Revision of Book II of Legal Corpus of Somerset

ok here for book two change in red like always:

Original article:

Quote :

Art. 2.2.1. : An act of defamation is defined as any form of written or verbal communication that attacks the personal or professional honour of any citizen of the Duchy.
The act of defamation is a light crime and the sentence shall be a public apology with a fine of 1 pound to 200 pounds, depending on the consequences of the defamation on the victim. In case the act of defamation is directed towards a noble, civil servant or military officer, or is a repeat offense, the sentence shall be jail time.

Addition to original article:

Quote :

For the proposal of this article defamation is definite has defamation is the communication of a statement that makes a false claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may harm the reputation of an individual, business, product, group, government or nation.

original article:

Quote :

Article 2.3.3. : Economy manipulation is defined as:
- hoarding goods;
- creating and abusing a monopoly;
- dumping goods on a market;
This is a moderate crime and the sentence is set in Article 2.1.3.

change for:

Quote :

Article 2.3.3. : Economy manipulation is defined as:
- hoarding goods; where an individual or organization attempts to temporarily control all available supplies of a given good in order to artificially increase the price.
- dumping goods on a market;

Dumping definition for this article is an action of importing good that are unwanted by the town and cause harm to the local economy. One goods is enough to be considering dumping. Good way to know if a goods import is considering dumping is to ask the local mayor what goods are needed or not. Other good indication is the natural production of the town.

This is a moderate crime and the sentence is set in Article 2.1.3.

New article:

Quote :

Art. 2.4.6.: An act of abuse of power is defined as the use of public position beyond normal duties to gets political or personal gain for himself/herself or an accomplice. Good example of abuse of power is the use of Town hall message or mayor letters for political publicity.

New article (just the strategic good decrees add to the laws to become permanant):

Quote :

Article 6 – strategic goods

Art: 2.6.1.: Definitions

1. Strategic goods are defined as iron ore ounces and/or steel ounces.
2. A blacksmith is defined as a person who owns a blacksmith's workshop in a town in Somerset.
3. An agent is defined as a person who acts under a grant from a County or Town Hall concerning the trade in any strategic good.

Art. 2.6.2.: Purchase and possession of strategic goods

Strategic goods may only be purchased and held by the County, Town Halls, blacksmiths and agents whose grant provides for trading the strategic good concerned. Agents involved in an export trade between a party within Somerset and a party outside of Somerset, also require the approval of the Duke as provided for in Article 2.6.3.

Art. 2.6.3.: Export of strategic goods

No strategic goods may be exported to Counties and Towns outside of Somerset except with the approval of the Count.

Art. 2.6.4.: Sale of strategic goods

No blacksmith may sell strategic goods, except directly to a Town Hall in Somerset.

Art. 2.6.5.: Punishments

1. Any individual, private or otherwise, violating any provision in this decree is punishable for the

1st offense: 10 pounds per strategic good + 1 day in a mine in Somerset per 5 ores/ounces (rounded up);
2nd offense: 15 pounds per strategic good + 1 day in a mine in Somerset per 4 ores/ounces (rounded up);
3rd and further offenses: 18 pounds per strategic good + 1 day in a mine in Somerset per 3 ores/ounces (rounded up).

2. Any Mayor violating any provision in this decree is also punishable with a 50 pounds fine.

3. Any Sheriff or Trade Minister violating any provision in this decree is also punishable with a 100 pounds fine. The Judge may also recommend that the convict be dismissed from their position.

The book after change should look like this:

Quote :

002 Book II - Penal Code
Book II – Penal code.

Article 1 - Crimes.

Art. 2.1.1.: Each criminal convicted by the Judge will receive a sentence. This sentence is proportional to the crime that has been committed.

Art. 2.1.2. : The various sentences of Somerset Duchy are :
i. Public apology in the appropriate Town hall or the Duchy hall.
ii. Fine
iii. Jail time; for a light sentence, jail time is less than or equal to 3 days.
iv. Jail time; for a heavy sentence, jail time is greater than or equal to 3 days.
v. Exile
vi. Capital sentence by hanging, decapitation, burning. Nobles cannot be hanged.

Art. 2.1.3. : Crimes are divided in four categories : Light crime, moderate crime, serious crime, infamous crime.
i. Light crimes have a sentence of degree i to ii (Article. II.1.2)
ii. Moderate crimes have a sentence of degree ii to iii (Article. II.1.2)
iii. Serious crimes have a sentence of degree ii to v (Article. II.1.2)
iv. Infamous crimes have a sentence of degree ii to vi (Article. II.1.2)

Art. 2.1.4. : A repeat offense will face a higher degree of sentencing.

Art. 2.1.5. : Confession of a crime can lower the degree of the sentence.

Art. 2.1.6. : The participation or the complicity in a crime exposes the concerned individual to be prosecuted under complicity in a crime. Accomplices in a crime, if convicted, can be sentenced to a lower degree of sentence.


Article 2 – Attack on the rights of the people.

Art. 2.2.1. : An act of defamation is defined as any form of written or verbal communication that attacks the personal or professional honour of any citizen of the Duchy.
The act of defamation is a light crime and the sentence shall be a public apology with a fine of 1 pound to 200 pounds, depending on the consequences of the defamation on the victim. In case the act of defamation is directed towards a noble, civil servant or military officer, or is a repeat offense, the sentence shall be jail time.

For the proposal of this article defamation is definite has defamation is the communication of a statement that makes a false claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may harm the reputation of an individual, business, product, group, government or nation.

Art. 2.2.2. : A robbery is defined as any action, the goal of which is to steal the goods of someone else. This is a moderate crime.
A violent robbery is defined as any action, the goal of which is to steal the goods of someone else through the use of violence. This is a serious crime.
Organized robbery is defined as any action of robbery that negates the liberty of movement of the citizens and of goods in the Duchy. This is an infamous crime.
The sentence for this crime are described in Article 2.1.2 and Article 2.1.3

Art. 2.2.3. : Slavery is defined as any attempt to hire someone with an indecent wage. The minimum decent wage is the minimum wage declared by the concerned Town Hall through decrees, otherwise the minimum wage of the Duchy, minimum wage of the duchy is 15 pounds. An exception can be made for helping another citizen, for a religious service act or for a redemption act. The Judge can recognize the a private contract that goes below the minimum wage on the condition that this arrangement was announced to the lieutenant of police of the town in public. Slavery is a light crime, thus the sentence will be a fine at the discretion of the Judge. A repeat offense of slavery will be a moderate crime.

Article 3 – Attack on markets and trade.

Art. 2.3.1. : Abusive fraud is defined as any action that has the goal to create an artificial shortage and to sell goods at a price that exceeds the tolerable social price. The existence of a municipal decree or Duchy decree that states a cap price is a good indication of the tolerable social price. This is a moderate crime, except in case of shortages or war when it becomes a serious crime.

Art. 2.3.2. : Speculation is defined as any action a citizen takes that consists of buying one or more goods and reselling it again at a higher price on the same market. This is a light crime and the sentence is set in Article 2.1.3.

Article 2.3.3. : Economy manipulation is defined as:
- hoarding goods; where an individual or organization attempts to temporarily control all available supplies of a given good in order to artificially increase the price.
- dumping goods on a market;

Dumping definition for this article is an action of importing good that are unwanted by the town and cause harm to the local economy. One goods is enough to be considering dumping. Good way to know if a goods import is considering dumping is to ask the local mayor what goods are needed or not. Other good indication is the natural production of the town.

This is a moderate crime and the sentence is set in Article 2.1.3.

Art. 2.3.4. : The owner of any tavern that collects payment from people for empty meal shall be charged with fraud. Exceptions can be made by decrees. This is a moderate crime and the sentence is set in Article 2.1.3.


Article 4 – Attack on the institution of the Duchy.

Art. 2.4.1. : An act of public disorder is defined as any action that perturb the public order and the peace of the Duchy. Any violation of municipal or Duchy decrees can cause prosecution under public disorder. Public disorder is a light to moderate crime. The sentence associated to this crime is set in Article 2.1.3.

Art. 2.4.2. : An act of rebellion is defined as any action to attack the Town hall or the County Castle or the takeover of these institutions. A rebellion is a serious crime. The sentence is set in Article 2.1.3.

Art. 2.4.3. : An act of treason is defined as any attempt made by a citizen of Somerset against the institution of the Duchy, or any divulgation of political, economical or military information, the goal of which is to weaken the Duchy of Somerset and its institutions as a result of loss of land, social stability, sovereignty, political or economical autonomy. Because of their rank, members of the Duchy council expose themselves to high treason for an act of treason. Treason is a serious crime and high treason is an infamous crime. The sentence associated with this crime is set in Article 2.1.3

Art. 2.4.4. : An act of falsification of proof is defined as the creation of false evidence or modification of actual material evidence for use in a trial and that can affect the result of the trial.
An act of false testimony is defined as the act of stating false information or the omission of information as testimony before the court during a trial.
The falsification of proof and false testimony are light crimes. If these acts are committed to make false accusation, the accuser exposes himself/herself to receive the same degree of sentencing that the accused would have received. The sentences associated with this crime are set in Article 2.1.3

Art. 2.4.5. : An act of abuse of public goods is defined as the use of a public position by a person to make himself/herself or an accomplice richer.
An act of economical nuisance is defined as any speculative act the goal of which is personal economical gain to the detriment of the public economy.
The act of abuse of public goods and act of economical nuisance are serious crimes, and the sentences associated with these crimes are set in Article 2.1.3.

Art. 2.4.6.: An act of abuse of power is defined as the use of public position beyond normal duties to gets political or personal gain for himself/herself or an accomplice. Good example of abuse of power is the use of Town hall message or mayor letters for political publicity.

Art: 2.4.7.: Contempt of Court
If any person present in the Court, be they the Public Prosecutor, the defendant or a witness, offends the Court in one of the ways listed below, the Judge may hold them in contempt. All people held in contempt are to be charged forthwith, and are punishable treason offence. Contempt of the court is a serious crime, and sentence associated with these crimes are set in Article 2.1.3.

Grounds for contempt are:
- speaking a language other than the King's English before the Court;
- insulting the Court;
- showing disrespect towards the Court and its proceedings.

Art: 2.4.8.: Obstruction of Justice
Whosoever shall deliberately hide, conceal or aid any person who has committed a crime under any Law or Decree in effect in the Duchy of Somerset, is punishable with one day's imprisonment. This does not apply to anyone acting in the capacity of the defendant's legal counsel.

Article 5 - Natural Resource
This law applies to merchants and their trading.

Art: 2.5.1.: The law
No visiting merchant may sell a town's natural resource in that town unless the merchant can provide proof that the natural resource that he or she put up on the market was obtained through his or her own personal labour in the same town's orchard, sea or forest, whichever is applicable. This is a moderate crime and the sentence is set in Article 2.1.3.

Art: 2.5.2.: Definition
Natural resource –
Wood, fish and fruit are natural resources. Each town has a specific natural resource depending on whether the town has a forest, sea/lake or orchard.

Visiting merchant -
Someone selling goods in a town that they are not a resident of

Art: 2.5.3.: Exceptions
In the rare case that a town has a shortage of their natural resource, the mayor can declare a temporary decree that states that this law does not apply for a certain period of time. The mayor will also inform the Trade Minister on the county council.

Article 6 – strategic goods

Art: 2.6.1.: Definitions

1. Strategic goods are defined as iron ore ounces and/or steel ounces.
2. A blacksmith is defined as a person who owns a blacksmith's workshop in a town in Somerset.
3. An agent is defined as a person who acts under a grant from a County or Town Hall concerning the trade in any strategic good.

Art. 2.6.2.: Purchase and possession of strategic goods

Strategic goods may only be purchased and held by the County, Town Halls, blacksmiths and agents whose grant provides for trading the strategic good concerned. Agents involved in an export trade between a party within Somerset and a party outside of Somerset, also require the approval of the Duke as provided for in Article 2.6.3.

Art. 2.6.3.: Export of strategic goods

No strategic goods may be exported to Counties and Towns outside of Somerset except with the approval of the Count.

Art. 2.6.4.: Sale of strategic goods

No blacksmith may sell strategic goods, except directly to a Town Hall in Somerset.

Art. 2.6.5.: Punishments

1. Any individual, private or otherwise, violating any provision in this decree is punishable for the

1st offense: 10 pounds per strategic good + 1 day in a mine in Somerset per 5 ores/ounces (rounded up);
2nd offense: 15 pounds per strategic good + 1 day in a mine in Somerset per 4 ores/ounces (rounded up);
3rd and further offenses: 18 pounds per strategic good + 1 day in a mine in Somerset per 3 ores/ounces (rounded up).

2. Any Mayor violating any provision in this decree is also punishable with a 50 pounds fine.

3. Any Sheriff or Trade Minister violating any provision in this decree is also punishable with a 100 pounds fine. The Judge may also recommend that the convict be dismissed from their position.

Again if suggestion, change, better english don't be shy propose it

This is better; more clear!

Ok defamation laws is there to stay. Some need that to learn to respect other and defamation laws exist for century in different county is not for nothing.

Here the defniaition of defamation:

Quote :

In law, defamation is the communication of a statement that makes a false claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may harm the reputation of an individual, business, product, group, government or nation. Most jurisdictions allow legal actions, civil and/or criminal, to deter various kinds of defamation and retaliate against criticism.

The common law origins of defamation lie in the torts of slander (harmful statement in a transitory form, especially speech) and libel (harmful statement in a fixed medium, especially writing but also a picture, sign, or electronic broadcast), each of which gives a common law right of action.

"Defamation" is the general term used internationally, and is used in this article where it is not necessary to distinguish between "slander" and "libel". Libel and slander both require publication. The fundamental distinction between libel and slander lies solely in the form in which the defamatory matter is published. If the offending material is published in some fleeting form, as by spoken words or sounds, sign language, gestures and the like, then this is slander. If it is published in more durable form, for example in written words, film, compact disc (CD), internet blogging and the like, then it is considered libel.

And if we take with the current era we are here the laws in that period of time in england:

Quote :

Scandalum magnatum

At one time, the honour of peers was especially protected by the law; while defamation of a commoner was known as libel or slander, the defamation of a peer (or of a Great Officer of State) was called scandalum magnatum. The Statute of Westminster of 1275 provided that "from henceforth none be so hardy to tell or publish any false News or Tales, whereby discord, or occasion of discord or slander may grow between the King and his People, or the Great Men of the Realm." Scandalum magnatum was punishable under the aforesaid statute as well as under further laws passed during the reign of Richard II. Scandalum magnatum was both a tort and a criminal offence. In civil trials, peers could recover damages from those committing scandalum magnatum without even having to prove that the words caused harm to them or their reputation, as commoners would have had to do in normal defamation cases. In criminal cases, meanwhile, punishment was often arbitrary. In 1771, for instance, during one of the last ever scandalum magnatum cases, the publisher of the Morning Chronicle was fined £100—over £10,000 in modern terms—and sentenced to imprisonment for one month.

Has you can see we are easy on it with appology or jail time.

For teh dumping laws, like said on good sign of dumping is to ask mayor if that product is needed or not. The fact remain a mayor don'T need to buy a whole bunch of goods to proof of dumping and also COA ask last time that an amount is put to give guidance.

If is a simple traveler and the mayor said it'S ok, then it's not dumping

The meat program is normal duties, is vote by the majority of the council and include in the procedure. What is not normal is too use tool of a position to pass election adds that what this laws is about. Even if none do it in Somerset right now is not illegal for a mayor to sent a letter to is citizens to said vote for my party. And we know communication state point are paid from public funds so, it'S something not acceptable. Yes the laws need better wording and clear definition if someone can come up with. I will be happy to change it. But we need this laws in case.

budicca wrote:

Chardonnay wrote:

Were the people calling me names Patrons, I would still prosecute

I find the notion of prosecuting someone for name calling to be sad and ridiculous .

2. "Land of Freedom" (LoF) : 30.6%
3. "Patrons" (PATRONS) : 22.8%


THe Patrons lost the last election badly but yet they have been assigned the following council positions:

Bellos (Captain), Ellsbeth (Public Prosecutor), Lord_justinan (Constable)

while LoF who received almost 8% more of YOUT VOTE have been assigned Sherrif a very important position, second only to Count or Trade Minister and we were assigned Mines Superintendant, which is largely a figure head position with little to no authority. That is not an accurate reflection of the will of the people of Somerset. I believe the anit defamtion laws are also not something Somerset county will benifit from.

I make no accusations here. I am simply presenting facts for the VOTERS of Somerset County to see and evaluate for themselves. Thanks! Budicca, Mayor of Gloucester.

Maybe if you are not mayor and in the past for 3 term in a row teagan will have done something maybe he can have a position. Is first one was PP, we all remember the first council here he refuse to make any trial, some get rob and slavery case and he refuse simply to prosecute anyone. The second time I give him another chance i put it MS, he never done any report, never he suggest idea to increase mine production in fact that term he speak three time in the whole two month in council.

So look in the fact before making accusation, you have been warn that teagan never do a thing in council you still put it high enough so don'T be suprise we give him no position. And yes been mayor prevent some to have higher position that is a fact ...

Now before saying partial thing look at all the info.

Hypno wrote:

ok here for book two change in red like always:

Original article:

Quote :

Art. 2.2.1. : An act of defamation is defined as any form of written or verbal communication that attacks the personal or professional honour of any citizen of the Duchy.
The act of defamation is a light crime and the sentence shall be a public apology with a fine of 1 pound to 200 pounds, depending on the consequences of the defamation on the victim. In case the act of defamation is directed towards a noble, civil servant or military officer, or is a repeat offense, the sentence shall be jail time.

Addition to original article:

Quote :

For the proposal of this article defamation is definite has defamation is the communication of a statement that makes a false claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may harm the reputation of an individual, business, product, group, government or nation.

I would like to propose an additional addendum to this article:

Quote :

Notwithstanding the above, speech in all Somerset taverns shall treated as private speech, and shall not be actionable under this law. Foul or profane language, racial or religious slurs, attacks based upon sexual preference, and sexually explicit actions are not allowed under the TOU, and are the provenance of the game administrators, not the officials of the Duchy.

Too, I would like to propose this article:

Quote :

Book 2
Article 2.2.4: Notwithstanding the above, actions committed in the taverns which are purely roleplay actions, with no damage or loss sustained by the characters, and which do not violate the Terms of Usage, shall not be deemed crimes under the Legal Corpus of Somerset.

This article was occasioned by a complaint in the PP thread on the RK boards, in which the complainant provided screenshots of such roleplay. While I too would find it disturbing to have such roleplay disturb a tavern where I was expecting to relax and chat with friends, still, I regard it as legitimate, and fitting to the time period in which the game is set.

The trouble with tavern, is last time the team of censors of RK forum ask LJS about it.

He said the players should be sue in game and if he continue then he will be eradicated ...

So we will have to deal in a way or another about tavern chat.

If the ban option for teh owner and bar tender has code that will not be a trouble.

Because yes in my believe tavern are private. Their are own by players and those players should be free in their own tavern.

But since ban is not there well is in their hand of the justice in game.

In french kingdoms that is not a trouble, tavern chat are regulate by the censors team...

Well, my proposal is one way to deal with it. How do you prosecute, when there's no "real" injury or damages? Getting the ban option back for bartenders would be the best solution, but what are the chances of that? Tavern code is already kludgy and unstable.

The pulpit and the mayor's message are different from the taverns. Only the tavern allows anybody at all to participate. Speech there is transitory, unlike those others, where postings are relatively static. Certainly taverns are public, in the sense that all can wander in, yet speech there is not posted only by a public figure, as is true of those other ingame forums, but is the free-flowing interchange of discussion by whatever citizens happen to be in that tavern at that time. Once the speech has scrolled off the bottom, it's gone, as opposed to those other, official, forums.

But most important to me is that citizens have a place where they can bitch about the mayor, the count, me, you, whomever, without fear of being called into the PP office for defamation. That's what my first proposal is designed to accomplish.

My other proposal, well, if LJS has said that, then i withdraw the proposed Article 2.2.4.

Sorry for not replying for a long time, but I am currently very busy IRL.

I notice that '- creating and abusing a monopoly;' no longer is illegal as economic manipulation. It is atleast not mentioned in the changes. hording goods and dumping goods is not the same as a monopoly so it should be mentioned.

how you proove that any monopoly is created by one personintentionally that the trouble with monopoly ...

A monopoly can be created by a group of people. Especially level 2 jobs can arrange with each other that certain prices are held. This is a monopoly.

Proove ... well ... difficult. But I believe it should still be mentioned, otherwise it just isn't illegal.

Any such price setting would surely be undermined by merchants, or by town hall action in cooperation with the trade minister's office.