Issues of Immunity
Posted: Mon Mar 19, 2012 12:00 am
***a letter is sent to the Bureau Chief who was present during the sentencing phase of the D'Kridis trial and also the Bureau Chief of Garens Department***
Bureau Chief
First of all allow me to extend a thank you for the opportunity to observe, and take part, in the recent sentencing of Citizen dÂ’Kridis. It was interesting to see, firsthand, the workings of the Mercykiller program on punishment standards. I feel I have much to learn in understanding the standards to which they apply their justice and look forward to observing this further.
The reason IÂ’m contacting you is that during the sentencing of the prisoner it was noted, by DÂ’Kridis himself, about certain aspects of his property that he had attempted to use to avoid the punishment for his crimes. He brought forth an immunity contract based on his tower. Needless to say, I was very surprised that such zones would be permitted to exist within the city and, most certainly, for people outside the sphere of law enforcement.
I have retrieved a copy of this contract in an attempt to more closely understand it and find that it can be removed if necessary.
First allow me to state I believe strongly that there should be no part in this city, its attached environs or satellite communities and territories, which should be permitted to exist as safe havens from the law. The law is universal in that it must be applied to all and exempt by none. While I now focus on this tower, I will most certainly attempt to snuff out all “exclusion zones” if any more should exist.
The main issue with this tower is that it creates a pocket plane within the city. While not actually existing as a plane in and of itself, it does exist under different rules as opposed to the rest of the city around it. I understand, by reading the contract that this was by negotiated design by the council. While I will not question the councilÂ’s decisions, I will give specific options with which to deal with this issue.
The first issue is by far the easiest. Under section 3, subsection 6, point A1 of the contract it states:
Should it be shown that the individual(s) who holds legal ownership and possession over the tower be found to have, or to be shown to be intending to use, criminal intent and/or activities during the use of the tower, whether through intentional or accidental means, then said individual(s) shall lose the clause of immunity to lawful jurisdiction from the Council of Sigil, their lawful allies and lawful organizations attached to, and serving under, the lawful Council of Sigil.
(((ooc: While it isnÂ’t written like this in actuality, Mr. O has assured me that there is a point in the contract that states if the tower is used for questionable or illegal purposes then this clause can be revoked. I just figured IÂ’d pretty it up for RP sake.)))
It should be simple for the Council to revoke this clause and I would advise you to approach them to do so.
Should that option be unattainable due to a “difference of opinion” on the council’s official stance, then a potential loophole would be for the Fated, backed by any lawful notes we can find, to seize the land the tower stands on. This should satisfy the terms of the immunity inside the tower as they would not be affecting it at all. It would then be a simple matter of forcing the occupants to “relocate” the tower to a place beyond the planar state of Sigil… at the owner’s expense of course. This loophole would, of course, have to be explored further to ensure validity.
The third option was briefly touched upon during the sentencing and this option was to place a “border point” at the door of the tower. This would force those coming and going into paying a tariff on all goods brought into the tower (worn, carried or stored) or brought back into the city proper. Tolls could be applied and those crossing the border could be halted, detained or searched. Passage could also be blocked for a decided period of time (effectively shutting down the border) should it be found that the border is being used to facilitate deeds illegal to the city that abuts the tower on all sides.
While the last option would not remove the zone of immunityÂ… it would make the prospect of applying for such zones much too expensive to even bother with in future cases.
I leave these options to you.
As a final request to this letter, please approve the assigning of a library clerk to me for a period of time so that I might be able to uncover other areas of the city deemed “immune to law” and see to removing these as well.
Thank you for your time and assistance.
Garen Seph
Administrator A10
Bureau Chief
First of all allow me to extend a thank you for the opportunity to observe, and take part, in the recent sentencing of Citizen dÂ’Kridis. It was interesting to see, firsthand, the workings of the Mercykiller program on punishment standards. I feel I have much to learn in understanding the standards to which they apply their justice and look forward to observing this further.
The reason IÂ’m contacting you is that during the sentencing of the prisoner it was noted, by DÂ’Kridis himself, about certain aspects of his property that he had attempted to use to avoid the punishment for his crimes. He brought forth an immunity contract based on his tower. Needless to say, I was very surprised that such zones would be permitted to exist within the city and, most certainly, for people outside the sphere of law enforcement.
I have retrieved a copy of this contract in an attempt to more closely understand it and find that it can be removed if necessary.
First allow me to state I believe strongly that there should be no part in this city, its attached environs or satellite communities and territories, which should be permitted to exist as safe havens from the law. The law is universal in that it must be applied to all and exempt by none. While I now focus on this tower, I will most certainly attempt to snuff out all “exclusion zones” if any more should exist.
The main issue with this tower is that it creates a pocket plane within the city. While not actually existing as a plane in and of itself, it does exist under different rules as opposed to the rest of the city around it. I understand, by reading the contract that this was by negotiated design by the council. While I will not question the councilÂ’s decisions, I will give specific options with which to deal with this issue.
The first issue is by far the easiest. Under section 3, subsection 6, point A1 of the contract it states:
Should it be shown that the individual(s) who holds legal ownership and possession over the tower be found to have, or to be shown to be intending to use, criminal intent and/or activities during the use of the tower, whether through intentional or accidental means, then said individual(s) shall lose the clause of immunity to lawful jurisdiction from the Council of Sigil, their lawful allies and lawful organizations attached to, and serving under, the lawful Council of Sigil.
(((ooc: While it isnÂ’t written like this in actuality, Mr. O has assured me that there is a point in the contract that states if the tower is used for questionable or illegal purposes then this clause can be revoked. I just figured IÂ’d pretty it up for RP sake.)))
It should be simple for the Council to revoke this clause and I would advise you to approach them to do so.
Should that option be unattainable due to a “difference of opinion” on the council’s official stance, then a potential loophole would be for the Fated, backed by any lawful notes we can find, to seize the land the tower stands on. This should satisfy the terms of the immunity inside the tower as they would not be affecting it at all. It would then be a simple matter of forcing the occupants to “relocate” the tower to a place beyond the planar state of Sigil… at the owner’s expense of course. This loophole would, of course, have to be explored further to ensure validity.
The third option was briefly touched upon during the sentencing and this option was to place a “border point” at the door of the tower. This would force those coming and going into paying a tariff on all goods brought into the tower (worn, carried or stored) or brought back into the city proper. Tolls could be applied and those crossing the border could be halted, detained or searched. Passage could also be blocked for a decided period of time (effectively shutting down the border) should it be found that the border is being used to facilitate deeds illegal to the city that abuts the tower on all sides.
While the last option would not remove the zone of immunityÂ… it would make the prospect of applying for such zones much too expensive to even bother with in future cases.
I leave these options to you.
As a final request to this letter, please approve the assigning of a library clerk to me for a period of time so that I might be able to uncover other areas of the city deemed “immune to law” and see to removing these as well.
Thank you for your time and assistance.
Garen Seph
Administrator A10