Jump to content
  • Sky
  • Blueberry
  • Slate
  • Blackcurrant
  • Watermelon
  • Strawberry
  • Orange
  • Banana
  • Apple
  • Emerald
  • Chocolate
  • Charcoal

Midsummer Night's Dream

Members
  • Content Count

    288
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

55 50 Reputation

1 Follower

About Midsummer Night's Dream

Personal Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Canada

Character Information

  • Character Name
    Juno Midsomer

Recent Profile Visitors

1292 profile views
  1. Midsummer Night's Dream

    You’re right; it looks like gambling was singled out here. I would take to a suggestion and suggest that they change the language of the Advertisement Rule to make it inclusive so that gambling is not unfairly singled out. Changing it to make it inclusive would also bring clarity to those operating unregistered and / or unlicensed liquor, broadcasting, and entertainment establishments. I am speaking entirely from an OOC perspective, of course.
  2. Midsummer Night's Dream

    I’ll use that from now on. Thanks.
  3. Midsummer Night's Dream

    Updated 16 February 2020: Added “Agreements in General” category and one question under it.
  4. Midsummer Night's Dream

    Never mind. For anyone wondering how to clear space: you’ll have to manually remove attachments. To do this, simply find a post with an attachment using the My Attachments list, edit the post, locate the attachment and hit delete.
  5. Midsummer Night's Dream

    I’ve reached the limit for file attachments. Is there a way to clear it? If so, how?
  6. Midsummer Night's Dream

    I think it’s best to just archive the suggestion because it’s already been derailed. Nothing relating to suggestion’s concerns has been discussed so far. If court roleplay and developing laws through in-characterly resolved cases is important to the community, then someone else can make the suggestion (or a moderator can clean up this thread).
  7. Midsummer Night's Dream

    Half-truths and exaggerations. Clearly, you’ve either been sent or arrived on your own accord to develop a narrative against the case in question. (Conveniently, you did not mention your out-of-character relations with the defendant — a conflict of interest worthy of mention if one had any integrity.) The claim did not pursue $600 000 in lost opportunity. You included part of the fees and expenses related to appearing in court. The total of the lost opportunity was 582.5 thousand. That includes recouping the initial investment to purchase the property when it is sold later at an excess of 400 thousand. These are reasonable figures and would have been defended had the defendant bothered to participate. Instead, they’ve opted for an bad-faith attempt to develop an out-of-character narrative. The claim pursued basic principles of contract. Dubbing them “technicalities” because they challenged your understanding of contracts does not make them anything other than basic. Again, a thinly-veiled attempt to develop an out-of-character narrative around barely defensible in-character lawless conduct. Misleading rhetoric. You cannot broadly condemn those who roleplay in this area as “not caring for IC consequences.” That is unsubstantiated (you didn’t even attempt to justify this position), unfair and accusatory. Perhaps in your char’s legal matters you only cared about getting your client out of prison or having their conviction quashed, regardless of further consequences; but you cannot impute this motive and disposition to others. In other words, speak for yourself! Evidently, if you actually read the claim, you would have seen concern for IC consequences of the breach — consequences which are not only beyond the immediate parties, but also worthy of consideration. Clearly, then, your post here hysterically attempts to cast practitioners in a bad light with an unfair and broad-brushed narrative. Half-truths bordering on malicious. Malicious because I’ve looked through a number of suggestions and I’ve not seen one suggestion in which another member injected the OP’s background into the discussion (in the first reply, no less) in effort to impute questionable motives for their suggestion. It’s wrong, irrelevant and deserves some manner of reprimand. (Unfortunately, the staff moderating my last thread was more keen to act on respectful references to a roleplay scenario than the post here, containing a reference which reeks of personal animus). As for other parts, they are opinionated and exaggerated rhetoric. There’s only a kern of truth to this. Everything else is opinionated and unjustified — “predatory” because the claimant pursued competent help to recover what she lost after the sale of a commercial property fell through at no fault her own? One which fell through because the seller reneged, even while he quite literally told her — twice — that he had the services of a lawyer. Predatory is reneging on agreements in a lawless fashion and then, when called to court to answer, lawlessly eliminating the problem — despite having access to at least two lawyers while the buyer had none. Predatory is parading out-of-character friends and exploiting connections at an out-of-character level to save face and sooth the ego. Half-truth. The only truth to it is that it was voided. This is misleading because you cannot be assured of the result. A criminal appeal — for those unaware — only dealt with a defendant’s guilt. It did not award damages. For that you’d have to go to the civil division. A person who is acquitted is not automatically entitled to compensation; you speak as if the acquittal in your appeal would have guaranteed recovery — that’s not how the law ever worked. I take it you are speaking of the Kyle Brock matter. If you are, as I l’adresse pointed out to you privately, it is doubtful qualified immunity for mistaken identity wouldn’t have applied — the authorities were on the police’s side. In other words, this was a poor example. I did not make this suggestion thread for you to take it personal, peddle half-truths and exaggerations, with the usual rhetorical deluge seen in your roleplay, and ultimately derail it from the get-go. No more.
  8. Midsummer Night's Dream

    (retracted)
  9. Midsummer Night's Dream

    I transferred a reaction from Keane’s post here to this post. The concerns raised about CK abuse are on point. Well done.
  10. Midsummer Night's Dream

    Withdrawn
  11. Midsummer Night's Dream

    (( Updated with the SABIN system, the preorder form, and also a revised format. )) ORDER WITH SABIN What is the SABIN system? SABIN, or the San Andreas Book Identification Number, is a book numbering system unique to San Andreas. It was devised by LegalisPublius for books originating from San Andreas. SABINs are 14-digit, and all begin with 191. Those first three digits help ISBN users outside of San Andreas distinguish between SABIN and ISBN. It begins with 191 because S is the 19th letter of the English alphabet, and 1 because A is the first. The next digits signify location of origin in San Andreas and are in a two-digit format: 07 is for Los Santos County, 21 Blaine County. The next are the date of publication in DD-MM-YY format. The last three digits are randomized. The same product in different formats will have different numbers. Although it is designed for books, some booklets and longer pamphlets will be on SABIN; otherwise, leaflets and other hard copy or digitalized written material will not have an identifier. For example, for the Bar Examination Preparation, its SABIN is 191 07 120220 480. This tells you that it was published in Los Santos County (07) and on 12 February 2020. How to use SABIN A publisher’s online catalogue should indicate the SABIN for books originating in San Andreas. If the book is a reproduction of a book which did not originate in San Andreas, it will likely have only an ISBN. Use the SABIN in the search box to go directly to it. When ordering on LegalisPublius, you can indicate on the order / preorder form either the title of the product which you are interested in purchasing, or its SABIN.
  12. (( Work-in-progress; subject to change. References to “preorder” are references to forum PM. Send PM to @Midsummer Night's Dream using the preorder form when it becomes available in-characterly. )) PREORDER FORM ”Forensic Évidence in the Criminal Court” SABIN: 191 07 210120 909 $20 995 (price subject to change) Discover with this practice guide how to present and give forensic evidence. Trial advocates will find useful advice on laying the foundation and authenticating evidence; forensic specialists, analysts and experts will appreciate tips on how to reliably answer foundation questions, among others. Forensic Evidence in the Criminal Division is an essential reading for criminal law practitioners and expert witnesses who give forensic evidence in the criminal court. ”Navigating the Traffic Court” SABIN: 191 07 140220 247 $11 995 (price subject to change) Navigating the Traffic Court provides a clear picture of the law relevant to the traffic court -- understand how guilt is determined, and familiarize yourself administrative law principles applicable to the traffic court and traffic enforcement; ultimately, feel prepared next time you find yourself before a traffic court. “Legalease with ease!” SABIN: 191 07 020220 487 $9 777 (price subject to change) Make sense of any legal document with this plainly-written dictionary. Legalease with ease! is a useful reading for anyone appearing in court without representation. Those with a law background may submit a request to have A to Z entries grouped into categories by subject-matter. "Bar Examination Preparation: The Complete Guide" SABIN: 191 07 120220 480 $47 779 (price subject to change) Feel prepared and do wonders on the San Andreas Bar Examination with this comprehensive guide. Easy to grasp, thorough and covers all the topics on the examination. No need to take a course; learn in a non-threatening, non-judgmental and self-paced environment. ”Writing for the San Andreas Bar Examination” SABIN: 191 07 170220 100 $14 000 (price subject to change) (Description pending) ”The San Andreas Penal Code Annotated” SABIN: 191 07 270220 900 $82 720 (price subject to change) Find annotations with commentary on nearly every section of the San Andreas Penal Code (excludes traffic sections). Annotations break down elements of each crime; while commentaries consider issues likely to be contentious at trial. Find also hypothetical scenarios and illustrative cases. This title does not include defences to criminal liability. ”The San Andreas Constitution Annotated” SABIN: 191 07 260220 515 $71 200 (price subject to change) (Description pending) This annotation covers all the prominent clauses of the San Andreas Constitution. Enjoy rundowns on both substantive and procedural constitutional issues. The San Andrea Constitution Annotated is basic enough for general-interest readers, but also useful for pactitioners. This title contains a glossary at the end of each chapter that may be of benefit to layperson readers. ”Torts” SABIN: 191 07 290220 111 $96 000 (price subject to change) (Description pending) More to come . . . Please allow for three to five weeks for the fulfillment of any order. Some orders will require longer waiting periods. You will be informed by e-mail if this is the case. You will not be invoiced or charged until your order is prepared and ready to be delivered.
  13. Midsummer Night's Dream

    Disclaimer: 1. This thread is intended only to foster discussion and ensure consultation for a new rule; that way the rule is not imposed on the community without its input. It is not intended to be about anyone specific and, quite so, on close inspection, you will see it does not name anyone specific. The suggested rule is: Escaping legal consequences arising out of judicial proceedings via PK or CK is not permissible unless: (a) the defendant is at risk of losing 90% of their total wealth, and (b) the defendant has the means or connections to eliminate all of the parties relevant to the proceeding For a primer on this suggestion, please see previous comments below: ”Thank you for allowing me to make the representations below. I am deeply concerned about the impact this PK event will have on an already neglected area of roleplay. I have a few observations regarding that. Also, I will not get into the quality of the PK event itself; rather, I will be focusing just on the concept of a PK in these circumstances — to be specific, when escaping legal consequences arising from court. Please take these comments into account while you consider the PK event and how to approach it. 1. Generally, it is widely accepted that roleplayers should not readily resort to extremes to escape legal consequences, particularly without fear of or concern for further consequences. For example, considerable emphasis is placed on roleplayers realistically depicting fear when they interact with the police — that being, perhaps, the commonest way roleplayers face legal consequences. 2. The result of this expectation is that roleplayers, even the most seasoned gangsters or hardened mobsters, cannot always resort to the extreme and, for example, initiate a shooting with every officer who happens to cross them while out on a drive. They are expected to have regard for further consequences, depict fear and / or hesitation, and — insofar as it is realistic and compatible with their character’s traits — avoid compounding their problem. 3. Viewed in this light, that expectation demands that roleplayers, insofar as it realistic, either overlook most minor transgressions against their characters, or deal with them through the judicial system or some other grievance-handling process (e.g. for any police matters, internal affairs). 4. In my view, this same expectation applies especially to legal consequences which result from private disputes between two or more individuals. The reason is simple: it would ensure realistic private dispute resolution through the court or settlement. 5. Just as the fear-response rule (if you will) is intended to maintain realistic, effective and fair policing roleplay between the law enforcer and the offender, the same rule applied in this context also maintains realistic, fair and amicable dispute resolution between private parties on opposing sides. 6. Anything less than that, for an already neglected civil court division, would negatively impact, first, activity through that division and, second, the development of San Andreas’ law. It would, further, implant a degree of lawlessness that would inevitably run into both realism and portrayal issues. 7. It would, in addition, make lawyers who practice outside criminal law too fearful — unrealistically fearful, if I may add — to take on a dispute, particularly if they know little or nothing about the defendant. The effect of this would, among other effects, make the civil division redundant and legal resolution overall very monotonous. Monotonous legal roleplay would mean the courts see only one type of case with the same issues (though different fact patterns) over and over again; the consequence, among others, is that the law's development is stifled. [ . . . ] 11. To mitigate the potentially harmful effects on an already-neglected and niche area of roleplay, I would like to suggest a rule for the use of PK and CK to escape legal consequences. The rule would provide that: "Escaping legal consequences arising out of judicial proceedings via PK or CK is not permissible unless: (a) the defendant is at risk of losing 90% of their total wealth, and (b) the defendant has the means or connections to eliminate all of the parties relevant to the proceeding." Thank you again for the opportunity to make these comments. I would be happy to answer any questions.” As most people understand it, the court system deals with niche roleplay, particularly the civil division. For this reason, any excessive out-of-character interference or lack of out-of-character regulation could mean the end of it. To put it into perceptive and help see one reason as to why this rule is important, players already overly rely on the out-of-character player report system. I have seen staff refer reporters to the court system, which is heartening; but it does not occur nearly enough to maintain the court’s viability. (For examples as to reports which could have been actionable claims to contribute to activity in the civil court, please see here (breach of contract and / or unjust enrichment) and here (contractual misrepresentation) ). The few cases that do reach the civil court are, thus, important. Unfortunately, this is where unfettered PK and CK threaten the court’s viability. It is simply not sustainable for those who roleplay as practicing lawyers to undertake weeks- or months-long roleplay only to see it mooted by PK or CK intended to escape the consequences. Further, unfettered PK and CK in context this encourages evasive action that, occurring on a large scale, would inevitably run into realism issues. It goes without saying that roleplay in this community is not supposed to emulate a 12th-century feudal approach to justice; marked by blood feuds for perceived private wrongs, or to escape their consequences. There is already strain on this roleplay caused by the player report system and players’ tendencies to overly rely on this report system. That tendency has already limited traffic through these courts. A second assault from unfettered PK and/or CK could be the last straw. Thank you for your time, ladies and gentlegerms! Feel free to hit the like or subscribe button below, or leave a comment! Do all three if you must!
  14. Midsummer Night's Dream

    Like I said: Copied and pasted (which implies it was not edited). Please, enough derailing this suggestion.
×