Qoymans Court Rejected cases

Chronological order from bottom to top.

Rejected case #13

Victim: Male(A)

Cause and effect: Gunshot resulting in death

Accused: Male(B)

Reason(s): Male(B) claims to have killed Male(A) for righteousness and for the victim's money. Male(B) justified his action because Male(A) was a convicted murderer that was given too light of a sentence due to his nation's inadequate penalties. Male(B) is of no relation to Male(A) or his previous victims and is working for profit as a rogue counter criminal who uses criminal tactics for profit against criminals.

Consequence: To be determined by Qoymans

Explanation #13

The case contains the value judgement "too light a sentence". Facts are needed as to what the sentence and the crime were, to enable assessment as to whether or not the sentence was too light.

Rejected case #12

Billi J.K. Marteling discovered that his toddler daughter was kidnapped by his next door neighbor. His criminal neighbor called him on the phone to tell him of the kidnapping and it was revealed that the kidnapper and victim were at a secret location. Mr. Marteling went next door to question the kidnapper's wife, but she seemed resistant and evasive. Mr. Marteling then decided to torture the criminal's wife by using pulses of painful electrical current applied to her chest in order to prod her in to giving more information. It ultimately did not work. The criminal neighbor was eventually killed by the police and the daughter was returned alive and traumatized. The kidnapper’s wife turned out to have no awareness of her husband’s intent, plans, or motivation for the kidnapping. So what is the verdict for Mr. Marteling?

Explanation #12

This case is rejected primarily for asking a verdict on the wrong person. Mr. Marteling is innocent, the responsibility for his torturing the kidnapper's wife lying exclusively with the kidnapper, who has given cause for this torture through the act of committing his crime. Anyone who commits a crimes gives cause for defence violence against one and those around one, and bears the guilt of that violence in full. Since the kidnapper is already dead, there is little point in issuing a verdict (technically such is entirely possible but the Court refuses it in this case, as the present case submittor has a history of submitting cases on the verge of rejection, and one has to draw the line somewhere).

Other problems with this case are: (1) How can it be known that the wife had no awareness of her husband's intentions? (2) Clearly the location of the kidnapper and child was identified at some point, so something ultimately did work; how can it be known that the torture has not helped after all, for instance by inciting the wife to take some anonymous action to let the police find out the location? (3) To "reveal" that certain persons are at a secret location is not to reveal anything at all; while this can be understood as irony, the Court suspects the submittor does not mean it that way. (4) It is unlikely that someone would kidnap his neighbour's daughter and make himself known to the victim's father, for how could such a kidnapper expect to go unpunished after the ransom had been paid and daughter returned? The victim's father would, after all, know the identity and address of the culprit, and could simply inform the police of what had happened after release of the victim, and there would never have been any reason to torture the wife for information. The case submittor is reprimanded for submitting such a weak and unrealistic case, and is advised to submit much fewer cases, but of much higher quality.

Rejected case #11

Ethan Aseren was turned in to the U.U.P.D. by notorious TEPA activist, Dik Slaschedel. Mr. Aseren is being charged with killing animals that were pets. His accuser, Mr. Slaschedel, insists that it was established as a crime in verdict #55 that killing pet animals was punishable by death and therefore Mr. Aseren should be executed.

Mr. Aseren is outraged because it is part of his job to kill animals that were brought to the Dogcow City animal shelter due to being abandoned by their owners. The shelter subsequently was required to destroy the animals they were unable to place for adoption. He cites the long established history of the animal shelter and its sanctioning by the city of Dogcow to help control the abandoned animal population.

U.U.P.D. confirms that thousands of animals have been killed by Mr. Aseren in compliance with the Dogcow city code. Mr. Slaschedel wants it established that the Dogcow city code is unethical and Mr. Aseren should be made an example of.

Judge, one side is seeing a pet holocaust the other side does nazi. What do you see?

Explanation #11

This case is invalid for the following reasons, which are each in themselves sufficient: (1) Unexplained abbreviations occur in the case; the case submittor is again reminded of what has been pointed out already, even as recently as in Rejected case #10 which the submittor has clearly not studied: that cases are judged as submitted; that is, that only the information provided in the case is utilized; that is, that no outside knowledge is employed. Unexplained abbreviations can therefore never be used (and the moment they are explained they become superfluous, rendering no excuse whatsoever to ever use them). (2) The accuser refers to a previous verdict erroneously; verdict #55 establishes not that killing pet animals is punishable by death, but merely constitutes an example of the killing of a pet animal without making that generic statement. (3) The accuser is acting inconsistently in on the one hand claiming that the city code is unethical, and on the other hand wanting someone prosecuted who is merely doing one's job in compliance with that code. The only logical and consistent course of action would be against the city.

Rejected case #10

Genetickle Pickles, Inc. developed and patented a genetically modified cucumber that was resistant to its proprietary herbicide. Through an unknown means the cucumbers were cross-pollinated with many of Ben Beek's GMO-free cucumbers. Genetickle Pickles, Inc. is now suing Ben Beek and his company, I Brook Farms, in Qoymans Court for theft of intellectual property. Ben Beek states he did not steal their property and demands Genetickle Pickles, Inc. remove their invasive GMO plants from I Brook Farms as they have ruined his GMO-free crop.

Please help them find justice to their cumbersome pickle.

Explanation #10

This case is invalid for several reasons: The "its" in the first sentence is ambiguous as it can refer to either "Genetickle Pickles, Inc." or "a genetically modified cucumber". It is also not explained what the word "GMO" means. The case submittor is reminded that cases are judged as submitted. No outside knowledge is employed, and cases may not refer to outside knowledge. All relevant information must be included in the case itself.

Rejected case #9

Stanley Milligram is a Corporal in his nation's army. He is told by his superiors that an obese prisoner is an enemy of the their nation and must be executed by being tossed into a giant juicer. Corporal Milligram doesn't have any other knowledge about the prisoner and does what he is told. Stanley tosses the prisoner into the juicer and the execution order is fulfilled. Months later Stanley discovers that his superiors were clandestinely scapegoating obese people and were simultaneously very pro-juice. His nation's army is captured by the forces of the Yiddish United Material Masticators (who are very anti-juice) and he becomes a P.O.W.

YUMM is kindly asking Judge Qoymans to weigh-in on the fate of Corporal Milligram.

Explanation #8

This case is invalid as the wrong person is led before the Court, it being explicitly stated that it was the person's superiors who were occupied with something clandestine. Also, the second sentence of the case is ambiguous as it can be understood as meaning that obese prisoners in general are enemies of the nation, while from the third sentence one would guess that a particular prisoner is meant; this however needs to be made explicit, as otherwise it could afterwards be claimed that the opposite of what the Court understood was meant. The fifth sentence again suggests it is about obese people in general.

Rejected case #8

Kip Slager went in for his morning flogging before he started his work day on the killing floor at Universal Exotic Poultry Processors. His flogger would begin by removing a 120 cm long by 1 cm thick Spanish straw soaked in salt water for 8 hours. Kip would assume the position and his flogger would administer a single lashing for each of the chickens Kip had killed the previous work day. Kip reconciled his moral dilemma about his job by referring to verdict #23 in Qoymans Quort and he took his punishment.

Kip didn't think anything of it when the company announced its plan to produce a new line of low fat budgie burgers and parakeet patties. Kip showed up to his work station on the cervical dislocation line and began popping budgie and parakeet necks at high speed as the production pace required. But when his coworker, Buddy Harassmussen, told him about verdict #55, Kip began to panic. Had verdict #23 been superseded by verdict #55 when it comes to parakeets? Or were parakeets never on the same level of awareness as cows, pigs, and horses? Is Kip even committing a crime? Is Kip an unethical person who should not be making money? Should Kip be put to...death?

Judge Qoymans, there are so many questions about Kip's situation that I'm afraid that justice itself may have been twisted like a chicken head.

Explanation #8

This case is invalid as the number of chickens killed daily by an industrial slaughterer is such that the "daily" flogging would take a not small multiple of a full working day, and therefore could never be administered in the morning of each working day. The butcher could not function, eat or sleep, as almost all of his time would be filled with being flogged. Out of kindness it is furthermore pointed out that killing a pet animal is not equivalent to killing an animal bred specifically to be killed and eaten.

Rejected case #7

Woodstock Rustig was a hippy who lived in a tent next to a placid lake. His nearest neighbor, Dr. Aanval Zaag, lived several hundred feet away. Mr. Rustig suffered from an extreme sensitivity to sound and had been consoled by Dr. Zaag, a psychologist by trade, many times for his neurosis. Although Mr. Rustig was not under Dr. Zaag's professional care, he trusted Dr. Zaag and they had lived as neighbors in harmony for several years. But one day, for some unknown reason, Dr. Zaag decided to take his circular saw and cut wood down by the tent next to the placid lake. He did not warn Mr. Rustig and the sudden ear piercing decibels of the circular saw shocked Mr. Rustig out of his tent. Mr. Rustig took his heavy necklace off and proceded to beat Dr. Zaag with it repeatedly. Dr. Zaag was admitted to the hospital with much pain and dozens of peace sign shaped bruises all over his body, but was otherwise unharmed.

Judge Qoymans, all we are saying is give justice a chance. What will the Judge say about the heard saw?

Explanation #7

This case is too similar to Case #55. That the neighbour knew about the the hypersensitivity makes no difference judicially, as it does not deprive him of the right to use his saw.

Rejected case #6

Dear, Judge Qoymans, please use your mighty powers to see with clarity in this matter.

Twins Larry and Barry both consume an amount of alcohol that gives them a blood alcohol level above the legal limit. They both jump into their respective cars and go driving.

Larry kills someone while in operation of his vehicle and is caught by the police, Barry returns home safely without killing anybody.

Should they be judged the same because it was only by chance that Larry killed someone?

What punishment should they each receive?

Explanation #6

This case is invalid as Barry has not been caught, so that the question whether he should be judged the same is pointless. Also because, as far as Barry is concerned, this is essentially a repetition of Case #6. Case submittors must first study all prior cases to ascertain their case is unique. Had Barry been caught, then, following the logic of Case #6, he would indeed have been judged the same as Larry, both being guilty by negligence.

Rejected case #5

King Skul had lured people into his newly formed world by promising them capital punishment of criminals. Many were persuaded to move to his world and pursue lives within such a progressive and increasingly secure constitution. But one day King Skul read the following quote:

"Success is achieved by developing our strengths, not by eliminating our weaknesses"--Marilyn Vos Savant

King Skul consequently decided that this meant society should reward and train the morally righteous and society should not eliminate evil criminals. He told the people that in order to create a successfully safe and secure society we must "develop our strengths, not eliminate our weaknesses". Criminals were no longer "eliminated".

The people were horrified. They cried out to the U.U.P.D. who tracked down King Skul, pulled him out of the shadows and arrested him.

The King protested that he should not be arrested because he was sovereign by the choice of the people. Further, he argued, such decisions on running the kingdom are within his authority.

The people pleaded with Judge Qoymans that insufficient (or non-existent) punishment of criminals is itself a crime. King Skul was therefore a criminal and had betrayed their confidence.

What in the world will Judge Qoymans decide about King Skul?

Explanation #5

This case is invalid as it contains internal errors or inconsistencies, and because it does not contain a concrete crime, but only a decision by a king which has apparently not been effectuated yet. As already said so often, it is undoable for the Court to point out each and any error in a submitted case, and that is also not the task of the Court.

Out of kindness, the most serious error will be explained: The words "safe" and "secure" are misused here. The expression "increasingly secure constitution" is screamingly misplaced in this context ("decreasingly secure" would fit), and the expression "safe and secure society" is self-contradictory, as it is either the one or the other, but not both. A safe society needs no security, and a society where security is needed is evidently not safe. Punishment is not security! Security is when people are required to lock their houses, cars, and bicycles, and watch their steps because there are criminals on the loose and the judicial system is on those criminals' rather than on their victims' side. A safe society is a no-locks-needed society, where everyone can feel at ease and breathe freely in the certainty that bad deeds are not tolerated or even that there are very few bad people to begin with. Forget not that punishment is merely a temporary policy that becomes unneeded once the population's quality has reached a certain level - this is so because good people do not commit crimes and can by no circumstances be brought to commit crimes -, and that other policies next to punishment must be implemented simultaneously to that end.

Rejected case #4

Miss America insisted to the world that she was a Christian and that Jesus forgave her. She became a darling of the news media as she attempted to run in her stilettos from Justice, OK to the O.K. Corral in Tombstone, AZ. Ironically, her enema detonated somewhere between Las Cruces, NM and Lordsburg, NM. This gave rise to an emerging protest against Judge Qoymans which, in an act of further irony, came to be known as "the Miss America Movement".

The annual march against Qoymans was a 120 mile trek along Interstate 10 from Las Cruces to Lordsburg. Protesters wore stilettos and hung crucifixes around their necks to show their disapproval of the Judge. Supporters proudly consumed Ploppy Soup and blew up semtex enemas inside effigies of Judge Qoymans. That is until the U.U.P.D. arrested one of the Miss America Movement attendees for the following crime:

The U.U.P.D. caught a gentleman name Mr. Hardchick cooling off the unaware protestors travelling down the highway in the light with a power mister that contained water mixed with his own vomit. Mr. Hardchick is now presented before Judge Qoymans for judgement.

What will Judge Qoymans do with the mister Mister and take what was wrong and make it right? How will the Judge heave justice upon the gentleman Hardchick? Will the Judge pass the barf exam?

Explanation #4

This case is invalid as said Miss America has been convicted in Case #52, and convicts of this court are not able or allowed to "insist" anything to the "world". Therefore this case could never have taken place.

In actuality, this is to the great advantage of Miss America, for had she "insisted" that Jesus forgave here, this would have been blasphemy, as it is up to Christ to decide whom he forgives, not up to the possibly forgiven oneself. To claim to have been forgiven implies to assume the throne of our Lord. Religious movements would have considered such "insisting" proof of Miss America's being the concubine of the Goat of Mendes, and called for her being burnt at the stake rather than protesting against the good Judge Qoymans.

Another reason why this case is rejected is that the described crime of Mr. Hardchick (which could never have taken place as explained) is essentially a repetition of Case #52. Feces in soup and vomit in a mister reside in the same category - to which the present case submittor appears to feel attracted - and the punishment for Mr. Hardchick would have been the same as that for the cooks.

Rejected case #3

A man awakes in an emergency room covered in blood and stricken with retrograde amnesia. He knows where he is and he knows his name is Heathcliff, but he does not know why he is in the emergency room. However, he does complain of a sharp pain in his heart.

Detective Brontë alerts Judge Qoymans that the recently murdered body of a young woman named Cathy has been found lying on a path in Thrushcross Grange. She goes over the details of the crime scene in great specificity for the Judge. But Judge Qoymans is not satisfied. He heads to the scene of the crime to gather evidence for himself.

The crime scene is puzzling and full of ambiguities. There was a struggle. There is a lot of blood. There were definitely at least two people (including the victim). Judge Qoymans is looking at a smudge that may be a clue to a third person being involved. As he concentrates on the smudge, he suddenly hears a rustle and turns to see a woman in a red dress in the distance.

He yells for her to halt! But she cannot hear him through the wuthering wind. He runs after her in great haste (the Judge is an exceptional runner), but the woman disappears behind a bush as a limousine drives her to obscurity.

Judge Qoymans's cell phone rings. It is Detective Brontë. She tells Judge Qoymans that the blood on Heathcliff is a positive match to the victim Cathy. Judge Qoymans hangs up the phone and does some math in his head. The Judge concludes that there is a 51% chance of Heathcliff being the murderer.

A cold wind blows across the moors. There is a knock on the window of the court. It is justice. What does Judge Qoymans decide about Heathcliff to let justice in?

Explanation #3

This is a case for the police, not for the Court. Judge Qoymans deals with cases wherein it is explicitly stated or has been established by police or detective work what happened and who did what, after which the Judge handles the ethical and judicial aspects.

In addition, the case contains false assumptions; Judge Qoymans has no cell phone, and has not computed a 51% chance. And, sentences should be separated by single spaces, not double ones, as in hypertext markup language multiple spaces are displayed as single spaces, so that using double spaces only wastes bandwidth and web space, which is why they have been kindly replaced by single ones by the Judge (the Judge is an exceptional web page creator).

Rejected case #2

Mr. A apent his entire life telling the truth, seeking after justice, and had no fun. Mr. B had fun for his entire lifetime. Each of them had his own way for making life better.

They are both sitting in my room and I have a slice of pizza in my hand, who should I give it to?

Explanation #2

This is not a case at all since there is no crime in it. Non-cases like this only waste the valuable time of Judge Qoymans and will therefore not be considered hereafter even in Rejected cases. As a final accommodation and out of infinite kindness and naivety, the following inconsistencies and omissions are willingly pointed out:

The remark that Mr. A had no "fun" is irrelevant, and also incompatible with the description of his life as there is nothing that brings more "fun", and satisfaction, than telling the truth and being just. Missing is data on what Mr. B has done in his life, or for making life better. The information, phrased in the first person, that the suspects are seated in the non-case submittor's room, and which variant of nutrition is in possession of the latter, and in which body part said variant is contained, as well as the subsequent question, are downright ridiculous. The whole non-case betrays contempt for the Court and breathes the atmosphere of a celebration of non-conscientiousness. The submittor is kindly severely reprimanded.

Rejected case #1

Walter Kovacs is retarded (low functioning autism). Due to his inferior genetic makeup, he is a serial lawbreaker (since he has no understanding of rules) who twice (been adopted) killed his parents by pouring soap into their soup.

Is he innocent for not being aware to his menace to society? Shouldn't he be SEVERELY punished? (execution)

Explanation #1

This is not a valid case because of internal errors, and treatment of it would consist mainly of explanation, which is undesirable in the Verdict room, where the primary aim is to issue a verdict.

A person with low functioning autism as described is unlikely to be a serial lawbreaker and murderer as described. Such a person is extremely inhibited and would be so shocked by the upheaval of the first murder case that he would not do it again to avoid the stress of it. Had the case been about the killing of one pair of parents only, it had been valid.

Had the case been about a retarded non-autistic person, it had been valid.

Had the case been about a non-retarded autistic person, it had been valid.

But such a "forked" verdict, addressing all of these variations, is not desirable; One must simply formulate a valid case to receive a verdict. Otherwise anyone could keep the good Judge busy as a rat in a treadmill. It is no easy task to formulate a valid case, and for many it is a full-time occupation to supply the Supreme Court over the United Universes with tantalizing dilemmas.

In addition and out of kindness, it is pointed out that low-functioning autistic persons do occasionally commit crimes, such as cutting of the legs of a canary, squeezing a mouse to death, or throwing away a baby with its bathing water. Even poisoning parents is not out of the question.

Also, retarded persons in general do commit crimes sometimes. However, most criminals are not retarded but have I.Q.s between 70 and 100. Below 70 crime decreases steeply, because even crime requires intelligence, and because there are ever fewer people, the lower you go in I.Q.

To avoid confusion, it is explained that "retarded" means to have an I.Q. below 70, while nowadays one speaks of "borderline retardation" (or one of many euphemisms for that) in relation to I.Q.s from 70 to as high as 85. In popular speak, the term "retarded" is often used more loosely, but true retardation is not likely in serial criminals.