Supreme Court Ruling

This is the official Supreme Court ruling on the "Great Shame of Periods 3 and 6." The original document will reside in the Public Record folder.

"No. 1 Argued March 3 & 4, 2014-Decided Marc 9, 2014.

Abstract

Petitioner Emily Evans of Period 6 filed suit, on account of war talk in the realm of P. The DOD and stock broker of Period 3, Nathan Salunga, has reportedly displayed aggressive behavior towards Period 6. This aggressive behavior escalated to talk for war. However, Salunga launched an embargo so that Period 6 could[n't] trade stock with his class. A Supreme Court case was assembled to discuss the issues of war and embargo.
Let it be known, with the absence of timely submitted briefs and attorney lists, the Court has expanded its deliberations to include the issue of "file and flop." While the Court acknowledges the late submissions by Nathan Salunga and Emily Evans, they were not considered within the decisions. As well as the issue of "file and flop," there also rose the issue of "period law of P-Ville law" when Period 2 passed a law within their period claiming no other period launch an economic takeover of their period.

Ruling

I. On the Issue of War (3-0)
While the Court is aware of the ratification of Articles I and VI of the Call to Arms, it does not acknowledge it retrospectively. War is an absolutely serious matter and to be avoided at all costs. Or as Mr. Welch alludes to in his brief (submitted in a timely manner), war is out of style or obsolete. War results when citizens fail to reach their cohesive potential, fail to inspire each other, fail to motivate each other, and do so in a positive manner. War is an embarrassment not to be proudly boasted. War is a distraction from a societal goal of being humanly splendid. While war has taken place in P-Ville's past after diplomacy was exhausted over a pressing issue, it was not done, nor should it be done, to alleviate boredom. Thus, the Court rules that rumblings, open aggression or initiation of illegitimate war for the sake of stirring the pot, will be met by the bankruptcy of the Supreme Court if the Period's plebiscite showed the overall opposition of war. As period leaders, they should reflect the period's desires, not their own personal agendas. If the plebiscite reveals the period's agreeance for war, shown by a 51% majority for war, then the entire period shall go bankrupt. All bankruptcies will be effective immediately. On top of the bankruptcies, the aggressor period must perform a "Lasting Deed" to the standards of King P. Refer to King P. for list of Lasting Deeds. Refer to Terrance the Terrible Clause.
-Justice Sara Kim and King P.


II. On the Issue of Economic Takeovers (3-0)
The Court rules that a period or individual may launch an economic takeover as an act of defense . Unnecessary acts of economic takeovers will be seen as acts of war and will be dealt with in accordance to the "Issue of War" ruling. Economic takeovers will be allowed in defense, as the DOD should be aware of the economic situation in his/her period. The DOD is liable and holds full responsibility for not only the political aspect, but also the economic side to his/her period. Period 6's economic takeover is legal in this case, as the takeover was clearly an act of defense. It will be the DOD and Supreme Council Member's responsibility to come up with a solution of compensation for their period's investors whose money was frozen in the matter.
-Justice Sara Kim
Concurring Opinion:
Economic takeovers should be a viable course of action at any moment in time. While the court's official ruling restricts the action to "defense," any period may twist the language of "defense" (See Orwell's essay on language) to justify anything.
Regardless of this potential, the responsibility of the DOD to be aware of the economic situation inter-periodically should never be relaxed.
-Justice Chuck Driesler

III. On the Issue of Embargo
The Court rules that embargoes shall be permitted, but cannot target a specific period. A period must enter a state of isolationism, and embargo the trading of stock from all periods. An embargo will be permitted only economically, not politically. It is recommended the Supreme Council outline, detail, and pass legislation to economically, politically, and diplomatically guide the DOD on an exact process of embargo. Failure of Supreme Council to fulfill this duty, will result in the High Court "legislating judicial laws" into effect. Since it is legal for Period 3 to launch an embargo on all periods, Period 6's economic takeover was blocked. All profits made from stock exchanges between Period 3 and other periods since DOD Nathan Salunga declared an embargo are hereby dissolved.
-Justice Sara Kim and King P.

IV. On the Issue of File and Flop (3-0)
The Court rules that if a period files a court case and fails to follow through, aka "flops," they will be subject to bankruptcy. Thus, Period 6 will be bankrupt, effective immediately for filing a court case and failing to follow through. They and all future "file and floppers" must also perform a "Lasting Deed" in accordance to King P. Refer to King P. for list of Lasting Deeds. Refer to Terrence the Terrible Clause.
-Justice Sara Kim

V. On the Issue of P-Ville Law over Period Law (3-0)
The Court rules that a period cannot pass a law that affects the overall Land of P. The Court invalidates all period laws that attempt to supersede their power.
-Justice Sara Kim"

This document has been typed up word for word, only changes were a few punctuation additions.