HHCL Board of Directors
No. 001-00
Plaintiff - The HHCL Board,
v.
the Montreal Canadians
Defendant - the Montreal Canadians.
Submitted: April #### 2017 Decided: April 4th, 2017
FACTS: The user "coit", who was drafted 6th overall by the Montreal Canadians, openly admitted to having been grounded for a significant portion of the season, however, the user "coit" still played throughout the season. The issue regarding this case is not in the matter of coit's rule-breaking. That is forthcoming on the proven evidence that can be presented by any one board member. The issue that will be described in this opinion is to conclude the reasoning behind the board's decision to take away 10 victories from the season, which would, in essence, eliminate them from playoff contention.
OPINION: There are multiple factors pertaining to the legal reasoning behind the docking of these victories. The most prominent being the involvement between the user ############ ########### ### #### of the Montreal Canadians, and the user coit. The defendant claims that their team had no knowledge of coit's involvement in this illegal scheme, and that there is no tangible evidence to prove this. However, it is within the board's jurisdiction that the association between the user coit, and the user Ghostrecon49 presents a reasonable means of suspicion regarding their knowledge and intent of the situation. Therefor, the issue in this case presented is: does the HHCL Board have the discretion to alter a team's standing based on an implication and implied evidence. The board has decided that this is the case. Implied, but not tangible evidence is prominent throughout this case, and those will be outlined further; there are several verbal testimonies by gh0strecon49 in which he claimed that he knew of coit cheating, however, he later reversed these statements as "jokes." The jokes argument is not an eligible reason of defense in the court of law, as seen in Schenck v. United States ( 249 U.S. 47) in which Justice ###### made the opinion that even though the defendant did not intend to incite any form of violence, you can still be tried with the intent of doing so (this is also the famous "shouting fire in a crowded theater" argument.) In addition, the user gh0strecon49 has, on numerous occasions, been tried and suspended with cheating crimes. Due to his previous infractions, it is not unreasonable to consider him and those associated him as being likely to re-offend, and as a result, the highest level of action should be taken upon any possible threats.
ETHICAL IMPLICATION: The precedent being set upon this case is that, with an overwhelming amount of implied evidence, does the HHCL board have the right to alter a team's win's? After strong review among the board, they have concluded that this is the case, and as a result, the Montreal Canadians will be docked 10 victories from their season 13 team.
BOARD VOTE: UNANIMOUS |