The HBI - Heathen Bureau of Investigation

Phreddie · Post by **Phreddie** » Wed May 24, 2006 4:34 am

Ravager, after taking my time to review the evidence of your heinous acts, and attempting to control myself from lashing out at you physically, I have seen fit to arrange a punishment that will cause you to suffer as those who were left in the wake of your quickly deflating criminal career. I hereby sentence you to 30-days of tumbling down the Rabbit hole with limited access to food and water. 60-days of incarceration, your cell mate, jailor, and Master will be Lestat. And 90-days of beating around the bush.

Ravager · Post by **Ravager** » Wed May 24, 2006 4:53 am

So much for the trial stage of this proceeding then.

Lestat · Post by **Lestat** » Wed May 24, 2006 5:30 am

[QUOTE=Phreddie]Ravager, after taking my time to review the evidence of your heinous acts, and attempting to control myself from lashing out at you physically, I have seen fit to arrange a punishment that will cause you to suffer as those who were left in the wake of your quickly deflating criminal career. I hereby sentence you to 30-days of tumbling down the Rabbit hole with limited access to food and water. 60-days of incarceration, your cell mate, jailor, and Master will be Lestat. And 90-days of beating around the bush.[/QUOTE]Since proposed cell mate, jailor and Master has better things to do, the incarceration has been suspended indefinitely.

Ravager · Post by **Ravager** » Wed May 24, 2006 5:32 am

Woo-hoo, I'm free! :laugh:
*hands over Get Out of Jail Free card*

Darzog · Post by **Darzog** » Wed May 24, 2006 8:23 am

You want to leave before beating around the bush?

Ravager · Post by **Ravager** » Wed May 24, 2006 10:29 am

Who am I beating around the bush with? :mischief:

shana · Post by **shana** » Wed May 24, 2006 1:14 pm

Phreddie, I think!

Ravager · Post by **Ravager** » Wed May 24, 2006 1:43 pm

Hmm...if that's the case, I'd prefer to go free.

Fiona · Post by **Fiona** » Fri Jul 28, 2006 9:23 pm

*Lays prima facie evidence of fraud and deception at the Spamming Unanimous Establishment.*

1.The aforementioned establishment, a registered charity, has been taking items of value (to wit souls and other items) from the hapless addicts duped into believing they will receive help and medication to support them to kick the filthy habit.

2. Sample case of Ms Maiden. This sorry specimen has 50+ posts despite having received some 30 sessions of "therapy" from the owner

3. When questioned the owner adopted a mockney accent, contrary to the "Defence of the Sensibilities Act 2005" as amended.

It is the contention of the officer of the Trading Standards Authority that the "treatment" on offer is in fact designed to ensure that the addiction is maintained, and indeed strengthened: and that the owner of the establishment is fully aware of this.

I move for trial

Darzog · Post by **Darzog** » Fri Jul 28, 2006 10:39 pm

I recommend a plea of Not Guilty due to mental disease and moronity.

Damuna_Nova · Post by **Damuna_Nova** » Fri Jul 28, 2006 10:43 pm

I agree with Master Zog's plea.

Bloodstalker · Post by **Bloodstalker** » Fri Jul 28, 2006 11:12 pm

[QUOTE=Darzog]I recommend a plea of Not Guilty due to mental disease and moronity.[/QUOTE]

Not a viable option. While it would seem to be a credible recommendation, the accused has agreed with this recommendation. If the accused is trule mentaly deficient and moronic, he would not recognize such a defense as being a good idea. If he does recognise the defense as a good idea, then he has shown himself to be mentally competant, thus defeating the defense.

Besides, I came here to see horrific punishments handed out, not to see cases tossed out of court.

Damuna_Nova · Post by **Damuna_Nova** » Fri Jul 28, 2006 11:16 pm

'Ere now, we tried all our stuff on that Ravager fellow before flogging it, and he ain't worse for it.

Ravager · Post by **Ravager** » Sat Jul 29, 2006 5:28 am

[QUOTE=Fiona]1.The aforementioned establishment, a registered charity, has been taking items of value (to wit souls and other items) from the hapless addicts duped into believing they will receive help and medication to support them to kick the filthy habit.[/QUOTE]

Rebuttal! Those items of value help to continue the life of this charity and the treatments you describe, while perhaps subtle, is surely effectively. Why, my particippation in SYM has lately dropped and I've been promoted to a position of responsibility!

[QUOTE=Fiona]2. Sample case of Ms Maiden. This sorry specimen has 50+ posts despite having received some 30 sessions of "therapy" from the owner[/QUOTE]

Yes, being around at a busy time does encourage a greater amount of posts...perhaps the cure have fixed her physical state though. One only has to look at DM's avatar to see this.

[QUOTE=Fiona]3. When questioned the owner adopted a mockney accent, contrary to the "Defence of the Sensibilities Act 2005" as amended.[/QUOTE]

We move to dismiss this on the grounds of never having seen this Act before and suspecting it is in fact rumour and hearsay.

Fiona · Post by **Fiona** » Sat Jul 29, 2006 5:47 am

Ravager wrote:Rebuttal! Those items of value help to continue the life of this charity

*contends that the items of value are extorted and are not in the nature of *donations*, as allowed to charitable donations.

In support:

Accused statement page 1 para 1: " simply give us your soul...."

Accused statement page 3 para 2 "half a soul is better than all these IOU's"

Accused statement page 5 para 4 " no soul, no treatment"

witness statment page 2 para 4: " I had to pay these sessions with my soul" Clear indication of the non-voluntary nature of the transaction

and the treatments you describe, while perhaps subtle, is surely effectively. Why, my particippation in SYM has lately dropped and I've been promoted to a position of responsibility!

anecdotal and therefore inadmissable!

Yes, being around at a busy time does encourage a greater amount of posts...perhaps the cure have fixed her physical state though. One only has to look at DM's avatar to see this.

Busy time? Weekend? I think that needs no further comment. And what has Dm's ava to do with it. Grasping at straws I think

We move to dismiss this on the grounds of never having seen this Act before and suspecting it is in fact rumour and hearsay.

Call yourself a lawyer? :laugh:

Ravager · Post by **Ravager** » Sat Jul 29, 2006 6:01 am

[QUOTE=Fiona]*contends that the items of value are extorted and are not in the nature of *donations*, as allowed to charitable donations.

In support:

Accused statement page 1 para 1: " simply give us your soul...."

Accused statement page 3 para 2 "half a soul is better than all these IOU's"

Accused statement page 5 para 4 " no soul, no treatment"

witness statment page 2 para 4: " I had to pay these sessions with my soul" Clear indication of the non-voluntary nature of the transaction [/QUOTE]
The souls are not simply a payment, rather a commitment of the patient to the treatment and indeed, part of the cure. The exact nature of the cure cannot be disclosed due to issues of confidentiality.
[QUOTE=Fiona]anecdotal and therefore inadmissable![/QUOTE]
It is in fact a witness statement of my own, thus it should be allowed.

[QUOTE=Fiona]Busy time? Weekend? I think that needs no further comment. And what has Dm's ava to do with it. Grasping at straws I think

[/QUOTE]
An avatar is part of a poster's character and thus has everything to do with the cure as a whole.
[QUOTE=Fiona]Call yourself a lawyer? :laugh:[/QUOTE]
Making up Acts as you see fit is not a due process of law and is in fact comtempt of court. Seeing your blatant disregard for the letter of the law, I move for your case to be dismissed.

Fiona · Post by **Fiona** » Sat Jul 29, 2006 6:20 am

Ravager wrote:The souls are not simply a payment, rather a commitment of the patient to the treatment and indeed, part of the cure.

Rebutted out of the accused's own mouth. He has already accepted Terry Pratchett books in lieu of souls, and therefore the payment cannot be part of the cure

The exact nature of the cure cannot be disclosed due to issues of confidentiality.

"Commercial in Confidence" had no place in a criminal trial. *moves to have the files opened to the jury.

It is in fact a witness statement of my own, thus it should be allowed.

I object on the grounds of too many hats!

An avatar is part of a poster's character and thus has everything to do with the cure as a whole.

Making up Acts as you see fit is not a due process of law and is in fact comtempt of court. Seeing your blatant disregard for the letter of the law, I move for your case to be dismissed.

I defy any court to deny the necessity of a law against mockney. Since it is necesssary it therefore must exist, and was duly passed without opposition during the summer recess

Damuna_Nova · Post by **Damuna_Nova** » Sat Jul 29, 2006 6:25 am

[QUOTE=Fiona]Rebutted out of the accused's own mouth. He has already accepted Terry Pratchett books in lieu of souls, and therefore the payment cannot be part of the cure[/QUOTE]

Tha's a blatant lie, guv'na, I said "no" to those hokey, knocked-off scraps.

Ravager · Post by **Ravager** » Sat Jul 29, 2006 6:30 am

[QUOTE=Fiona]"Commercial in Confidence" had no place in a criminal trial. *moves to have the files opened to the jury.[/QUOTE]
Objection! This falls under the Doctor/Patient confidentality clause and no individual case has come into question. To protect the rights of our patients we cannot reveal such information.
[QUOTE=Fiona]I object on the grounds of too many hats![/QUOTE]
The subject of fashion is not relevant to the case, Your Honour!
[QUOTE=Fiona]

[/QUOTE]
The cure that SU offers effects the patient's character has a whole, not just posting habits.
[QUOTE=Fiona]I defy any court to deny the necessity of a law against mockney. Since it is necesssary it therefore must exist, and was duly passed without opposition during the summer recess[/QUOTE]
The neccesity of a law is not in question here. We do not create laws as and when neccesary, they go through a legal process with much debate and consideration. Anyway, you haven't even presented any evidence to back up this so-called 'neccesity'.
Backing it up on the grounds of it not being English is clearly unacceptable.
As for it being passed in the summer reccess, I submit this is a pure lie, intended to deceive the court, especially since the Act is marked '2005' and NOT '2006'.

Lestat · Post by **Lestat** » Sat Jul 29, 2006 1:51 pm

*slavers* can I put the condem... uh ... accused to the question now?