Legal Issues

[Bulgaroktonos]

As one of the judges of our new community, I think it best if we get some kind of ad hoc discussion going surrounding the future legal system of our camp.

Granted, we have adopted the Bill of Rights as our interim system, but getting the ball rolling on some of this stuff shouldn't be too time consuming, and clearing it up now can be good.

Case in point: Gun control.

It would be my opinion that we gun control is outside the Council's hands under the current Constitution. However, this is a tricky point as we have already had some issues with the matter, and we need to make sure we can all trust each other to carry firearms.

Thus, I think we'll have to leave that up to the courts, rather than legislate on. It seems to me that passing legislation on the matter is in violation of our current constitution, and should be determined on case law rather than legislation.

The way I would like to mold the judicial system is to have it define our constitution, and there by help create the legal framework of the community by deliniating between what the constitution allows and what it does not, rather than making a whole host of laws and such.

[Norbert]

Case in point: Gun control.

It would be my opinion that we gun control is outside the Council's hands under the current Constitution. However, this is a tricky point as we have already had some issues with the matter, and we need to make sure we can all trust each other to carry firearms.

Thus, I think we'll have to leave that up to the courts, rather than legislate on. It seems to me that passing legislation on the matter is in violation of our current constitution, and should be determined on case law rather than legislation.

The way I would like to mold the judicial system is to have it define our constitution, and there by help create the legal framework of the community by deliniating between what the constitution allows and what it does not, rather than making a whole host of laws and such.

As to Gun Control, perhaps it is a matter of defining Resposibility. If someone goes out and waves their weapon carelessly about, then there should be a consequence, such as a long, very boring class to sit through with someone making certain they do not nod off to sleep. And then a period of restrictions on carrying a weapon. This could also go for blades, as well. If they persist in being very careless, defined as putting another party at risk of harm, then the weapons should be confiscated. Periodic checks should be made in camp to make certain the weapons safety is on, and no round in the chamber. In camp, there is no reason to have a weapon ready for an instant use.

[Ghost 88]

As to Gun Control, perhaps it is a matter of defining Resposibility. If someone goes out and waves their weapon carelessly about, then there should be a consequence, such as a long, very boring class to sit through with someone making certain they do not nod off to sleep. And then a period of restrictions on carrying a weapon. This could also go for blades, as well. If they persist in being very careless, defined as putting another party at risk of harm, then the weapons should be confiscated. Periodic checks should be made in camp to make certain the weapons safety is on, and no round in the chamber. In camp, there is no reason to have a weapon ready for an instant use.
Oh crap,the Sheriff be in trouble already.:D My M1911A1 always has a round in the chamber,half cocked,safety on,and a holster strap between the firing pin and hammer. Then again I have a "need" for quick action. By this I mean if I need to draw my weapon I most likely not have time to chamber a round. As I don't disagree in principle with you,there may be shades of grey involved with the carrying of weapons.The solution I foresee is "TRAINING" and more "TRAINING",this falls under the well regulated milita portion of the Second Amendment and has to be manditory no exceptions allowed,most of our citizens DID NOT grow up in a "gun carrying" enviorment.The rules of safety with weapons are not second nature to them.I presume that most of our citizens know little if nothing about real military service.While I know we have many Veterns,we have to treat all others as if they know nothing at all.Even the veterns need to be tested.

[Glen]

We have adopted the Bill of Rights for now, which has in the second amendment with that bit about a WELL REGULATED MILITIA...

I think this is very relevant for our situation. Every adult should consider themselves part of the militia, to be called upon at need to assist in the defense of our community.

Gun Responsibility rather than Gun Control is definitely the way to go. You have the right to keep arms, and to bear arms. However, you are responsible for when and how you fire those arms. Irresponsible use will result in rulings by our judiciary in accordance with the Bill of Rights and the Common Law.

I would like everyone to rotate through firearms training and safety testing, with those who do not perform up to snuff initially being sent through more training. This falls under the development of a well regulated militia, IMO.

I agree the judiciary should have the power to interpret the constitution, the common law, and the laws passed by our legislature (the general meeting).

BTW, just to remind people, pointing a weapon at someone is assault with a deadly weapon (if you pull the trigger, that goes up to battery at the best, and attempted murder or murder at worst). Firing a weapon unnecessarily within the camp limits is reckless use of a firearm, which has also been well established in the common law as an infraction.

However, given the risk of predators entering our camps, carrying firearms is probably a smart idea. Someone pointed out that our only deaths thus far have been from firearms. I'd also point out that we've had several potentially deadly encounters with bears and other predators ended by gunfire, so they may have saved as many lives as they've taken thus far...

[Glen]

Oh crap,the Sheriff be in trouble already.:D My M1911A1 always has a round in the chamber,half cocked,safety on,and a holster strap between the firing pin and hammer. Then again I have a "need" for quick action. By this I mean if I need to draw my weapon I most likely not have time to chamber a round. As I don't disagree in principle with you,there may be shades of grey involved with the carrying of weapons.The solution I foresee is "TRAINING" and more "TRAINING",this falls under the well regulated milita portion of the Second Amendment and has to be manditory no exceptions allowed,most of our citizens DID NOT grow up in a "gun carrying" enviorment.The rules of safety with weapons are not second nature to them.I presume that most of our citizens know little if nothing about real military service.While I know we have many Veterns,we have to treat all others as if they know nothing at all.Even the veterns need to be tested.

Ghost and I seem to be on the same wavelength on this matter.

Ghost, could you perhaps bring this up in the council for formal discussion and ratification (I'm a bit tied up with the holidays at present)?

Bulg, what is your legal opinion on having the community members go through testing and if necessary training? Can we do this at the executive level solely, or should we have a confirmatory vote at the next general meeting? We will start it before then if the council agrees as I consider it a major safety issue, but if necessary can bring it up at the general meeting for confirmation for its continuation.

[Norbert]

Ghost, I agree. But you are not the one I am worried about, rather the kid who doesn't Know better. The older folks amoungst us usually have had military training, with extensive weapons safety training. Heck of a class to sit through. Also, amny of us older folks have taken hunters safety. Again, its the people who have not had these I am worried about.

Glenn, I agree with you also. I strongly feel that a training program be set up for anyone who carries a weapon. And even though I feel confident not to injure someone through careless use, I would have to go through the program also. There should be no exceptions. If you refuse to take the class, you do not carry. Final.

One of Wards people taught weapons training in the military, if I remember correctly. Did it for several years. Put him in charge of the program.

[Glen]

Ghost, I agree. But you are not the one I am worried about, rather the kid who doesn't Know better. The older folks amoungst us usually have had military training, with extensive weapons safety training. Heck of a class to sit through. Also, amny of us older folks have taken hunters safety. Again, its the people who have not had these I am worried about.

Glenn, I agree with you also. I strongly feel that a training program be set up for anyone who carries a weapon. And even though I feel confident not to injure someone through careless use, I would have to go through the program also. There should be no exceptions. If you refuse to take the class, you do not carry. Final.

One of Wards people taught weapons training in the military, if I remember correctly. Did it for several years. Put him in charge of the program.

Sounds good. However, I think that EVERYONE should go through at least the basics of gun safety, whether they intend to carry a weapon or not. Knowing how to properly deal with a weapon if forced to may save lives. I don't know too many pacifists who would object to shooting at a mountain lion or bear if it were attacking a small child, for example.

And children should also go through this, if for no other reason than to hammer home just how dangerous firearms are, what they look like, and what to do if they find one (mostly - DON'T touch! Get an adult!).

[Ghost 88]

Ghost, I agree. But you are not the one I am worried about, rather the kid who doesn't Know better. The older folks amoungst us usually have had military training, with extensive weapons safety training. Heck of a class to sit through. Also, amny of us older folks have taken hunters safety. Again, its the people who have not had these I am worried about.

Glenn, I agree with you also. I strongly feel that a training program be set up for anyone who carries a weapon. And even though I feel confident not to injure someone through careless use, I would have to go through the program also. There should be no exceptions. If you refuse to take the class, you do not carry. Final.

One of Wards people taught weapons training in the military, if I remember correctly. Did it for several years. Put him in charge of the program.
Truth be told I am leary of anyone under the age of 35 who have not had "gun training".I don't mean this in a truely ageist matter just that the culture of the US has changed so much scince the "peace and love generation"coupled with the video games out that although they are inteligent and mature carrying weapons 24/7/365 is not something they are mentaly trained for.Add to this our non"American" citizens who's cultures do not embrace an individuals "right" to carry firearms,it is an absolute impairative that we insure peoples ability to handle and care for our weapons. Eleven years in the infrantry see how stupid even "trained soilders" can be with weapons gives me shivers thinking how someone untrained might screw up.

[Matt]

Truth be told I am leary of anyone under the age of 35 who have not had "gun training".I don't mean this in a truely ageist matter just that the culture of the US has changed so much scince the "peace and love generation"coupled with the video games out that although they are inteligent and mature carrying weapons 24/7/365 is not something they are mentaly trained for.Add to this our non"American" citizens who's cultures do not embrace an individuals "right" to carry firearms,it is an absolute impairative that we insure peoples ability to handle and care for our weapons. Eleven years in the infrantry see how stupid even "trained soilders" can be with weapons gives me shivers thinking how someone untrained might screw up.


I'm, quite frankly, amazed that we haven't had any accidental discharges or shootings yet. Even soldiers and Marines make mistakes, let alone adults who never really handled a firearm on a day-to-day basis. Training is a must, I've already proclaimed that. Also I think within communities we should enforce the unloading of weapons. When I was deployed we would unload our weapons whenever entering camp, and load upon leaving. I think this is only logical.

[Ghost 88]

I'm, quite frankly, amazed that we haven't had any accidental discharges or shootings yet. Even soldiers and Marines make mistakes, let alone adults who never really handled a firearm on a day-to-day basis. Training is a must, I've already proclaimed that. Also I think within communities we should enforce the unloading of weapons. When I was deployed we would unload our weapons whenever entering camp, and load upon leaving. I think this is only logical.
We did Soyuz shot an NPC during the "Rommy Incedent".
Unloading in camp in a "War Zone " damn.:eek: :eek: Oh well I guess the threat to your camps wasn't considered high.Of course you were only concerned with the insurgents who while very dangerous as I have been led to believe are not that many they can attack a Military encampment.We unfortunatly must be prpared at ALL TIMES to defend against threats animal and human. Its a differant type of threat enviorment we are in here than in the Middle East,therefore our mindset needs to be more like Viet Nam in that we are always in "harms way":)

[Matt]

We did Soyuz shot an NPC during the "Rommy Incedent".
Unloading in camp in a "War Zone " damn.:eek: :eek: Oh well I guess the threat to your camps wasn't considered high.Of course you were only concerned with the insurgents who while very dangerous as I have been led to believe are not that many they can attack a Military encampment.We unfortunatly must be prpared at ALL TIMES to defend against threats animal and human. Its a differant type of threat enviorment we are in here than in the Middle East,therefore our mindset needs to be more like Viet Nam in that we are always in "harms way":)


I'll amend.. that was in Kuwait, the threat level was lower there. But there were still armed guards on the perimeter. In Iraq we kept our weapons condition 3 at all times.

[Ghost 88]

I'll amend.. that was in Kuwait, the threat level was lower there. But there were still armed guards on the perimeter. In Iraq we kept our weapons condition 3 at all times.
That sounds a bit better. Having read many articles by David Hackworth on the stupidity of some of our Generals over there,including the mess hall incident,I was willing to believe that some genius with stars could come up with that kind of policy.I also agree with Hack on his calling most of the Pentagon crowd "Perfumed Princes". For those who don"t know the expression it is not a compliament.;)

[Ward]

Thats why I took singal action pistols . I'm carring 5 rounds in the pistols so the hammer is on a emty Chamber . So no accidents can happen .

I also think my son Frank should reteach a weapons safty class to everyone .

[Bulgaroktonos]

Bulg, what is your legal opinion on having the community members go through testing and if necessary training? Can we do this at the executive level solely, or should we have a confirmatory vote at the next general meeting? We will start it before then if the council agrees as I consider it a major safety issue, but if necessary can bring it up at the general meeting for confirmation for its continuation.

I think some form of testing should be required, mostly out of the stipulation that all the community is part of the militia. By going the road that training be mandatory for the maintaince of a militia, then we can try and head off what would otherwise be a fast track to government regulation and licensing, something I would like to avoid.

Thus, if tied in with the militia training, I think that we can avoid that problem. No need to legislate on that.

In other words, common sense dictates that we have some kind of mandatory testing/training. We need to make sure that we have some kind of gun safety out there. However, since I think we would all like to have as little government regulation as possible, we can work our way around the regulation aspect by tying it into militia training.

[Glen]

Militia training/gun safety it is, then.

Make it so, WeaponM (ie MBarry in disguise)...

[Matt]

puts Lee mask on

Very well. I shall issue a request for all non-Ranger ex-military types to report in order to organize a militia force. Our first priority well be addressing firearm safety training.

[Ward]

puts Lee mask on

Very well. I shall issue a request for all non-Ranger ex-military types to report in order to organize a militia force. Our first priority well be addressing firearm safety training.


Are you going to force just thjose of us that served into the Milita only .

[Norbert]

Are you going to force just thjose of us that served into the Milita only .

I think using ex-military for the core is a good idea, but train everyone else (men and able women) as time to train becomes available.

[Matt]

Are you going to force just thjose of us that served into the Milita only .




No no no. Militia by it's definition well be part time. But I would like to be able to appoint my militia officers(or rather elect in the American fashion) and make sure they're up to speed in fire arm safety. Then maybe once or twice a month militia training sessions well be held.

[SionEwig]

puts Lee mask on

Very well. I shall issue a request for all non-Ranger ex-military types to report in order to organize a militia force. Our first priority well be addressing firearm safety training.

I'm not there, I'm busy.

HELL NO I WON'T GO :D

[Norbert]

No no no. Militia by it's definition well be part time. But I would like to be able to appoint my militia officers(or rather elect in the American fashion) and make sure they're up to speed in fire arm safety. Then maybe once or twice a month militia training sessions well be held.

No, I believe Ward was saying that only the ex-military goe into the militia. He understands its part time. Just (as I know better than most:D ) his grammer in writting is not the best.

[Ward]

I'm not there, I'm busy.

HELL NO I WON'T GO :D



Dirty Draft card burner :eek: You have just recived your Draft notice:D

[Norbert]

puts Lee mask on

Very well. I shall issue a request for all non-Ranger ex-military types to report in order to organize a militia force. Our first priority well be addressing firearm safety training.

Sorry, out of town for the next bit.:p

[SionEwig]

Dirty Draft card burner :eek: You have just recived your Draft notice:D

I got my discharge papers.:cool: Now if the militia wishes to hire me as a civilian consultant, we can talk numbers.:D

[Hendryk]

I think that EVERYONE should go through at least the basics of gun safety, whether they intend to carry a weapon or not. Knowing how to properly deal with a weapon if forced to may save lives. I don't know too many pacifists who would object to shooting at a mountain lion or bear if it were attacking a small child, for example.

Add to this our non"American" citizens who's cultures do not embrace an individuals "right" to carry firearms,it is an absolute impairative that we insure peoples ability to handle and care for our weapons.
That would be people like me.
So far I've never handled a gun, let alone fired one, so if any mandatory training program is going to be set up, I'll definitely be in it.
And I should probably add that, while on record as an advocate of gun control, I consider that pragmatic considerations outweigh ideological ones. The debates we had about guns and crimes, and the positions I took at the time, were in the context of an early-21st-century urban environment. Now that we find ourselves in a settler community with such creatures as grizzly bears and mountain lions for neighbors, the situation indisputably calls for a high degree of readiness.

[Bulgaroktonos]

Legal Issue of the moment:

Not being a council member, I didn't bother to read up on the council's debates. However, I find it a bit troubling the Council would find it adequate to simply requisition private animals for use outside of the community.

Now, I don't have a problem with the Council hearding all the animals into a collective group under the control of the Council and logistics coordinators, those being myself and Hendryk, provided they are used in for the community from which they are taken.

However, it is a rather troubling precendent, at least to me, for the Council to requisition large animals for use outside the Community at the Council's sole discretion. If I can hear some convincing arguments to the contrary, I'll defer to the Council. Otherwise, I think it should be put to a vote.

[Glen]

Legal Issue of the moment:

Not being a council member, I didn't bother to read up on the council's debates. However, I find it a bit troubling the Council would find it adequate to simply requisition private animals for use outside of the community.

Now, I don't have a problem with the Council hearding all the animals into a collective group under the control of the Council and logistics coordinators, those being myself and Hendryk, provided they are used in for the community from which they are taken.

However, it is a rather troubling precendent, at least to me, for the Council to requisition large animals for use outside the Community at the Council's sole discretion. If I can hear some convincing arguments to the contrary, I'll defer to the Council. Otherwise, I think it should be put to a vote.

Respectfully, I would argue that the use of these animals for work in either the Fort Ian site or on the Trek or at any other site designated by the Council and/or General Meeting falls under the definition of the Community.

Second, the requisitioning of these animals if necessary would fall into a category similar to that of eminant domain. These animals truly are a limited resource, one that we can not obtain elsewhere, and we may need them for the benefit of the entire community.

However, this will not be done lightly, will be credited towards those whose animals have been requisitioned accounts, and will be paid back in some fashion now or at a later date (for example, the trade of aid getting in the crops now at Fort Ian in return for using their animals at critical points of the Trek). I would also note that the intent is for this to be a limited use, with the return of the property in question at the earliest possible time.

I believe this is within the purview of the Council, and hope that we can actually get consent from those involved for an equitable agreement, as opposed to compelling. Of course, if we do find it necessary to compel such (and it appears that we have the start of an agreement, so it might be moot anyhow), then if the requisitioned party wishes they can always go to the court for an injunction, at which time we of the executive would have to convince the court of the need and reasonable recompense, or be barred from continuing.

How does that sound?

[SionEwig]

Respectfully, I would argue that the use of these animals for work in either the Fort Ian site or on the Trek or at any other site designated by the Council and/or General Meeting falls under the definition of the Community.

Second, the requisitioning of these animals if necessary would fall into a category similar to that of eminant domain. These animals truly are a limited resource, one that we can not obtain elsewhere, and we may need them for the benefit of the entire community.

However, this will not be done lightly, will be credited towards those whose animals have been requisitioned accounts, and will be paid back in some fashion now or at a later date (for example, the trade of aid getting in the crops now at Fort Ian in return for using their animals at critical points of the Trek). I would also note that the intent is for this to be a limited use, with the return of the property in question at the earliest possible time.

I believe this is within the purview of the Council, and hope that we can actually get consent from those involved for an equitable agreement, as opposed to compelling. Of course, if we do find it necessary to compel such (and it appears that we have the start of an agreement, so it might be moot anyhow), then if the requisitioned party wishes they can always go to the court for an injunction, at which time we of the executive would have to convince the court of the need and reasonable recompense, or be barred from continuing.

How does that sound?

I think that the vast majority of peole will have no problem at all with the use of the draft animals of both groups for the Grand Trek and preparation of crop lands at Fort Ian. And that is not what many of us are objecting to. Nor are we objecting to the general use of said animals for other projects.

Where I think that there should have been problems was in the original way that the animals were taken.

But it's what was done, basically taking the animals, telling whoever that it was needed to be done and that they didn't have the time to properly take care of the animals.

That is not a way to foster feelings of goodwill and sharing amongst the vast crowd.

Also, where I think that there will very possibly be a problem is with the trading of animals for some of those from Fort Ian. Now while I would like to have some more of those animals, it is really going to take some work and very favorable terms for the Fort Ianites to decide to trade their animals away. And then you have to consider the thoughts of the Berkeleyites that the traded animals belonged to. Cause I really doubt that you will get any 1 for 1 trades, so how are you going to compensate the multiple pig owners (just to use pigs as an example) whose pigs went to get that 1 llama?

Oh, and please don't even start saying "eminent domain." That is a very bad phrase thanks to the SCOTUS decision last year.

[Highlander]

I totally disagree with this. This is the problem that is starting to happen in America, and will eventually lead to totalitarion gov't. People should have the choice if they want to contribute "to the community".

I have one horse. Would this affect her?

[Othniel]

Glen, thats a violation of eminant domain which is in the constution.

[SionEwig]

I totally disagree with this. This is the problem that is starting to happen in America, and will eventually lead to totalitarion gov't. People should have the choice if they want to contribute "to the community".

I have one horse. Would this affect her?

Uh, which do you disagree with?

[Highlander]

This eminant domain stuff is what I disagree with.

[Othniel]

We'd need just compensation.

[Highlander]

Yes, but who makes sure that we get said compensation?

I just feel that you should have a choice rather or not you hand over your property.

[SionEwig]

Yes, but who makes sure that we get said compensation?

I just feel that you should have a choice rather or not you hand over your property.

I agree with you. Now there is little doubt that we are going to need to borrow all of the draft animals available to get the main group from Fort Ian to Berkeley, there is simply no way to do it otherwise for such a large group. The compensation for the Fort Ianite animals that would be borrowed (32 horses, 6 donkeys, 6 oxen) is that until the first convoy leaves, many of the Berkely animals (352 horses, 66 donkeys, 66 oxen, and 1 mule), plus some people, will be available to get the Fort Ian crop land cleared and plowed, and it will probably go much fasted than if they did it on their own. The compensation for the Berkely bound people for their animals being used for the Grand Trek (look at that thread for more information and a timeline) is that they will be able to get to Berkeley. Otherwise how do you plan on doing it yourself?

Now trading peoples animals needs to be done only with their experss permission.

[Highlander]

I agree that we all need to pitch in and help, but I still think it should be up to every person if they want to contribute or not. However, even though I disagree with this eminant domain, I will go along with it as long as the Council doesn't decide to do something drastic.

[SionEwig]

I agree that we all need to pitch in and help, but I still think it should be up to every person if they want to contribute or not. However, even though I disagree with this eminant domain, I will go along with it as long as the Council doesn't decide to do something drastic.

This borrowing is not 'eminant domain' as such, just borrowing. And if someone doesn't want to loan their draft animals for the effort for the group to get to Berkeley, then they can figure out how to do it on their own.

I am very much against permanant confiscation of our animals, but mine is still going to be used for the Grand Trek and where needed afterwards, since I know that I will be getting the benefit of the use of other animals in other areas.

[Norbert]

Also consider woods being cleared before leaving, and cut timber suitable for building being left as part of any payment. I did not start cutting just to cut, but with the knowledge that some would be staying behind, and would require materials to build with. There is a lot of wood in an acre, let alone the 30-40 acres that have been cut so far. Not all of it was used for fuel or wagons. Fort Ian should have enough wood right now to build at least 3/4 of the structures they need, probably more. Is that not part of their payment?

[SionEwig]

Also consider woods being cleared before leaving, and cut timber suitable for building being left as part of any payment. I did not start cutting just to cut, but with the knowledge that some would be staying behind, and would require materials to build with. There is a lot of wood in an acre, let alone the 30-40 acres that have been cut so far. Not all of it was used for fuel or wagons. Fort Ian should have enough wood right now to build at least 3/4 of the structures they need, probably more. Is that not part of their payment?

I think so, plus 25 wagons. But i don't think that the Fort ian people were fussing about payment. Jolo said that he thought it was a workable idea and was going for the plan of letting the animals be used for the Trek. I was just mentioning our 'payment' as an example.

[Norbert]

I think so, plus 25 wagons. But i don't think that the Fort ian people were fussing about payment. Jolo said that he thought it was a workable idea and was going for the plan of letting the animals be used for the Trek. I was just mentioning our 'payment' as an example.

Ah, but it is point worth making to confirm to folks that they are not getting anything for something. :D

[Ward]

I belive that for payment we could plant at less 10 Acres of crops for them . I'm willing to kick in 1/10 of my seeds for these crops .

[Gerard-ABC]

There is another legal issue that needs dealing with before the move to the new place.... the murder trial from the first day.

Do we want to take that person along, and have to guard / look after them ?
Might be better to "loose" them along the way ? Naturally, we don't give them a horse or gun or anything important.


Regards,
Gerard

[Glen]

Where I think that there should have been problems was in the original way that the animals were taken.

Agreed, that could have happened better. We will try to rectify as much as we can, and be more tactful in future endeavors.

trading of animals for some of those from Fort Ian. Now while I would like to have some more of those animals, it is really going to take some work and very favorable terms for the Fort Ianites to decide to trade their animals away. And then you have to consider the thoughts of the Berkeleyites that the traded animals belonged to. Cause I really doubt that you will get any 1 for 1 trades, so how are you going to compensate the multiple pig owners (just to use pigs as an example) whose pigs went to get that 1 llama?

Well, that is a good point. Perhaps we'll need to match trade partners from the Berkeley and Fort Ian groups if any trade is to go through.

Oh, and please don't even start saying "eminent domain." That is a very bad phrase thanks to the SCOTUS decision last year.

I know what you mean. However, it is somewhere between eminent domain and commandeering that we are talking about here. It is within the abilities of the executive branch to do that in times of need, and since we are using common law, eminent domain was the most appropriate concept I could think of for this. Just because uptime there was a questionable application of the concept doesn't vacate centuries of use. There are real times when eminent domain must be invoked, though I personally favor very circumscribed use of it, with temporary use where possible, and full compensation as able.

[SionEwig]

Ah, but it is point worth making to confirm to folks that they are not getting anything for something. :D

I must be being particularly dense today, or else you got some good goodies at Physical Therapy today, cause I have absolutely no idea what you are saying here???:confused: :D

[Glen]

Glen, thats a violation of eminant domain which is in the constution.

What is a violation of what part of the constitution? You've lost me here.

[Norbert]

I must be being particularly dense today, or else you got some good goodies at Physical Therapy today, cause I have absolutely no idea what you are saying here???:confused: :D

I just reread it, and it makes no sense. I think what I meant that if something was taken over for use for the community as a whole, they would receive fair compenstion for the use. I think what I was trying to say was 'confirm to folks that they are not getting nothing for something.'

Better?:o

[Glen]

Let me make myself clear here, if possible.;)

I don't like eminent domain, but sometimes it is necessary. We are in a very precarious situation, and while we will endeavor, first and foremost, to have voluntary participation in most activities, in the next month or two there will be times when we will need to act quickly and take advantage of all the resources at our disposal. This Great Trek is one of the biggest undertakings we will be attempting in years. We have to do all we can to get it done expeditiously.

Now then, what has been proposed is not precisely eminent domain, because we hope to return the property (or its equivalent if there are losses along the way), to the owners. And in the case of the Fort Ian folk, they are getting a trade up front for their animals' services. The use of the animals for those who are actually joining the Great Trek should be obvious as their compensation, as it takes a joint effort to ship everyone's stuff. However, eminent domain does provide at least some model and rationale for how and why we can do this based on the common law.

Remember, the Council in the next month or two will have to act much more quickly over these next few vital months to ensure our survival. After that, we will have some breathing space to be much less precipitous and seek more consensus, volunteerism, and community approval. We are essentially in a state of emergency until we have our food supply secured.

[Glen]

I just reread it, and it makes no sense. I think what I meant that if something was taken over for use for the community as a whole, they would receive fair compenstion for the use. I think what I was trying to say was 'confirm to folks that they are not getting nothing for something.'

Better?:o

Note this has been my stance since day one; that all services and goods provided to the community will be for just compensation. Given our present condition, a lot of that compensation will be deferred until we are up and running. That is why I have been so adamant that everyone's efforts be recorded and credited as best as possible.

I am not asking people to provide something for nothing, though we sometimes have to ask them to provide something now for something later.

[SionEwig]

Agreed, that could have happened better. We will try to rectify as much as we can, and be more tactful in future endeavors.

Just as a thought here to possibly help with this. Why don't we say that the animals are marked for ownership? Or is that too reasonable of an idea. After all, some people may have brought (or wanted the ASBs) to bring specific animals, like some of the medium dogs (if not just about all of them), and our Vet would have wanted to bring her Appaloosa that she has raised from a newborn.



Well, that is a good point. Perhaps we'll need to match trade partners from the Berkeley and Fort Ian groups if any trade is to go through.

That would be an excellent idea, plus Ward had a possible proposal also that might be workable.
I belive that for payment we could plant at less 10 Acres of crops for them . I'm willing to kick in 1/10 of my seeds for these crops .

Of course that assumes that we are not taking up all of the grown crops for communal use and redistribution that was originally suggested.



I know what you mean. However, it is somewhere between eminent domain and commandeering that we are talking about here. It is within the abilities of the executive branch to do that in times of need, and since we are using common law, eminent domain was the most appropriate concept I could think of for this. Just because uptime there was a questionable application of the concept doesn't vacate centuries of use. There are real times when eminent domain must be invoked, though I personally favor very circumscribed use of it, with temporary use where possible, and full compensation as able.

All I'm saying is please don't use tht particular term. In character, my wife would go ballistic on you and I would have to live with her after that (and I really don't like the term also).

And no, our borrowing the animals (and I'm speaking of the Berkeley animals here) for use in getting everyone to Berkeley with is not eminent domain. It is everyone sharing the method to get there. Besides, if we ever have to use such powers for the 'common good,' then I would prefer that we not just compensate then with the so called 'fair value' of what ever it is, but over compensate them by a very significant factor (but that is better discussed somewhere else).

[Glen]

I agree that the murder issue needs to be resolved.

In my capacity as a medical physician, I have given testimony after examining the case and the patient that he was not in his right mind at the time of the shootings, and is still not. He appears to be medically incapacitated due to a psychotic break from the stress of ISOTing. Whether he is not guilty by reason of insanity, or even able to stand trial must be ruled on by our judiciary.

In any event, I highly recommend that we not simply 'lose' him. While medically incapacitated to make sound judgments, that doesn't mean that he won't be a threat to himself or others, and should not be let out of custody at this time.

[SionEwig]

I just reread it, and it makes no sense. I think what I meant that if something was taken over for use for the community as a whole, they would receive fair compenstion for the use. I think what I was trying to say was 'confirm to folks that they are not getting nothing for something.'

Better?:o

Got it, though some of your explanation isn't much better :D. Boy you must have gotten some real goodies today at therapy, ;) .

[Othniel]

What is a violation of what part of the constitution? You've lost me here.
6th Amendment, the right to Private Property;

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Just to point that out...as we adopted the Bill of Rights as our constution...

[Glen]

Just as a thought here to possibly help with this. Why don't we say that the animals are marked for ownership? Or is that too reasonable of an idea. After all, some people may have brought (or wanted the ASBs) to bring specific animals, like some of the medium dogs (if not just about all of them), and our Vet would have wanted to bring her Appaloosa that she has raised from a newborn.

Personally, I'm fine with that.


That would be an excellent idea, plus Ward had a possible proposal also that might be workable.

Good. As far as I am concerned, an animal trade might be good for both parties, but is not a necessity, so it can be debated and worked out, or simply not done at all.


Of course that assumes that we are not taking up all of the grown crops for communal use and redistribution that was originally suggested.

The first crops will be this way. However, people will be receiving credit for the seeds and cuttings they are contributing, as well as any labor and equipment.


All I'm saying is please don't use tht particular term. In character, my wife would go ballistic on you and I would have to live with her after that (and I really don't like the term also).

What term would you prefer? I was stating it to Bulg as part of the rationale for requisitioning the animals. Perhaps drafting or commandeering? But I must admit, it was the power to require the sale of a property if it is needed for the good of the community that I first thought of when thinking about precedent. Just because it is a concept that has been misused at times doesn't completely negate its legitimacy as a legal concept under common law, which is what we're working with at present.


And no, our borrowing the animals (and I'm speaking of the Berkeley animals here) for use in getting everyone to Berkeley with is not eminent domain. It is everyone sharing the method to get there.

Not in the case of the Fort Ian folk.

Besides, if we ever have to use such powers for the 'common good,' then I would prefer that we not just compensate then with the so called 'fair value' of what ever it is, but over compensate them by a very significant factor (but that is better discussed somewhere else).

I agree. Compensation under such circumstances should be at 'top value', because if you have to use it for the common good, than it is very valuable indeed, isn't it?

[SionEwig]

Note this has been my stance since day one; that all services and goods provided to the community will be for just compensation. Given our present condition, a lot of that compensation will be deferred until we are up and running. That is why I have been so adamant that everyone's efforts be recorded and credited as best as possible.

I am not asking people to provide something for nothing, though we sometimes have to ask them to provide something now for something later.

But it is real nice to have this stated big and bold, and yes, again. If you notice, most of the worry from people has to do over the way that someone wants to regard the animals as community property (and has from the beginning). The only thing that got people riled up with regards to you seems to be over the use of a certain 'E.D.' term.

We probably have more rabid individualist here than most places.

[Bulgaroktonos]

My issue comes with the fact that the animals would be used at Fort Ian. It seems to me that Fort Ian would have to be an entirely separate body, with it's own council, etc.

The requirements to form a unified central government are too great. We cannot adequately know the needs of both communities in real time to deal with their survival necessities. Thus, to all intents and purposes, the two communities should be treated as separate city-states until infrastructure and logistics allow for some form of workable union.

Thus, for animals of the main community to be taken by our council for use in another community governed by separate rules, is not a good legal precedent.

I stand with the council on the ideas surrounding communal use, but I have a difficult time considering Fort Ian to be part of the community.

[Psychomeltdown]

Although I've tossed in my two cents and have pretty much stated that I'm for collectivization and requisitioning, due to the fact that we NEED these animals and everyone one that's not working (animal) means about half a dozen more people doing that job, also for the mere fact that a lot of the people do not know how to care for the animals they've got.

There could be a lot of animal abuse, animal neglect, and deaths due to the fact that people view the animal as their property and want to keep it. (though this is a case of if the person wants to keep their animal with them)


Though if you want to look at the animals as personal property and not as community property, then think on this also.

We're pretty much trying to get everyone who's able to work. They're cutting down trees, they're making wagons, fishing, hunting, building, digging shit pits, hauling water, etc, etc. But do all the things the work produces belong to them? Does the trees cuts down and the firewood, wagons created, belong to the people who made it?

We've stated that the herders/animal caretakers are doing Work. Work deemed useful for the community by Glen and the Council. We care for the animals, we feed them, we water them, we make sure they’re safe. Yet why should we do all of this if they’re personal property?

If you say that this animal belongs to you and that it’s your Private Property and everything that animal produces is yours, then why should Community resources be wasted on keeping the animal for you? Instead you should find someone and PAY them to take care of your animal or take care of it yourself, therefore whatever it produces will be yours to do with as you please.

Meanwhile the labor that’s going to keeping those animals, now, can be put elsewhere.






Of all the animals we have, they can be pretty much divided into two groups.

Useful Animals and Useless Animals. This only refers to short term, not the long term.

Producing Animals - animals that can work and produce things quickly.
Horses – labor
Donkeys (Mule) - labor
Oxen – labor
Llamas – labor
Dairy cows – food (milk)
Goats – food (milk)
Chickens – food (eggs)


Non Producing Animals
Pigs
Beef Cattle
Sheep


Dogs are a category of their own. We’ll need them as guard dogs, but when things first began they were left as they were, in the care of their owners.




As I am still for collectivization of the animals, I suggest that the Council requisition all the Producing Animals. The other animals can stay in the care of their owners and they can do with them what they want.

We need horses, donkeys, mules, oxen, llamas to work, every job they do makes it easier for us to do more,

The diary cows, goats and chickens all produce food that we need to feed children. Remember we have 45 percent of the population as children.

As Glen said these are resources that we need. Resources.


Those are my thoughts.

[Glen]

6th Amendment, the right to Private Property;

nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Just to point that out...as we adopted the Bill of Rights as our constution...

Then what I am suggesting does not violate it, as I have stated from day one that any such actions will be for just compensation.

I have never, ever, suggested just taking things from anyone and giving no credit (which is our biggest form of compensation at present due to our primitive conditions, its deferred, but you will be justly compensated, that is the guarantee of the Council and its Chairman).

From the beginning I have been against any move to collectivise property, though I have been willing under present conditions to adopt elements of a command economy until the present situation is resolved.

What you had the ASBs give you is YOUR property. Even if it goes to the use of the community, it does not change the fact that it is your property, and you must be compensated for it if used in any way by others.

[SionEwig]

I agree that the murder issue needs to be resolved.

In my capacity as a medical physician, I have given testimony after examining the case and the patient that he was not in his right mind at the time of the shootings, and is still not. He appears to be medically incapacitated due to a psychotic break from the stress of ISOTing. Whether he is not guilty by reason of insanity, or even able to stand trial must be ruled on by our judiciary.

In any event, I highly recommend that we not simply 'lose' him. While medically incapacitated to make sound judgments, that doesn't mean that he won't be a threat to himself or others, and should not be let out of custody at this time.


I'm going to go on and kick in on this one.

Psychotic break or not, he did shoot and kill 2 people. That one of them was his woman is irrelevant. The other one was not. It was someone's daughter. I can guarentee you that if it had been one of my sons who he had killed, he would not be amongst the living now. My wife would have shot him down where he stood. Who amongst us as a parent wouldn't do the same. So how can you think that a NPC parent wouldn't do it also.

Now, can we guarentee that there will not be another such episode? I don't think that we have the resources necessary to guard him for a period of inprisonment.

As a result, I suggest that we hang him, say a prayer, and get on with it.

[Psychomeltdown]

As a result, I suggest that we hang him, say a prayer, and get on with it.
Ditto.

He's consuming resources and labor that would otherwise be used elsewhere.


Hang him or whatever and we move on.

[Glen]

My issue comes with the fact that the animals would be used at Fort Ian. It seems to me that Fort Ian would have to be an entirely separate body, with it's own council, etc.

The requirements to form a unified central government are too great. We cannot adequately know the needs of both communities in real time to deal with their survival necessities. Thus, to all intents and purposes, the two communities should be treated as separate city-states until infrastructure and logistics allow for some form of workable union.

No, it is not. First off, the PCs and prominent NPCs (in the form of jolo) have acknowledged their link to the community and the jurisdiction of the council. Yes, they will need their own local government, but that doesn't translate into a separate state. In the beginning, the US took months to travel from one end to the other, and they acknowledged a federal government. We will only be days away. It will mean a lot of independence for Fort Ian for the next few years, but hardly a whole separate government.

Thus, for animals of the main community to be taken by our council for use in another community governed by separate rules, is not a good legal precedent.

As stated above, I disagree that they are separate.


I stand with the council on the ideas surrounding communal use, but I have a difficult time considering Fort Ian to be part of the community.

Until such time as someone brings suit regarding this, I ask that the Council consider ALL uptimers under the jurisdiction of the Community in the form of the General Meeting (which I would note any uptimer is able to attend and vote in...natives who want to join are too, as far as I'm concerned, but for logistical reasons that isn't an issue for now), the Council, and the Judiciary.

If the judiciary is going to rule on this, then I would respectfully submit that it must be the entire high court.

And honestly, if it rules that these people are not part of the community, I will ask for a special meeting of the general community for a vote to make it so.

We are all bound together by our shared history as uptimers and the millenia of history we are heirs to. We have established a democratic process in which everyone has recourse to the legislature and the judicial system, as well as a vote on the composition of the executive. We also have a bill of rights that guarantees the rights of the individual.

We will all suffer if we begin to splinter into separate tiny fiefdoms, or dissolve into sheer anarchy, which very well might happen if anyone can simply move a few miles away and declare themselves a law onto themselves.

[Glen]

As far as the murder case goes, it is not so simple.

He was not immediately shot by anyone, and is now under guard, so unless you are going to have that grieving parent shoot him at the trial (possibility, that), it will go to a judge and jury.

We are operating under a common law system here. The judge needs to determine if he is competent to stand trial. If he is, then the jury needs to determine whether he is guilty or not (we know he did it, but the insanity defense for once is not a stretch here), and guilty, what his punishment is to be.

If he is found guilty and sentenced to death by a jury of his peers after a fair trial, sobeit. I won't use executive privilege to pardon or commute that. But if he is found not guilty by reason of insanity, he can not legally be executed.

[Norbert]

I'm going to go on and kick in on this one.

Psychotic break or not, he did shoot and kill 2 people. That one of them was his woman is irrelevant. The other one was not. It was someone's daughter. I can guarentee you that if it had been one of my sons who he had killed, he would not be amongst the living now. My wife would have shot him down where he stood. Who amongst us as a parent wouldn't do the same. So how can you think that a NPC parent wouldn't do it also.

Now, can we guarentee that there will not be another such episode? I don't think that we have the resources necessary to guard him for a period of inprisonment.

As a result, I suggest that we hang him, say a prayer, and get on with it.


Let us not set a precedence of some wishy-washy mental defence. All mental conditions were healed prior to ISOT, and to state someone is not of his right mind is setting us a precdence of allowing a liberal lawyer to argue someone was not of his right mind and there for not responsible for his actions. I do not care what anyone else thinks, if you do a crime, you are punished. Period. I prefer the Biblical judgement of an 'Eye-for-an-Eye' when it comes to murder. And that is what it was.


Ward and Norbert

[Othniel]

Pyscho, the matter which they are collected also matters;

4th Amendment;

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

In this case it is the seizure of a citzen property for use of the community. First off anybody having their animals taken needs an oath of compensation, hopefully by court order.

The compensation would be acess to community goods until such a point which the individual can care for themselves. If the person denies that they also waive their prividgles given as a compensation.

[SionEwig]

My issue comes with the fact that the animals would be used at Fort Ian. It seems to me that Fort Ian would have to be an entirely separate body, with it's own council, etc.

The requirements to form a unified central government are too great. We cannot adequately know the needs of both communities in real time to deal with their survival necessities. Thus, to all intents and purposes, the two communities should be treated as separate city-states until infrastructure and logistics allow for some form of workable union.

Thus, for animals of the main community to be taken by our council for use in another community governed by separate rules, is not a good legal precedent.

I stand with the council on the ideas surrounding communal use, but I have a difficult time considering Fort Ian to be part of the community.

Um, using the Berkeley animals for work at the Fort Ian area is going to be for relatively short term, around Day 11 through Day 18 inclusive. What we get out of that is two fold. First and foremost we get the use of their draft animals for use in the Grand Trek, which is just enough to cut the number of convoys down from 10 to 8 and that represents a time savings of 14 days which is very important. Second, our people get practice doing things like pulling stumps and plowing ground which means that when we get finished with the Trek, we will be much more experienced on doing that stuff so we will be able to work our crop lands better.

[Forum Lurker]

If he is found guilty and sentenced to death by a jury of his peers after a fair trial, sobeit. I won't use executive privilege to pardon or commute that. But if he is found not guilty by reason of insanity, he can not legally be executed.
What else are we supposed to do, then? We don't have enough resources to care for a dangerous madman; we're going to be hard-pressed to care for the able-minded. Our choices are basically A) decide that he's not a threat, and release him or B) decide that he is a threat, and take the steps necessary to remove that threat. Since we're not dealing with a petty thief here, but a multiple murderer (allegedly), the removal of that threat probably necessitates execution.

[SionEwig]

As far as the murder case goes, it is not so simple.

He was not immediately shot by anyone, and is now under guard, so unless you are going to have that grieving parent shoot him at the trial (possibility, that), it will go to a judge and jury.

We are operating under a common law system here. The judge needs to determine if he is competent to stand trial. If he is, then the jury needs to determine whether he is guilty or not (we know he did it, but the insanity defense for once is not a stretch here), and guilty, what his punishment is to be.

If he is found guilty and sentenced to death by a jury of his peers after a fair trial, sobeit. I won't use executive privilege to pardon or commute that. But if he is found not guilty by reason of insanity, he can not legally be executed.

OOPS, sorry there, left out have a trial and IF found guilty then hang him if that is what the jury says.

But, I will still say that we are stretching things a bit to assume that the PARENTS would not have done or tried something thus far.

I think that we are somewhat in the same situtation as the Valley from Pournelle's "Lucifer's Hammer" at the end after the cannibals have been defeated. We really can't afford all the nicities of modern society that we have become accustomed to, but on the other hand, these are some of the things that we do need to strongly consider if we hope to hold onto any real level of society.

While I thin that capital punishment is warrented in this case, I do think that we should agonize over the decision and certainly not approach it lightly.

[Bulgaroktonos]

No, it is not. First off, the PCs and prominent NPCs (in the form of jolo) have acknowledged their link to the community and the jurisdiction of the council. Yes, they will need their own local government, but that doesn't translate into a separate state. In the beginning, the US took months to travel from one end to the other, and they acknowledged a federal government. We will only be days away. It will mean a lot of independence for Fort Ian for the next few years, but hardly a whole separate government.

I would say that despite the short distance between us, the infrastructure required to maintain a viable link between Fort Ian and the main camp is far beyond our capacity. To compare our situation to the early US assumes far more infrastructure and logistical capacity than we are currently capable of.

The federal government was the overarching authority, but the business of the states was left to the states, not only out of Constitutional, but technological and logistical constraints, that the people on the ground knew the situation far better than those in Washington.

What was the average travel time from Washington to New York? On land with actual infrastructure? We will need a sizable population simply to make communication at all effective. Having the council manage things as small as livestock management on a constant basis is a recipe for massive bureaucracy and inefficiency.

Far better would be to compare the Iroqouis Confederation.

As stated above, I disagree that they are separate.

To all purposes, it seems realistic that they are....

If the judiciary is going to rule on this, then I would respectfully submit that it must be the entire high court.

I would have it no other way. Far too important an issue for just me to decide upon, though I think we can compromise at the moment rather than forcing actual rulings.

And honestly, if it rules that these people are not part of the community, I will ask for a special meeting of the general community for a vote to make it so.

We are all bound together by our shared history as uptimers and the millenia of history we are heirs to. We have established a democratic process in which everyone has recourse to the legislature and the judicial system, as well as a vote on the composition of the executive. We also have a bill of rights that guarantees the rights of the individual.

We will all suffer if we begin to splinter into separate tiny fiefdoms, or dissolve into sheer anarchy, which very well might happen if anyone can simply move a few miles away and declare themselves a law onto themselves.

I agree, but we have to recognize that our lack of any infrastructure limits to what extent we can truly have a single community. Perhaps we should set up municipalities and limit it that way?

Communal use and Council discretion within the municipality of which you are a resident, but some other means of procuring the needed labor for other municipalities?

Eitherway, I think that most people will be willing to lend horses to the other group, and I'd like to avoid it happening by government fiat. Perhaps a poll. If it comes out that a majority will not contribute, then we can go from there?

[Glen]

Let us not set a precedence of some wishy-washy mental defence.

Norbert, insanity and mental incompetence have been defenses for centuries, not a creation of wishy-washy liberals....though many lawyers have abused the concept out of all recognition.

All mental conditions were healed prior to ISOT,

OOC:
Personally, I wouldn't have had the murder happen at all for that reason and others, especially the naming of a specific board member as the culprit, one that as far as I know, we have no reason to believe would be predisposed to such actions. So either he went nuts (ie wasn't his fault), or we are defaming the man in NPC. If we had left this a nameless NPC, then we could have gone with the just an evil bastard and hang em high plot, since any group this large is likely to have one or two. But that's not how it was done. Are you willing to give proof that this is the sort of thing Rommy would do IN HIS RIGHT MIND?

IC:
True, they were healed. However, that doesn't necessarily translate into someone breaking mentally under the stress of the situation. And from the description and my subsequent examination, that at least appears to be the case here.


and to state someone is not of his right mind is setting us a precedence of allowing a liberal lawyer to argue someone was not of his right mind and there for not responsible for his actions.

So are you stating that it is your opinion that no one can become delusional or lose touch with reality? Because I've rotated through psych wards as a medical student, and I can tell you that just isn't true.

I do not care what anyone else thinks, if you do a crime, you are punished. Period. I prefer the Biblical judgement of an 'Eye-for-an-Eye' when it comes to murder. And that is what it was.

Ward and Norbert

If that is what you believe the law should be, I would suggest that you prepare a bill to present at the next general meeting making it so, and if voted in and upheld by the courts, that will be the law of the land.

However, the crime was committed after we had voted on the common law as our standard, and an insanity and/or diminished capacity defense is a well established entity in both American and British law. So it at least must be considered. If the jury finds he was not in his right mind during the commission of these acts, through no fault of his own, then they are obligated under the law to acquit. If they find he was in his right mind, at least enough to distinguish right from wrong, then they have the obligation to find him guilty, and at least under American law one of the available penalties for such a crime would be death.

[Othniel]

Far better would be to compare the Iroqouis Confederation.

Or Moses and the Hebrews going across the desert...

[Norbert]

Make the issues of the trial and the animals as polls.

[SionEwig]

Make the issues of the trial and the animals as polls.

Sounds like a good idea to me. Though let's make sure of the proposed wording of the questions before we post them. That is often one complaint I have with some of the polls.

[Glen]

Here's how I see it, Bulg.

We have the main community, which is the vast majority of our population for whom things are managed by the council. The Coucil is also responsible for enforcing the law of the land as necessary. Mostly this should not be necessary for other, further settlements, because they will do it locally. But the Council and the General meeting will be the highest level of the government (and I hope we will practice the axiom once the immediate needs are met of the best government is that which governs least).

Communities further than a day's ride will of course have to have their own local government, and be responsible for their own day to day needs. But they will still be citizens of the greater community, with all the rights and responsibilities therein.

I want us all to remain one loose community, with lots of local autonomy, but ultimately still part of the same society and culture and civilization.

Fort Ian and the Main Settlement will be at worst 9 days away, and for just a few people travelling light, only three or four days. We will be able to logistically retain our ties.

[Norbert]

Or Moses and the Hebrews going across the desert...


(Ward)
'Oh my they are following me! I can't even go to the bathroom without someone following me! Now I understand why it took Moses 40 years to find the Holy Land. He just wanted to get away from everyone to relieve himself!'


(Norbert) 'Guys, why are we in Calcuta?'

[Glen]

Make the issues of the trial and the animals as polls.

If one of our judges rules he is competent to stand trial, then we can have a poll to decide the outcome.

Bulg, care to make a ruling on that?

As for the animals...tell me what you want as the wording of such a poll first, and lets go over it. A lot of this needs to be done quickly if we are to make this work, and maximize our chances of survival and even thriving.

[Gerard-ABC]

Thanks for all the views folks.

I'd forgotten that he was mentally ill at the time.

So, what happens to him got to be decided carefully. We can't take the easy way out of it, as it could be an example for centuries to come in our new world here.

I'll go with Glen's professional judgement on it. Then I'll see how the legal people view it. I'm glad that I'm not a judge on this one.


Regards,
Gerard

[Norbert]

Thanks for all the views folks.

I'd forgotten that he was mentally ill at the time.

So, what happens to him got to be decided carefully. We can't take the easy way out of it, as it could be an example for centuries to come in our new world here.

I'll go with Glen's professional judgement on it. Then I'll see how the legal people view it. I'm glad that I'm not a judge on this one.


Regards,
Gerard

I am glad I am not a judge on it either. I would recluse myself from the case. I am also familiar with long term psychiatric care, having worked at a mental hospitol in a long term care unit (6-9 months was the average stay at the time). If he is not found competent, I will agree to take him to the logging area, at first, but not to handle sharp implements. Rather to haul brush. Work is good therapy (I thought of going into psychiatry at one time, but later decided not to). I will also make sure he would be supervised in the field.

[Bulgaroktonos]

If one of our judges rules he is competent to stand trial, then we can have a poll to decide the outcome.

Bulg, care to make a ruling on that?

As for the animals...tell me what you want as the wording of such a poll first, and lets go over it. A lot of this needs to be done quickly if we are to make this work, and maximize our chances of survival and even thriving.

Strike that. I went back, and saw that I had missed the "and is still not," of Glen's analysis. Unless our prosecutor, (which used to be me, and I don't know if we've replaced myself) can find another expert of similar or superior stature declaring to the contrary, then I'd have to say that Romulus is incapable of standing trial, as he remains disconnected from reality.

If he is in no way capable of understanding the charges brought before him, then it stands to reason that basic tenets of due process cannot be met.

However, this is a problematic solution. We have only one expert I am aware of. Thus, the legal system is beholden to the expertise of a single individual, who's credentials, in a legal sense, are only as good as the paper on which they are written. We have no outside or corroborating evidence to assert that Glen is, indeed, an expert on the matter.

Thus, I am tempted to find him fit for trial if only to have him found not guilty by reason of insanity. Thus, I have a few more questions for you, Glen...

Is his level of disconnect so great that he is incapable of defending himself from the charges brought against him?

If so, is it so great that he cannot comprehend or understand the charges brought before him? In other words, is he consciously or cognitively aware that he has killed people?

If he cannot do either, then I cannot say he is capable of standing trial, as he can neither defend himself, nor does the possibility exist that he could theoretically do so, for nor does he even understand what has happened.

If he cannot defend himself, but does understand that he his actions have resulted in the deaths of several persons, then he can stand trial, as Flocc has been appointed the defense attorney, and will act on his behalf.

As to the poll, I'd say

"Are you willing to allow the Council full use of your livestock should it be deemed that the labor or services they can provide shall be required in order to maintain the population at Fort Ian, understanding that your contribution will be recorded in the leger and the services rendered repaid in kind or in equal value?"

And then a negative version. Leave the poll as a simple yes or no.

[Norbert]

I'd say that Romulus is fit to stand trial. He may not have been in his right mind at the time, but there has been no evidence that there is a pattern of mental instability or other incapacity that I can see. Is he showing continued separation from reality?

As to the poll, I'd say

"Are you willing to allow the Council full use of your livestock should it be deemed that the labor or services they can provide shall be required in order to maintain the population at Fort Ian, understanding that your contribution will be recorded in the leger and the services rendered repaid in kind or in equal value?"

And then a negative version. Leave the poll as a simple yes or no.

That works for me.

[Othniel]

Equal or Greater value of compensation...

[Bulgaroktonos]

Had to go back and revise my ruling....not enough information on the murder trial.....

[Norbert]

I am also familiar with long term psychiatric care, having worked at a mental hospitol in a long term care unit (6-9 months was the average stay at the time). If he is not found competent, I will agree to take him to the logging area, at first, but not to handle sharp implements. Rather to haul brush. Work is good therapy (I thought of going into psychiatry at one time, but later decided not to). I will also make sure he would be supervised in the field.

I will state that if he his found not capable of standing trial, then I will be willing to take responsibility for him, asserting that his conditions will be safe, as comfortable as we have, and he would be treated with compassion until such time as he can make decisions in his best interest on his own behalf. I would treat him as one of the patients I worked with, and will not let my personal feelings cloud how he is dealt with.

I may be for a hardline approach on crime and punishment, but this case has bothered me, and I have been thinking over Glenns statements. Even if all he does is pull brush from where it is cut to where it needs to go, it frees someone who can use an axe or saw to use that tool. (There is a lot of debries that need to be moved at a logging area).

I am hereby backing away of my earlier statement on He is fit because he is here, and thus must stand trial. It was a moment of passionate response.

[Bulgaroktonos]

I may be for a hardline approach on crime and punishment, but this case has bothered me, and I have been thinking over Glenns statements. Even if all he does is pull brush from where it is cut to where it needs to go, it frees someone who can use an axe or saw to use that tool. (There is a lot of debries that need to be moved at a logging area).

I am hereby backing away of my earlier statement on He is fit because he is here, and thus must stand trial. It was a moment of passionate response.

I'm having a tough time too. I'm a huge hardliner on crime and punishment. I really don't want people taking advantage of my leniency towards Romulus down the line. That's why I'd ideally like to have at least three concurring opinions before I declare him unfit. That sets a precedent that more than 1 expert is required to deem individuals unfit for trial.

[Norbert]

I'm having a tough time too. I'm a huge hardliner on crime and punishment. I really don't want people taking advantage of my leniency towards Romulus down the line. That's why I'd ideally like to have at least three concurring opinions before I declare him unfit. That sets a precedent that more than 1 expert is required to deem individuals unfit for trial.

And who else is quailified? We will need to know this!

[SionEwig]

If one of our judges rules he is competent to stand trial, then we can have a poll to decide the outcome.

Bulg, care to make a ruling on that?

As for the animals...tell me what you want as the wording of such a poll first, and lets go over it. A lot of this needs to be done quickly if we are to make this work, and maximize our chances of survival and even thriving.

Ignoring the murder trial for the time being (since I really don't know the guy and don't even recognize him on the Board).

On the animals issue.

I am thinking that perhaps it needs to be 2 different polls, since it seems to be 2 different matters and issues.

First poll, a simple yes/no vote on using the Berkeley draft animals for the limited time period to help them get their crop land cleared and plowed (make sure and put the time limit in there) in exchange for the Fort Ian animals being used for the Grand Trek. That should cover that one.

Second poll, and this one is more contriversial, would be whether the animals are to be Community Property or remain the property of whoever brought them. We could later address them being managed and/or used by the community.

[Norbert]

Ignoring the murder trial for the time being (since I really don't know the guy and don't even recognize him on the Board).

On the animals issue.

I am thinking that perhaps it needs to be 2 different polls, since it seems to be 2 different matters and issues.

First poll, a simple yes/no vote on using the Berkeley draft animals for the limited time period to help them get their crop land cleared and plowed (make sure and put the time limit in there) in exchange for the Fort Ian animals being used for the Grand Trek. That should cover that one.

Second poll, and this one is more contriversial, would be whether the animals are to be Community Property or remain the property of whoever brought them. We could later address them being managed and/or used by the community.

Can Two Polls be placed in a post? Or the same thread? I've never posted a poll on here.

[SionEwig]

Can Two Polls be placed in a post? Or the same thread? I've never posted a poll on here.

Don't ask me, but that shouldn't stop from posting both at the same time, just 2 different threads.

[pisces74]

I'm going to go on and kick in on this one.

Psychotic break or not, he did shoot and kill 2 people. That one of them was his woman is irrelevant. The other one was not. It was someone's daughter. I can guarentee you that if it had been one of my sons who he had killed, he would not be amongst the living now. My wife would have shot him down where he stood. Who amongst us as a parent wouldn't do the same. So how can you think that a NPC parent wouldn't do it also.

Now, can we guarentee that there will not be another such episode? I don't think that we have the resources necessary to guard him for a period of inprisonment.

As a result, I suggest that we hang him, say a prayer, and get on with it.


I concurr and offer my rope if nesscessary.

[Bulgaroktonos]

I concurr and offer my rope if nesscessary.

And I will order the arrest of anyone caught doing so prior to the outcome of a legal trial......and so you know, that statement would count as evidence for premeditation......

[Ghost 88]

And I will order the arrest of anyone caught doing so prior to the outcome of a legal trial......and so you know, that statement would count as evidence for premeditation......
You wont have to order it I'd do it as my job. Of course if he is condemed it is also my job to see to it being carried out.

[Glen]

Ah, great questions, Bulg. Let me go through them here. This is why it is important to have a legal ruling on competence, and not just a medical diagnosis of incapacity. The criteria are not identical, and it frees up the physician to just report the facts, and not also have to be the legal voice in the matter.



Is his level of disconnect so great that he is incapable of defending himself from the charges brought against him?

Yes.


If so, is it so great that he cannot comprehend or understand the charges brought before him?

No.

In other words, is he consciously or cognitively aware that he has killed people?

Yes and no. At times, he appears to have some level of awareness of what has happened, but at other times appears to become delusional and denies that any such thing happened...of course, at times he denies that we are even here or that any of this is real. He appears to be going in and out of a fugue state.


If he cannot do either, then I cannot say he is capable of standing trial, as he can neither defend himself, nor does the possibility exist that he could theoretically do so, for nor does he even understand what has happened.

If he cannot defend himself, but does understand that he his actions have resulted in the deaths of several persons, then he can stand trial, as Flocc has been appointed the defense attorney, and will act on his behalf.

Well, I've given you my answers. Please feel free to ask any other questions. I'll let you rule on whether this is enough to stand trial.

As to the poll, I'd say

"Are you willing to allow the Council full use of your livestock should it be deemed that the labor or services they can provide shall be required in order to maintain the population at Fort Ian, understanding that your contribution will be recorded in the leger and the services rendered repaid in kind or in equal value?"

And then a negative version. Leave the poll as a simple yes or no.

I guess we can post something like that, since there has been debate raised in the community about all of this...though it seems that the bigger issue was the opposite, using Fort Ian animals for the Great Trek.

Maybe we should do something like this:

"Do you approve the Council recommendation of the use of animals of those bound for the main settlement for the development of the Fort Ian site prior to the trek, mostly the planting of crops, in return for the use for the Great Trek of animals of those remaining at Fort Ian? Credit will be recorded for all usages for just compensation, and the return of animals to their owners' will occur after their subsequent use as stated above."

Yes
No

[Glen]

Second poll, and this one is more controversial, would be whether the animals are to be Community Property or remain the property of whoever brought them. We could later address them being managed and/or used by the community.

The animals were not chosen by or granted to the community by the ASBs, but to individuals. Therefore they are private property. Private property is protected by our Bill of Rights and the Common Law. Therefore they are not community property, and I do not believe a poll is necessary to address that.

As to the management issue, I do believe until we have established our community in its settlement sites enough to have a reasonable assurance of survival, the animals which are a very valuable resource unobtainable practically by other means, should be managed and overseen by the appropriate council member(s), under direction of the Council as a whole. We are currently doing this under executive order since it is considered a necessity at present for our survival, but we could do a poll on that to affirm that at the general meeting, since we appear to be doing so for the specific use as laid out by the Great Trek/Fort Ian work exchange proposal.

[Othniel]

A contract by the community to borrow private goods, or a recipt of donation would be nice. This assures a written record is kept and that all parties can prove whom owns what. Anything donated to the community or sold to the community needs proof of this transaction. We need to make sure that private property is a right that is clearly upheld to prevent an aristocracy.

[Othniel]

That beginning said, any abandon goods by a party that has left the main encampment for a period of sixity days should be made into state porpety and used for the benefit of the community. Any animal that is used for food when it comes time to kill an animal for food should first go to the owner of the animal and the family of the owner, whatever they don't eat going to the community.

[Glen]

A contract by the community to borrow private goods, or a recipt of donation would be nice. This assures a written record is kept and that all parties can prove whom owns what. Anything donated to the community or sold to the community needs proof of this transaction. We need to make sure that private property is a right that is clearly upheld to prevent an aristocracy.

We're doing the best we can to record any and all such transactions.

However, written contracts in multiple copies, even written receipts, are not going to be practical. Paper and ink are also precious commodities at present.

We will be putting a lot of this for the time-being on our wind-up computers, with duplicates of the files on more than one, so if one goes down we still have it.

Once we have paper production, we can go with more formal niceties.

This leger documentation, however, will serve as a record and a contract.

[Glen]

That beginning said, any abandon goods by a party that has left the main encampment for a period of sixity days should be made into state porperty and used for the benefit of the community.

Agreed in principle, though I'll reserve final judgment on that until we hear from others.

Any animal that is used for food when it comes time to kill an animal for food should first go to the owner of the animal and the family of the owner, whatever they don't eat going to the community.

Any of our domesticated animals used for food will only be done so at present due to being killed or maimed accidently, or in extremis, as we need them for work and for breeding at present.

If your beast has been killed, you will receive full credit as if it had been bought.

We are all going to need to be on rationing to ensure we have enough food stores until we can guarantee enough production to keep us alive.

But I will say this much, if we get to the point (and I and the Council are working to ensure that we DO NOT get to this point) where we are in a starvation situation, you will receive the food owed you for the death of your beast. Of course, all board members have roughly the same amount of livestock, so this will be equivalent to rationing anyway...except that bigger families won't have as much...that difference will be made up wherever and however possible with community produced stores.

I will say again, I do not believe that we will get to the point where this will be an issue. We do have a lot of forage and fishing available, so I believe we will perservere with a lot of hard work and a little foresight.

[SionEwig]

The animals were not chosen by or granted to the community by the ASBs, but to individuals. Therefore they are private property. Private property is protected by our Bill of Rights and the Common Law. Therefore they are not community property, and I do not believe a poll is necessary to address that.

Glad to hear this, how about making absolutely sure that EVERYONE understands this.

As to the management issue, I do believe until we have established our community in its settlement sites enough to have a reasonable assurance of survival, the animals which are a very valuable resource unobtainable practically by other means, should be managed and overseen by the appropriate council member(s), under direction of the Council as a whole. We are currently doing this under executive order since it is considered a necessity at present for our survival, but we could do a poll on that to affirm that at the general meeting, since we appear to be doing so for the specific use as laid out by the Great Trek/Fort Ian work exchange proposal.

No problem here, within reason.

[Glen]

Glad to hear this, how about making absolutely sure that EVERYONE understands this.

I'm not certain how we can be much clearer. Do you have a suggestion?


No problem here, within reason.

Of course. We are trying to be reasonable in such matters as the management of livestock.

And if someone feels there has been unreasonable action, they can appeal to the Council, and if a satisfactory understanding can not be reached, they can go to the courts for an injunction. Lastly, if there is no legal basis for their blockage of a council action under the present law, they can make a motion in the general meeting to make a new law.

[Ward]

The only food Iteams that my family has brought over that we are not putting in the common pool is that of spices and some candy . The Rest we have placed under the community for the group to use, In Fact my wife and Daughter- in laws have been backing bread every Day for the Community .
As well as helping to milk the cows .

[Norbert]

The only food Iteams that my family has brought over that we are not putting in the common pool is that of spices and some candy . The Rest we have placed under the community for the group to use, In Fact my wife and Daughter- in laws have been backing bread every Day for the Community .
As well as helping to milk the cows .

Except for items such as clothes, a few personal items, and personal weapons, everything my wife and I brought is available for community use. Though they probably needs some serious cleaning by now, Wash tubs, wash boards, and a solar shower have been set up to be available as of the day of the shooting. And my woodworking tools and logging tools are in use on community projects.

[Bulgaroktonos]

No.
Yes and no. At times, he appears to have some level of awareness of what has happened, but at other times appears to become delusional and denies that any such thing happened...of course, at times he denies that we are even here or that any of this is real. He appears to be going in and out of a fugue state.


Given that answer, it seems to me that he is fit to stand trial, as his cognitive ability does not seem to be utterly compromised, and thus has a sense of consequences. Thus, he is competent to stand trial, though I'm reasonably sure he will be found not guilty by reason of insanity.

[Glen]

Given that answer, it seems to me that he is fit to stand trial, as his cognitive ability does not seem to be utterly compromised, and thus has a sense of consequences. Thus, he is competent to stand trial, though I'm reasonably sure he will be found not guilty by reason of insanity.

I have given my testimony, and I leave it to the judge and the jury to determine the legal decisions.

Bulg, since you are ruling, would you mind posting a jury poll that would essentially give the same options as you would have from the bench when instructing the jury?

[Glen]

Someone PMed this to me, seems reasonable -

I think now we have a situation that can be described and polled. And state that it must be a total agreement on the charges (that is, if there is a not guilty vote for every 12 votes, it is a hung jury, and the result is either decided by the judge, or is given as 'Not-Guilty by Reason of Insanity'. If the resulting not guilty votes are less than 1-12, then Guilty charge is reached.

[Othniel]

Someone PMed this to me, seems reasonable -

I think now we have a situation that can be described and polled. And state that it must be a total agreement on the charges (that is, if there is a not guilty vote for every 12 votes, it is a hung jury, and the result is either decided by the judge, or is given as 'Not-Guilty by Reason of Insanity'. If the resulting not guilty votes are less than 1-12, then Guilty charge is reached.
Thats 8.3% if the ratio is 1:12. Just saying that as the polls go by percentage...

[Norbert]

After discussing the situation with the judge, he asked me to evaluate the defendent, and I have come to the same conclusion as Glen.

I was asked, as I have experience working with mentally ill, and did not go on with my education in the field when I burned out from the stress. Dealing with suicidal people is difficult, and having someone actually kill herself in an enviroment that was as safe as could be made was very difficult to all who had worked with her. With that said, it seems that so far I am one of the minority who has dealt with delusional states and suicidal behaivor.

That being said, If the defendent is found not guilty by reason of insanity, I refer to my offer on ppost 81 this thread. It would help all involved.

If a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity is come to, and the patient (as he would be then) is remanded to my care, I would defend him against all predators (4 legged and 2 legged).

[Gerard-ABC]

Norbert,

I'd have to agree with your viewpoint there.

Regards,
Gerard