CoJ Case 011

From Wikipedia of the Dark Jedi Brotherhood, an online Star Wars Club
(Redirected from 011 DB vs. Dismal)
CoJ Case 011.png
CoJ2.png
This article is part of the series:
Chamber of Justice
Cases


DB vs Dismal was the eleventh case tried by the Chamber of Justice. The sitting Justicar was Kir Katarn, the Left Hand of Justice was Raken, and the Right Hand of Justice was Dacien "BubbaX" Victae.

Basic Case Information

Defendants Name

Charges

  • Dereliction of Duty

Verdict

  • Guilty

Sentence

Case Summary

The Deputy Grand Master was helping the Master at Arms approve dossier changes when he noticed one of the requests stated that the name had been changed without the members permission. The DGM asked this member how this could have happened, and he said that Dismal had logged in under his account and changed his name. Dismal and this member of the Brotherhood are friends outside the DB, and while talking this friend had revealed his password to Dismal. The Grand Master forwarded the entire matter to the Justicar, who investigated the situation. He determined that the matter had merit, and the Chamber charged Dismal with dereliction of duty, as he was an Aedile at the time. Dismal plead guilty to the charges, recognized immaturity of his actions, and apologized for what he did without the prompting of the Chamber. Due to these actions the Justicar decided to be lenient with the sentencing, only giving him an Official Letter of Reprimand and three months probation.

Related News Posts

Posted By Kir Katarn - 3/31/2007

Chamber of Justice Communique #015a

On this day, March 31, 2007 of the Liberated Brotherhood, I the Justicar of the Brotherhood now announce the punishment that this Chamber lays upon Dismal Visutor al'Tor.

Upon the conclusion of fair and just proceedings, this Chamber finds you:


On the Charge of Dereliction of Duty -

You did willingly and knowingly fail in your responsibility as a leader by using a member's private login information to vandalize his dossier. This constitutes a clear violation of your obligation to serve the members as Aedile and work towards the common good.


You have been found GUILTY.

Sentencing for the party is as follows:

  • Letter of Reprimand
  • Three Months Probation

The terms of probation are thus:

  • The guilty party may not receive promotion, appointment to position, or any citation or honor of merit without the explicit permission of the Justicar

Signed and Sealed in Justice,


Dark Side Adept Kir Taldrya Katarn

Justicar and High Protector of the Dark Brotherhood

Justicar's Opinion

Posted By Kir Katarn - 3/31/2007

Justicar's Opinion – Case #011 DB vs. Dismal Visutor al'Tor

The complaint brought against Dismal Visutor al'Tor was that of Dereliction of Duty. He was accused of logging into the administration functions of the Brotherhood website using another member's PIN/password, and vandalizing said member's dossier. The complaint was brought forward by this member, who received an email stating he had requested dossier changes when he had done no such thing.

After discussing the situation with both parties and checking to make sure the IP addresses did indeed match, the Chamber brought forth the charge of Dereliction of Duty. Dismal, as an Aedile, had failed in his responsibility as a leader by using another members private login information purely for the purpose of vandalization. Once the charge was put forward, Dismal plead guilty, and the Chamber moved to the sentencing phase as outlined in the Covenant.

Dismal recognized the error and immaturity of his actions, and has apologized for his choice. The Chamber wishes to make clear that such violations will not be tolerated, and the Brotherhood's leaders are expected to maintain a higher standard of behavior. However due to his recognition of guilt and apology, the Chamber has chosen to punish Dismal with only a Letter of Reprimand and a three-month period of probation.

Signed and Sealed in Justice,


Dark Side Adept Kir Taldrya Katarn

Justicar and High Protector of the Dark Brotherhood

Points of Interest

This case did not contain any interesting precedents or topics for discussion. It was the first time that a defendant had acknowledged guilt and publicly apologized before being ordered to do so by the Chamber, which was why the Justicar withdrew the intended demotion from the sentence.