Re: Kwyjibo profile.

[Magilla]

X-posted.

"SkySkum" <skyscum@earthling.net> wrote in message news:1106020118.736783.305070@z14g2000cwz.googlegr oups.com...
> Magilla wrote:
>> "SkySkum" wrote...
>> > Magilla wrote:

>> >> When will the court records get posted?

>> > That faggot slug (BTW, I *have* seen it, it *is* a faggot,
>> > and it is a slug) will never post them, it will always bleat
>> > that's it's "against the law"....... which is a crock of shit,
>> > just like anything else it spews out.

>> Why don't you post it, then?

> Ummmmmmmmmm, you don't read/comprehend that good,
>> do you??

" The Order is finished, the court case (that one
anyway) is finished, the records are for public
viewing."

Where?

> Go back and read my post........ specifically the part where I
> wrote about obtaining copies of the transcripts.

"when I finally get some time to myself and get
the copies myself and post them"

Seems you've had plenty of time and inclination.


--
Magilla

[Peter]

In article <353hh9F4h4f6iU1@individual.net>, Magilla says...
> "when I finally get some time to myself and get
> the copies myself and post them"
>
> Seems you've had plenty of time and inclination.

But he never gets any time to himself. If he's not travelling the world
on Google Air, the house is full of VIPs. It's amazing he can squeeze a
post out between engagements.

The truth is that getting a transcript of court proceedings is a matter
of filling out a form and paying the appropriate fee. Takes five
minutes, and you get the documents within a week.

But it's always nice to see Muggins tapdance his life away!

Pete

[Magilla]

"Peter" <bored@the.moment> wrote in message news:MPG.1c5740bcb88b15b1989a0a@News.Individual.NE T...
> Magilla says...

>> "when I finally get some time to myself and get
>> the copies myself and post them"

>> Seems you've had plenty of time and inclination.

> But he never gets any time to himself. If he's not travelling
> the world on Google Air, the house is full of VIPs. It's
> amazing he can squeeze a post out between
> engagements.

> The truth is that getting a transcript of court proceedings is
> a matter of filling out a form and paying the appropriate fee.
> Takes five minutes, and you get the documents within a
> week.

> But it's always nice to see Muggins tapdance his life away!

For the info of our friends in aus.legal the above was posted by
the respondent, the other was the plaintiff.

The query is, can the proceedings of the case be published,
without legal repercussion?


--
Magilla

[Heretic]

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 15:41:17 +1000, Magilla wrote:

>
> "Peter" <bored@the.moment> wrote in message news:MPG.1c5740bcb88b15b1989a0a@News.Individual.NE T...
>> Magilla says...
>
>>> "when I finally get some time to myself and get
>>> the copies myself and post them"
>
>>> Seems you've had plenty of time and inclination.
>
>> But he never gets any time to himself. If he's not travelling
>> the world on Google Air, the house is full of VIPs. It's
>> amazing he can squeeze a post out between
>> engagements.
>
>> The truth is that getting a transcript of court proceedings is
>> a matter of filling out a form and paying the appropriate fee.
>> Takes five minutes, and you get the documents within a
>> week.
>
>> But it's always nice to see Muggins tapdance his life away!
>
> For the info of our friends in aus.legal the above was posted by
> the respondent, the other was the plaintiff.
>
> The query is, can the proceedings of the case be published,
> without legal repercussion?

Subject to the law of contempt, the answer is "Yes".

[Magilla]

"Heretic" <cathars@montaillou.com> wrote in message news:pan.2005.01.18.10.14.10.988818@montaillou.com ...
> Magilla wrote:
>> "Peter" wrote...
>>> Magilla says...

>>>> "when I finally get some time to myself and get
>>>> the copies myself and post them"

>>>> Seems you've had plenty of time and inclination.

>>> But he never gets any time to himself. If he's not travelling
>>> the world on Google Air, the house is full of VIPs. It's
>>> amazing he can squeeze a post out between
>>> engagements.

>>> The truth is that getting a transcript of court proceedings is
>>> a matter of filling out a form and paying the appropriate fee.
>>> Takes five minutes, and you get the documents within a
>>> week.

>>> But it's always nice to see Muggins tapdance his life away!

>> For the info of our friends in aus.legal the above was posted by
>> the respondent, the other was the plaintiff.

>> The query is, can the proceedings of the case be published,
>> without legal repercussion?

> Subject to the law of contempt, the answer is "Yes".

So, in what circumstance, would the law of contept be potentially
triggered, given the publication of a court case?

i.e. do court cases have to be expressly prohibited from being
published, or is that a given, or do both partys have to give
agreement, etc?


--
Magilla

[Heretic]

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 16:29:13 +1000, Magilla wrote:


> "Heretic" <cathars@montaillou.com> wrote in message
> news:pan.2005.01.18.10.14.10.988818@montaillou.com ...
>> Magilla wrote:
>>> "Peter" wrote...
>>>> Magilla says...
>
>>>>> "when I finally get some time to myself and get the copies myself
>>>>> and post them"
>
>>>>> Seems you've had plenty of time and inclination.
>
>>>> But he never gets any time to himself. If he's not travelling the
>>>> world on Google Air, the house is full of VIPs. It's amazing he can
>>>> squeeze a post out between engagements.
>
>>>> The truth is that getting a transcript of court proceedings is a
>>>> matter of filling out a form and paying the appropriate fee. Takes
>>>> five minutes, and you get the documents within a week.
>
>>>> But it's always nice to see Muggins tapdance his life away!
>
>>> For the info of our friends in aus.legal the above was posted by the
>>> respondent, the other was the plaintiff.
>
>>> The query is, can the proceedings of the case be published, without
>>> legal repercussion?
>
>> Subject to the law of contempt, the answer is "Yes".
>
> So, in what circumstance, would the law of contept be potentially
> triggered, given the publication of a court case?
>
> i.e. do court cases have to be expressly prohibited from being
> published, or is that a given, or do both partys have to give agreement,
> etc?

It's not about the parties, in most instances. It's mainly about the
court. If you engage in a shit-fight in a NG using bits of the publicly
available proceedings about a case heard by a court, there is a risk of
the court being treated contemptuously. You wouldn't have anything like
that in mind, would you? Of course, if the full text happened to be
published on a web-site without comment, that might be rather different.

In which court was the matter heard, and what type of case was it?

[Peter]

In article <pan.2005.01.18.10.14.10.988818@montaillou.com>, Heretic
says...
> On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 15:41:17 +1000, Magilla wrote:
>
> >
> > "Peter" <bored@the.moment> wrote in message news:MPG.1c5740bcb88b15b1989a0a@News.Individual.NE T...
> >> Magilla says...
> >
> >>> "when I finally get some time to myself and get
> >>> the copies myself and post them"
> >
> >>> Seems you've had plenty of time and inclination.
> >
> >> But he never gets any time to himself. If he's not travelling
> >> the world on Google Air, the house is full of VIPs. It's
> >> amazing he can squeeze a post out between
> >> engagements.
> >
> >> The truth is that getting a transcript of court proceedings is
> >> a matter of filling out a form and paying the appropriate fee.
> >> Takes five minutes, and you get the documents within a
> >> week.
> >
> >> But it's always nice to see Muggins tapdance his life away!
> >
> > For the info of our friends in aus.legal the above was posted by
> > the respondent, the other was the plaintiff.
> >
> > The query is, can the proceedings of the case be published,
> > without legal repercussion?
>
> Subject to the law of contempt, the answer is "Yes".

In this case, the legislation (ACT Protection Orders Act) specifically
prohibits legislation.

[Kwyjibo]

Peter <bored@the.moment> said

Subject to the law of contempt, the answer is "Yes".
>
> In this case, the legislation (ACT Protection Orders Act) specifically
> prohibits legislation.
>

Legislation prohibiting legislation?? Hmmm.

Rule 1 - There are no rules
Rule 2 - Refer to Rule 1..........

--

Kwyj.

(Remove your panties to reply by email)

[Magilla]

"Heretic" <cathars@montaillou.com> wrote in message news:pan.2005.01.18.10.40.48.955625@montaillou.com ...

> If you engage in a shit-fight in a NG using bits of the publicly
> available proceedings about a case heard by a court, there
> is a risk of the court being treated contemptuously. You
> wouldn't have anything like that in mind, would you?

Not me in particular. Both protagonists are biting at the bit,
though.

> Of course, if the full text happened to be published on a
> web-site without comment, that might be rather different.

I could do that :-)

Just need the material.


--
Magilla

[Heretic]

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 17:44:20 +1100, Peter wrote:

> In article <pan.2005.01.18.10.14.10.988818@montaillou.com>, Heretic
> says...
>> On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 15:41:17 +1000, Magilla wrote:
>>
>>
>> > "Peter" <bored@the.moment> wrote in message
>> > news:MPG.1c5740bcb88b15b1989a0a@News.Individual.NE T...
>> >> Magilla says...
>> >
>> >>> "when I finally get some time to myself and get the copies
>> >>> myself and post them"
>> >
>> >>> Seems you've had plenty of time and inclination.
>> >
>> >> But he never gets any time to himself. If he's not travelling the
>> >> world on Google Air, the house is full of VIPs. It's amazing he can
>> >> squeeze a post out between engagements.
>> >
>> >> The truth is that getting a transcript of court proceedings is a
>> >> matter of filling out a form and paying the appropriate fee. Takes
>> >> five minutes, and you get the documents within a week.
>> >
>> >> But it's always nice to see Muggins tapdance his life away!
>> >
>> > For the info of our friends in aus.legal the above was posted by the
>> > respondent, the other was the plaintiff.
>> >
>> > The query is, can the proceedings of the case be published, without
>> > legal repercussion?
>>
>> Subject to the law of contempt, the answer is "Yes".
>
> In this case, the legislation (ACT Protection Orders Act) specifically
> prohibits legislation.

The prohibition is in section 100 of the Protection Orders Act 2001 (ACT).
The specific terms of the legislation need to be read carefully to find
out just what is not allowed.

A person is not allowed to publish an account or report of a proceeding on
an application for a protection order, if it has certain effects. The
effects are that the publication identifies a party, identifies someone
connected to the matter, identifies a witness, or allows such a person's
identity to be worked out.

The prohibition is limited by section 101. In particular, the prohibition
in section 100 does not prevent a party from telling anyone else about the
contents of the actual protection order made.

You will note that the prohibition applies to a person. On the face of
it, that might seem a reference to a person in Outer Mongolia ie in
another place where the prohibition might quite freely be published under
the local law there. To avoid this sort of problem, the legislation of a
jurisdiction is usually read so that it only applies to persons in that
jurisdiction. This helps to prevent the law having an extra-territorial
effect. Accordingly, it may be that the prohibition in section 100 only
applies to persons in the ACT, including, for example, The Canberra Times,
but not The Age in Melbourne or the SMH in Sydney, or someone outside the
ACT.

Isn't that fascinating?

[Heretic]

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 17:18:19 +1000, Magilla wrote:


> "Heretic" <cathars@montaillou.com> wrote in message
> news:pan.2005.01.18.10.40.48.955625@montaillou.com ...
>
>> If you engage in a shit-fight in a NG using bits of the publicly
>> available proceedings about a case heard by a court, there is a risk of
>> the court being treated contemptuously. You wouldn't have anything
>> like that in mind, would you?
>
> Not me in particular. Both protagonists are biting at the bit, though.
>
>> Of course, if the full text happened to be published on a
>> web-site without comment, that might be rather different.
>
> I could do that :-)
>
> Just need the material.

I know that you want to do it. The real question is whether you should,
regardless of legal considerations. You know you should not, don't you?

[Magilla]

"Heretic" <cathars@montaillou.com> wrote in message news:pan.2005.01.18.11.40.43.978884@montaillou.com ...
> Magilla wrote:
>> "Heretic" wrote...

>>> If you engage in a shit-fight in a NG using bits of the publicly
>>> available proceedings about a case heard by a court, there is a risk of
>>> the court being treated contemptuously. You wouldn't have anything
>>> like that in mind, would you?

>> Not me in particular. Both protagonists are biting at the bit, though.

>>> Of course, if the full text happened to be published on a
>>> web-site without comment, that might be rather different.

>> I could do that :-)

>> Just need the material.

> I know that you want to do it. The real question is whether you should,
> regardless of legal considerations. You know you should not, don't you?

Because it'd inflame their stupid arguments?


--
Magilla

[Heretic]

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 18:14:37 +1000, Magilla wrote:


> "Heretic" <cathars@montaillou.com> wrote in message
> news:pan.2005.01.18.11.40.43.978884@montaillou.com ...
>> Magilla wrote:
>>> "Heretic" wrote...
>
>>>> If you engage in a shit-fight in a NG using bits of the publicly
>>>> available proceedings about a case heard by a court, there is a risk
>>>> of the court being treated contemptuously. You wouldn't have
>>>> anything like that in mind, would you?
>
>>> Not me in particular. Both protagonists are biting at the bit, though.
>
>>>> Of course, if the full text happened to be published on a
>>>> web-site without comment, that might be rather different.
>
>>> I could do that :-)
>
>>> Just need the material.
>
>> I know that you want to do it. The real question is whether you
>> should, regardless of legal considerations. You know you should not,
>> don't you?
>
> Because it'd inflame their stupid arguments?

But of course it would. That goes without saying. And it's such fun to
rattle their cages, poke sticks at them, and do assorted things of a like
kind. But the reason you should not is quite simple. It's just not nice.

[Peter]

In article <Xns95E2B84639BFFssss@130.133.1.4>, Kwyjibo says...
> Peter <bored@the.moment> said
>
> Subject to the law of contempt, the answer is "Yes".
> >
> > In this case, the legislation (ACT Protection Orders Act) specifically
> > prohibits legislation.
> >
>
> Legislation prohibiting legislation?? Hmmm.

If only it were so. Legislation banning publication is what I meant, but
I like the first version better.

OK, with the passage of this Bill, all laws will be illegal. Including
this one.

[Dyna Soar]

Heretic wrote:

> But the reason you should not is quite simple. It's
> just not nice.

Heh, I think I like you.

--
Dyna

..

[Heretic]

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 16:53:22 +0800, Dyna Soar wrote:

> Heretic wrote:
>
>> But the reason you should not is quite simple. It's just not nice.
>
> Heh, I think I like you.

Get your filthy hands away from my genitals! Just what do you think I
am?

[Dyna Soar]

Heretic wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 16:53:22 +0800, Dyna Soar wrote:

>> Heretic wrote:

>>> But the reason you should not is quite simple. It's just not nice.

>> Heh, I think I like you.

> Get your filthy hands away from my genitals! Just what do you think I
> am?

Filthy? What rot! I washed my hands thoroughly only a few minutes ago.

--
Dyna

..

[Heretic]

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 17:03:33 +0800, Dyna Soar wrote:

> Heretic wrote:
>> On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 16:53:22 +0800, Dyna Soar wrote:
>
>>> Heretic wrote:
>
>>>> But the reason you should not is quite simple. It's just not nice.
>
>>> Heh, I think I like you.
>
>> Get your filthy hands away from my genitals! Just what do you think I
>> am?
>
> Filthy? What rot! I washed my hands thoroughly only a few minutes ago.

I dunno. You could try lemon juice for getting rid of the smell of prawns,
and them finger-nails leave a lot to be desired.

Anyway, "Just what do you think I am?".

[Kwyjibo]

Heretic <cathars@montaillou.com> said


> I dunno. You could try lemon juice for getting rid of the smell of prawns,

That's not prawns you smell.

> and them finger-nails leave a lot to be desired.


Good for picking smegma.



--

Kwyj.

(Remove your panties to reply by email)

[Heretic]

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 09:34:09 +0000, Kwyjibo wrote:

> Heretic <cathars@montaillou.com> said
>
>
>> I dunno. You could try lemon juice for getting rid of the smell of
>> prawns,
>
> That's not prawns you smell.

I'll take your word for that.

>> and them finger-nails leave a lot to be desired.
>
>
> Good for picking smegma.

If you say so. You seen unusually well-informed. Remind me not to make
your acquaintance.