Injunction: Account Deletion

[Z]

Wait a minute, as Chief Justice I'm posting this as an injunction barring admins from deleting inactive accounts.

My reasons

1. What if that person comes back?
2. What's the big deal (please brian don't start convulsing)
3. It's not like we have a limit on how many accounts we can have, thus I don't see why we should delete peoples access to these forums and any PM's etc they had on said accounts.

Therefore I am forced to rule that this is an illegal seizure of property and deprives the owners of said accounts to there right to travel freely within Natopia. Unless the government has a legally justifiable reason beyond “wanting the members page to look nice and pretty” I bar the deletion of accounts except in the cases of execution.

[Nathan]

Your Honor, my deletion of the account "zakklaas" was not within the guidelines the High Royal Court has established. However, this injunction was issued after the deletion and I contend that my actions were not bound by this injunction on the grounds that the Natopian legal system is traditionally lex retro non agit.

[Z]

The deletion of the account "zakklaas" is not covered by this injunction, the injunction was aimed at the comments of Mr. Brian Capelle who has said "I have a very big deal with it... I want the memberlist to not be filled with useless crap. This, along with extremely inactive accounts, should go because it should be reserved for seriousness... and yes, the memberlist means that much to me..."

As for how Natopia's legal system functions I understand and I would never think to impose anything vaguely resembling lex retro non agit.

[Brian Capelle]

Which is hilarious, since I was only referring to that one account. Good job screwing THIS up, Z. Especially since noone has defined what a "injuction" is and therefore this is illegal because Court "injunctions" don't exist. Why not do the RIGHT thing and if you REALLY have to pee in your pants about this, propose a resolution in the frenzy?

[Nathan]

you can't legislate judicial powers... if u can it would be against seperation of powers.

however, the judicial branch can only act when cases are brought to it.

[Nathan]

and brian get that cock out of ur ear coz ur being an asshole

[Z]

Oh Brian I’m SO sorry! I didn’t mean to upset you, I always do exactly as you want me to because I’m a puppet to the whims of Brian Capelle! The oh so calm, the magnificently sang-froid minister, who might I say is expert at handling situations peacefully and maturely. We all could learn a great deal from Brian Capelle! I mean I had to go piss my pants over a little post, where as he kept his cool stayed in decorum and really made a resounding rebuttal.

But Brian if I may offer the reasons why I was so stupid as to take your wise decrees as illegeal? Well let me begin, first I cant help but feel that the deletion of any accounts beyond ZakKlaas is a violation of sections 6.5, 7.3a, 7.4, 7.8, 7.9, and 9.2 of the Royal could. In fact section 9.2 states and I quote

9. Realizing that Natopia operates on a virtual location, the following actions shall be considered a crime within Natopia's virtual locations:
9.2 Deletion of a citizen's account

So you see sir although I would have loved to have posted a Act in the Frenzy making the deletion of a citizens account illegal since I felt that the circumstances were quite clearly outlined by the current Royal Code I felt no need as a member of the legislature to make account deletion without a court sentence doubly illegal. (I know how much you hate cluter) So forgive my Brian for my grievous error I swear to you that I will never be so thoughtless and insensitive as to disagree with you!

[Brian Capelle]

The Constitution does overrule the justice department and the Constitution does not create a such thing as an injunction.

I must be handling this peacefully and maturely, since my first instinct was to leave natopia because of this post because I can't bother with rudeness like this... I'm not going to waste my time being unfoundly insulted when I'm the one recognizing the laws here aned I'm the one who wants a clean forum...and ... I'm the one who essencially has been delegated the power to run the forum (and website and anything else besides the independent organizations websites)

[Brian Capelle]

BTW... I wouldn't have actually left Natopia for this even if I thought about it... I love it too much and everyone knows it so don't take that seriously.

[Z]

And he missed my point again...

Brian if you didn’t note my sarcasm I should probably explain that I was insulting you probably because your wrote the following lines

Good job screwing THIS up, Z.

if you REALLY have to pee in your pants about this

You see your not the only person who doesn’t like rudeness and up until you came here and told me to stop screwing things up I was kinda trying to be cooperative and really wasn’t making this a big deal. So before you run off crying that I was rude I’d take a good look at yourself because what I said to you is certainly no reason to go crying resignation.

And as I've said before your failure to be diplomatic and parliamentary is truly disheartening.

[Brian Capelle]

Apology about the screwing this up. Peeing in your pants was not an insult. And I'm being just as diplomatic as you. Issuing injunctions out of right is undiplomatic. You have been twice as rude to me here, but for where I was wrong I apologize.

[Nathan]

Your Honor, please try to keep a decent level of order in your courts... this is getting ridiculous, even for my tastes...

[Brian Capelle]

If he had stopped me I would have obliged... albeit moved my arguments elsewhere. In the end since this is unenforceable its a "free" thread anyway.

[Z]

Yes sir! *bangs gavel* Order in this court! Mr. Cheif Justice there will be no more outburts by you! *in a slighty diffrent voice* Yes your honor sorry sir..."