit filed against him by Danielle Shaw." Dr. Bordeaux's complaint was a defamation action, not a "First Amendment lawsuit"—whatever that might mean. It was a tort action; and the only mention of the First Amendment in Dr. Bordeaux's claim was to preempt any attempts to rely on the First Amendment. "The lawsuit, which alleged violations of the First Amendment rights, saw Miss Shaw seeking $235,000 in damages." There was no allegation of "violating the First Amendment"—whatever that might mean—made against anyone. The claim consisted of defamation, IIED and civil conspiracy. Further, Dr. Bordeaux's claim was that the First Amendment, on a correct reading of the relevant authorities, could not protect the conduct against which the claim of defamation was made. "The court's ruling reaffirms the principle that open dialogue on matters of public interest must be shielded from unwarranted restrictions." The court's judgment made no such mention of "public interest." In fact, it made no attempt to analyze the First Amendment implications, or the relevant First Amendment caselaw. The judgment consisted of a short blanket statement. All of the other embellishments and fluff will become clear as proceedings continue to play out, including the pending appeal. * * * Unfortunately for Mr. Spencer, the person he targeted is tenacious. She is gritty and does not settle for what she knows is wrong. Dr. Bordeaux will continue pursuing the truth—because civility, decency and the truth still matter—in her appeal: Danielle Bordeaux v. Jonathan Spencer (23GJAP00011) A faithful review of the record will show that Spencer's claim to victory is a hollow one. Ironically, the record shows that, in appearing to give regard to the First Amendment—which it does not—the court in question violated the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments; and not once, but repeatedly and in a number of ways. A court cannot attempt to reinforce one constitutional guarantee by simultaneously violating four others (1. notice, 2. opportunity to be heard, 3. impartial / neutral decision-maker, 4. adversary process). To do so would award a meaningless victory. If each of the due process principles asserted by Dr. Bordeaux still matter, then the judgment in question will be repudiated; and if the truth still matters, then Dr. Bordeaux will be vindicated. No amount of fluff and embellishment on Mr. Spencer's part will change this trajectory. Thank you. Juno Midsomer Principal || Midsomer P.L.L.C. E: [email protected] Ph: (810) 770 73 SA Bar License No. 61186 ___________________________________
  5. Username: J.H.Midsomer Comment: PUBLIC RELEASE] _________________ _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ MIDSOMER P.L.L.C. || Los Santos, San Andreas July 31, 2023 Unfortunately, Mr. Spencer's press conference of July 30, 2023 contains a number of inaccuracies. We intend to use those inaccuracies and highlight them in court should the same be repeated in court. Furthermore, while Mr. Spencer is free to put together a press release on any subject matter of his choosing, we think it was inappropriate for him to do so here and to comment on issues that are being litigated in active proceedings. The court record is public; he should speak through the record, and respect the judicial process by letting it play out — and remain — in court. Thank you. Juno Midsomer Principal || Midsomer P.L.L.C. E: [email protected] Ph: 810 770 73 SA Bar License No. 61186 ___________________________________
  6. The ‘sauga. Interesting option because I don’t think anyone outside of Canada has heard of Mississauga!
  7. ] _________________________________________________________ Comments and structured responses may be sent to the journal via e-mail at [email protected] (( PM )). The journal does not publish comments but does make effort to publish structured responses of publishable quality. For comments, please write “comment” followed by the title of the article to which you are replying. For structured response, indicate “response” followed by the title of the article to which you are responding. Topics which gain traction and attract compelling responses may be compiled and published as a debate series. (( The instructions above are found at the journal's site, lsrol.org, for PDF versions of the print edition. Because this is a PDF, public comments are not possible unless published by the journal separately. ))
  8. Username: WestCoastPride Comment: That's an odd and antiquated sign-off for a public announcement prepared in the 21st Century, but, nonetheless, well said. Thank you, also, for your service Sen. Giraldi. Your determination and passion cannot be doubted. I hope next generation will draw inspiration from the the bright spots of your tenure.
  9. The OP’s gut feeling is onto something. They’re right and it’s chiefly a self-insert problem. Let’s not pretend like it’s not. Regrettably, it has always chiefly been self-insert and, equally unfortunate, it always will be. Roleplay has been and continues to be, to a substantial degree, a conduit through which to express edgy or fringe beliefs. Some don’t realize how much roleplay is serving as a conduit for their fringe beliefs; others are quite intentional about it and allow it to serve as conduit. Some try to disguise it by couching their behaviour as trolling; others are quite open about it.
  10. Funny though that may be, it'd also be unrealistic because it would be so blatantly unconstitutional. Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489 (1999) reaffirmed the "constitutional right to travel from one State to another" (quoting United States v. Guest, 383 U.S. 745, 757 (1996)). This is not even the first case to recognize this — quite so, Justice Stevens in the Saenz case cited many earlier cases. In Saenz: The government will have to find some other way!
  11. It seems OP intended to ask why San Andreas lacks legislation establishing termination or employment standards; from what I could glean in his replies, I do not think OP meant "labor laws" in the broadest sense. In any event, as the OP correctly pointed out, San Andreas remains at-will for non-unionized workplaces; and the Labor Relations Act 2021 does not change that because its provisions in the employment domain apply only to unionized workplaces (LRA's provisions regarding occupational hazards are not employment laws — they are regulatory and in the occupational health and safety domain; it would be misleading and misusing semantics to contend otherwise). As to standards that apply to all workplaces, there was an attempt made not long ago, but that proposal — namely, the Employment Termination Standards Act 2021 — did not make it out of committee for a vote.
  12. This. Banning topics because they cause some degree of distress is a slippery slope. Drawing that line is not easy; it would probably be difficult finding the right balance and then explaining away how the line we've drawn captures certain, potentially unforeseen, topics but not others. As has been suggested above, the roleplay surrounding these topics serves as conduit through which people channel their real-life displeasures and views — sometimes those views are too fringe to find widespread acceptance, and sometimes with trolling. While this so-called "self-insert" may be undesirable, it can't be prevented to any significant degree, not least because people can easily lie about what their real-life views are. For this reason, I think we should be focusing less on that fact that the roleplay is self-insert and, instead, should be focusing on practical use. In-character policy should have as much practical consequence as we can give it. Unfortunately, the reality is that the current anti-abortion and anti-transgender laws have little practical purpose; they target probably the smallest subset of roleplayers in the community. That seems like a waste of effort to me. Are there really no pressing issues to resolve and is policy creativity lacking that much that we need to pass policy that affects, for example, only a small subset of female roleplayers?
  13. _________________________________________________________ Comments and structured responses may be sent to the journal via e-mail at [email protected] (( PM )). The journal does not publish comments but does make effort to publish structured responses of publishable quality. For comments, please write “comment” followed by the title of the article to which you are replying. For structured response, indicate “response” followed by the title of the article to which you are responding. Topics which gain traction and attract compelling responses may be compiled and published as a debate series. (( The instructions above are found at the journal's site, lsrol.org, for PDF versions of the print edition. Because this is a PDF, public comments are not possible unless published by the journal separately. ))
  14. I disagree that whether double jeopardy attaches after arraignment depends on whether there was delay. No; it depends on when, in non-jury trials, the defendant is considered exposed to the risk of conviction (Downum). As already said above, in jury trials, the accused is exposed to the risk of conviction when the trial begins (Serfass) and the trial begins, for Fifth Amendment purposes, once the jury is empanelled (Crist). In my view, in a non-jury situation, an accused is at the risk of conviction once they have been brought to appear before the judge and entered any plea — in other words, they are exposed to the risk of conviction once they have been arraigned. As far as I know, there has not been any authoritative or judicial statement as to this because non-jury trials are rare. Double jeopardy also depends on whether the first court made a procedural ruling or substantive one when terminating the case — this was explored in the article. (Remember: there are two questions in all double jeopardy problems, including 1. was the accused in jeopardy / were they exposed to the risk of conviction, and 2. if so, is the second prosecution relying on the same issues that were substantively resolved in the first proceeding). By bringing delay into the analysis, you seem to have conflated the speedy-trial guarantee (Sixth Amendment) with the double-jeopardy guarantee (Fifth Amendment). In any event, as Bopsy pointed out, this isn’t exactly the appropriate ”forum” for this discussion. Feel free to follow up in a DM.
×
×
  • Create New...