Supreme Court of eCanada - February 20 update

Day 1,188, 11:14 • Published in Canada Canada • by olivermellors

The Court has pronounced sentence in the case of a player who leaked CSIS information. The player will comply with conditions for the next two months. These include providing information to CSIS, co-operating with them, paying a small monetary penalty and finding his own ways to help eCanada. If these conditions are complied with, he will be welcomed back into the community.

the thread is here: http://ecanada.cc/forums/viewtopic.php?f=42&t=11732&p=190214#p190214

______________________

Rainer N. has indicated that he hasn't the time available to actively prosecute a case against CSIS and its director, alleging wrongful interference/targeting of TCO. I have expressed open minded skepticism about whether the case could succeed, and about the likelihood it would be accepted for trial. If a citizen wishes to pursue this matter you should indicate your desire to become the prosecuting party. In the absence of an active prosecuting party the case is likely to be dismissed.

the thread is here: http://ecanada.cc/forums/viewtopic.php?f=283&t=11603&p=190200#p190200

__________________________


The Court has released reasons in the Funding Cap Act prosecution. This matter required close analysis and readers are advised to review the full reasons. There is also a "short" version which states the conclusions but not the reasoning. For those interested in just the result I summarize as follows:

1. the case is accepted for trial
2. TemujinBC is added as an accused
3. no trial date will be set until at least March 19.
4. Congress and the President will, thus, have time to consider the political and practical questions involved including "what proceedures can be put in place to make sure this doesn't happen again?" That consideration and debate MAY lead to a special Act of congress retroactively authorizing the impugned supply. If that debate and vote is going to happen, best it be done before we schedule a trial date.
5. Many important rulings were made clarifying what the Act means.
6. Many important observations were made about the evidence.
7. Important comment was made about the CAF's accountability and an expectation about protocols and systems to avoid similar future occurences.
8. The very simple expedient of executive order was not used, and could have solved all problems.

The thread is here:
http://ecanada.cc/forums/viewtopic.php?f=283&t=11316&p=190230#p190230