USECP v. EBUL VI

For the Sixth Time, Unified Social Enterprises for Club Penguin v. Economic Borders Unlimited, cited as USECP v. EBUL VI, was a landmark court case tried in the State Supreme Court of Sub-Antarctica in 2009, and was the sixth of seven suits filed against the company.

In this case, EBUL challegned the existence of USECP, claiming that it violated the contracts between EBUL, Membership, and the Moderators, as well as the well-known transfer of rights in CP by the last surviving Club member. They argued that USECP threatened the economic monopoly EBUL was entitled to (citing the famous MOM v. Gates case of the early 2000s), and that the existence of the company was effecting their monopoly status.

This case was denied a hearing by any federal court, so the buck stopped at the state, and the laws it made came into force.

Background
USECP is a non-profit company dedicated to providing items for non-Members and try to defund EBUL though (supposedly) legal means and loopholes in the system. They have a large arm dedicated to ligitation, as this, in addition to unionization tactics and non-Members' rights.

EBUL decided to strike first in this particular case, sending a cease and desist order to USECP and demand them to relocate their headquarters outside of Club Penguin, because they, as a non-grandfathered, non-EBUL business, do not have the right to exist. (They were conviently forgetting the fact that said mandate applied only to shops, retail, and stock enterprises.)

AC1-SA
Responding immediately, the litigation branch of USECP struck back with a court case. Since Club Penguin's government does not possess a judicial branch, they were immediately forwarded one step above the entry-level circuit: the Sub-Antarctic Appellate Court (AC1-SA).

Here, EBUL and USECP duked it out before the sole judge, The Honorable Ohreally3, presiding over the Circuit.

EBUL won, as the judge said the following.

"Economic Borders Unlimited, from what I can establish, is the main government of Club Penguin. Alongside the Moderators, this group commands the Club Penguin economy under completely legit business practices. USECP must be reminded that in this country, monopolies are legal.

EBUL labeled USECP as a threat to its monopoly, and by the evidence presented, I must agree. USECP encourages non-Members to import goods regardless of tariffs, and distributes vouchers and coupons to lower the prices for those who do not pay Membership dues. Funded by Coins for Change, this group uses its money to actually pay a part of imported goods when need be, reducing their price and effectively dissolving the trade barriers and protectionism established by EBUL. EBUL rightfully saw this as a threat and sought to relocate them where they could do less harm. I take part of my judgments from the unanimous decision of the three national supreme courts in regards to Micro Hard and Soft: monopolies are legal and can not be removed by a court just because other businesses find it hard to compete.

I hereby rule in favor of Economic Borders Unlimited, and demand that the EPF and legit police of Club Penguin, by court order, force USECP's headquarters outside of Club Penguin. However, I will make one important note: EBUL's right to eject businesses is only applicable to shops that try to sell non-EBUL goods directly to the Masses, member or not. USECP, by sheer interpretation of contracts and law of Club Penguin, does not actually do this, because they pay a part of the money to the importer and distribute coupons and advice. Coupons and advice are not catalog items. Is a pamphlet a piece of furniture? No. I urge EBUL to be more careful on its cease-and-desist rights in the future, because you might just sue the wrong group."

- Judge Ohreally3

USECP appealed.

Superior Court of SA
Having exhausted the lower courts, it was on to the Superior Court of Sub-Antarctica, located in an obscure R server in Club Penguin and presided by the panel of largely female judges: Hope133, Bieberluvur9, Creamsickle, Iluvbieber7, and P11738871.

Here, EBUL and USECP argued over each other, USECP making large usage of Judge Ohreally's "however" statement at the end. In addition to the evidence attempted on the Appeals circuit, they managed to convince four of the five judges to rule in their favor.

EBUL then attempted to appeal to the First District Appellate Court of Nautical Antarctica, but they denied the case.

Majority concurrence
Joined by Hope133 and Creamsickle, Bieberluvur9 wrote the majority concurrence was as follows.

"USECP has not violated EBUL's exclusive rights to distribute and sell items in Club Penguin. USECP being located in Club Penguin does not infringe on EBUL's rights because they do not operate shops nor sell clothes or anything else directly to non-Members, or any other penguin. It has been established that importing is allowed provided that it is taxed, and this is what USECP does. Companies can be like a real penguin in many ways: what is USECP but a group of penguins acting as one? Can one penguin import? Yes, yes they can. Can one company import? Yes, yes they can, provided they don't interfere directly against EBUL! USECP's existence in Club Penguin does not directly hurt EBUL's wallet. Indirectly, yes, it does gut them, but doesn't anything that isn't theirs? We side with USECP in this case. Attached to this concurrence is new precedent interpreted from these laws, coming into force per the krytocratic mandates of the country."

- Judges Bieberluvur9, Hope133, and Creamsickle

New krytocratic precedent
Krytocracy literally means "rule by judges". Judges in Antarctica have the right to make their case rulings into law, like a legislature (states do not have legislatures, there's only the SPC). These laws are called "precedents", and they have the force of law in the reigon written by court, overturnable only by the same court that wrote it, a higher court, a majority of the other courts on the same level, or by the SPC.

This was their new precedent.

KRYTOCRATIC PRECEDENT AN ACT REDEFINING ONE "PERSON" IMPORTING IN CLUB PENGUIN. GUIDED BY MAJORITY OPINION OF THE STATE SUPERIOR COURT OF SUB-ANTARCTICA (SSCOSA).

ARTICLE ONE:  Revising the current standing of law in Club Penguin and the SSCOSA, the Court hereby redefines "one person importing" as follows.


 * §1 A single penguin or other creature calling a foreign good into their home, paying all taxes and barriers required to get it.

  ARTICLE TWO:  §1 Corporations meeting §2 of Article One must
 * §2 A non-profit charitable organization that assists a single penguin in importing a foreign good, be it paying for or sharing in paying all taxes and barriers required to get it.


 * a) Not sell these items directly.


 * b) Not own the items they are importing, nor manufacture them.


 * c) Not cheat or work around trade barriers imposed by CP.


 * d) Not produce or otherwise endorse any non-EBUL catalog.


 * e) Not be for-profit.


 * f) Not be involved with organized crime or Judgies.

§2 Failure to obey these requirements will result in prosecution with fines no more that 900,000 Pebbles per corporate executive or more than 3 years in prison for each executive, as well as disbandment and immediate dissolution of the illegal corporation.

Seperate concurrence
Iluvbieber7 wrote a separate but concurring opinion as follows. She chose to write a separate opinion because she didn't agree with the law written by the others, even though she agreed with USECP.

"My fellow judges have ruled in favor of USECP. I do as well. However, the precedent they wrote does not match my ideals nor the interests of the free market in Club Penguin or my jurisdiction. I agree with all points made by the other concurring opinion, except that for-profit corporations are forbidden to compete indirectly with EBUL. Charities and for-profit companies both should have a hand in unseating EBUL. I'll admit it, I don't like EBUL, but in the interests of impartial judging, I'm not going to redefine law... this time."

- Judge Iluvbieber7

Dissent
P11738871, nearly fifty years older than his youngest colleague, though, dissented. He (the only male in the court) is well-known for having no pity on non-Members and was a staunch supporter of EBUL since it existed. This judge has been a member since November 2006 and usually wears a beta hat, even when presiding in court.

"Fools! What my youthful, immodestly dressed, bad-music loving, hip, and naive co-judges have failed to realize is that the cash-strapped EBUL prevents the Members and lessers of Club Penguin from having to work for a living. Instead of thinking economically, these foolish robed teen girls with gavels- that's practically what they are -have torn yet another hole in the crumbling structure of poor EBUL. USECP has provided no solid proof that they are not directly combating EBUL's finances. After all, just because they give stuff away doesn't make them damaging to the economy of Club Penguin. Deliberately lessening the taxes by paying part of the costs to import foreign wares, USECP makes importing easier for lessers and therefore nullifies, in part, the very barriers that higher courts than we, and other supreme courts of states, have upheld as monopolistic and protected, like those anti-competitive practices distributed by that human in MOM v. Gates. They have struck yet another blow against Club Penguin as we know it, and have even turned USECP from a company to a penguin before the laws of market in CP.

Fools! That section in their precedent doesn't allow ANY COMPANY except USECP to operate like that! It's like a bill of attainder in reverse! Singling and rewarding one group at the expenses of others!

So be it, I dissent with every last phreaking fiber of my aged being, and so long as this pink-and-yellow hat sits on my head, I'll continue to apply a rational and pro-monopoly stance to my judgments where that can be considered remotely neutral... -and even then!"

- Judge P11738871

By EBUL
"The Honorable Judge P11738871's sane and rational dissent has rang true to our ears, held far over the USECP-fangirl squee of the other justices, far too young to be enrobed. Those stupid girls, they abused their power and have given USECP a huge foothold in our door, and we can see their webbed feet entering even now. How is this ruling impartial? Huh? HUH? HOW?! USECP has already been permitted to fool customers by using the Club Penguin name, exclusively given to us by our enlightened forepenguins, and their hideous sign is still on our stock market, still being traded on our land, still being operated in Club Penguin- our island (and, uh, the Moderators') -where it never belonged to begin with. Our grip is loosened even more now. Fever help us all, because soon, we'll only be able to exist by taking over all aspects of CP and controlling even more of the economy. If we can, we'll be appealing!!"

- Official EBUL press release

By USECP
USECP spokesman David Gerald wrote an article about the court case for the Antarctic Times and what was USECP opinion on the whole case:

"We are immensely shocked when EBUL stated that we didn't exist. Well, firstly, we're here and I'm writing this article. Now, back to the court case itself. Before I started writing this I checked out EBUL's press release. There was clear sexism in that article. The claimed that the male judge was more 'saner'. Can I announced that no matter our gender we are equal penguins? However I can say that this Judge wasn't at all sane.

He is a true anti-non-member and has said many anti-non-member quotes. All this saying of EBUL pays for a Utopia is poppycock. There is no Utopia. I moved to Club Penguin in hope of a better living after being a successful over a small town in Ross Island. Before EBUL, I was fine with paying a small fee te receive rights of a member. I even became an EBUL civil servant and saw no inside information on evil plans to take over CP and create a new class system. There was no difference between member and nonmember except nonmembers would have to get 'non-EBUL' clothing through importing. Then suddenly the price for a membership risen and more restrictions were placed on nonmembers. I was investing more and more to keep a monthly EBUL subscription. I didn't give a coin on the discrimination the nonmembers had; I simply thought only a minority of members bullied nonmembers and that it would be normal schoolboy bullying rather then discrimination on class.

Then I waddled down Tri-State Lane and saw a gang of members throwing hoodie at a nonmember. They were laughing things like 'he wishes he could wear it but wait - it has an EBUL label on it'. They then beat him up and chuckled 'he can't get guns cause he's a moocher'. I realised that EBUL was turning our Utopia into a minority rule state. I went up to the nonmember, invited him over to my igloo and asked him what he has went through. He explained how the same gang would come over and vandalise the area.

He'd also explained that they'd also bully the residents, all nonmmebers, since those stuck up snobs thought they were better. Being I member, I thought I could get some infomation. I found out the name of the gang (Snowbourne Members) and went undercover in them. As I dug deeper, I found out the gang was hired by EBUL to bully the nonmembers. I was surprised how this happened. I filed a report to the Moderators, giving a list of the names of the gangsters. The mods instantly banned them. However in all this fear I didn't release this report. I was scared. Then I heard of USECP. I saw USECP's work and wanted to help them. It started with smuggling information from EBUL right to becoming a member of their trade union.

I decided to cancel my membership and because of this, I was fired. Because of my work, I was then elected spokesperson of USECP but that's another story. Firstly, Ohreally's decision was wrong; he was shutting us down as EBUL had rights to a monopoly. A monopoly over what? What product do they have a monopoly over? Answer me! Then that 'however' came in and I was confused; Judge Ohreally had just shut us down and now he sides with us?

But he was right. Coupons aren't catalogue items. Plus USECP don't run any official shops that sell non-EBUL items; we directly import the items to the igloo or ask a nonmember to spread the word or sell them the item. They are not creating any shops. It's like iDock; the individual is ony selling something for quick cash, not some big commercial thing. When we went up to the supreme court to appeal, we used the however statement and a strong argument to storm through. Now, I can promise you, none of the judges were biased; a Judge must always be neutral.

I can make a widely supported point that P11738871 was biased; our lawyers presented a strong case. He was blinded by EBUL's false claims of it keeps the Dystopia Utopia flowing. Wait, why did I cross out Dystopia? I should had crossed out Utopia. I even got the nonmember I met on Tri-State Lane to tell his story - and he did. I'm surprised how P11738871 didn't vote in favour of the Kritarchic law put in place. I'd admit, they got us out of hot water but that act was totally not needed. Before it was even put in place we were doing exactly that. Iluvbieber9 made the right choice not creating the act.

However it is still there. I'm sorry to say but Judges Bieberluvur9, Hope133, and Creamsickle, you made your flippers ache for nothing writing this. EBUL fans claim it is judicial activism. False; a judge is neutral. Although they may hold a belief they can not use it when making the decision. There is the exception of P11738871 of course. Anyway, however biased the decision was, we still presented a strong case as anyone saw.

That old fart P11738871, FIFTY years older then the youngest judge, yet he doesn't has the wisdom of that judge, is an EBUL denialist. And to conclude this, I'd like to share some that was edited out of the EBUL press release: ...taking over all aspects of CP and controlling even more of the economy. Although, it is the opinion of executives that more control might just put those non-Members in their place."

- David Gerald

The article was later published on the official website, "www.socialenterprisecp.net".

Controversy
USECP v. EBUL V is one of those cases that really shake the legal world. Considered almost universally as yet another landmark decision against EBUL by the USECP powerhouse, it's been met with praise and criticism, and frankly, no one will ever accept the other's opinion.

EBUL fans call judicial activism, citing that three of the four concurring judges were never Members, and the fourth was an ex-member. The three that made the new precedant: Hope133, Creamsickle, and Bieberluvur9, were all non-members. The fourth, an ex-member, was also in this bias argument. The personhood move is especially hated, called "a squee encoded as law". In fact, they collective call most pro-USECP legislation and precedent as "Squee laws". Fans of EBUL believe, also, that the federal courts were "cowardly" to avoid hearing the case, and that they were "obviously" trying to leave the situation alone.

EBUL haters respond that USECP provided evidence for the Court to make its decision, and that however biased it was, there was solid, convincing evidence provided by EBUL. Giving them legal personhood is seen as activism by anti-EBUL moderates, but hard cored EBUL haters see the personhood decree as a further protection of USECP from any other attack by EBUL, a wise decision for judges so young, and a move well beyond their age in intelligence. They call P11738871 an "old fart" and accuse him of EBUL denial, because he actually thinks that EBUL could work if its barriers were re-enforced.

Bonus EBUL leak
However, EBUL haters got some ground over EBUL fans when it was realized that the "official" EBUL press release had something removed from it at the end. Had the full thing remained, this would be what the closing would have read (the cut part is bolded):

"...taking over all aspects of CP and controlling even more of the economy. Although, it is the opinion of some executives that more control might just put those non-Members in their place."

- EBUL

Trivia

 * This is the sixth case that was held by USECP with the span of a month. All seven cases were heard in a row, some being stopped at the appeals level, others the state, and one went through the entire thing, all the way up to the "Big Three" (that is, the three federal Supreme Courts where two of three's opinions are final).
 * In the controversial leak, "some" is often ommitted among EBUL haters.