Sure, it is not binding, as I said, but we touched upon many subjects such as double jeopardy, what constitutes a trial, what are the elements of a trial in Talossa, etc. At least, the Ziu and the Ministry of Justice should take notice of this, and maybe implement some of these findings into law. But in order to do that, knowing what arguments the Justice actually accepted might be helpful, if not strictly necessary.

And, as for example in England, the Government can still try to have points of case law overturned or corrected in another appeal, if it believes that things were handled incorrectly. This case has effectively only found that any such appeal, correction, nullification, etc. would have no effect on an acquittal handed down, because of the bar on double jeopardy.

How can the Ziu and the Ministry of Justice take notice of this case when the only reason that Panache got away with committing a crime is because a single errant justice completely disregard statutory law?

As it relates to double jeopardy, the Cort is basically saying that the mere act of labeling something an acquittal, even when it was not, makes it an acquittal.  Basically, we needn't define words because you get to make it up as you go.  Anyway, I'm done arguing about this.

While this matter cannot be further appealed, and therefore is indeed not binding per se, it can still prove at least persuasive to future Corts and general jurisprudence in Talossa. And I think it should be given the chance to do just that; there were a lot of arguments from all sides that merit deeper contemplation, debate, recording, and reasoning. All in all, the obiter dicta and rationes dicendi of this case would be invaluable to future jurisprudence.

There's no need for deeper contemplation.  The case will be recorded on the Wiki, and it can be cited, and a wise attorney will note that it is not binding and that the case helps your client in the short run but hurts the Rule of Law by allowing a single errant justice to disregard statutory law.  I really don't see how you can splice this any other way.

While this matter cannot be further appealed, and therefore is indeed not binding per se, it can still prove at least persuasive to future Corts and general jurisprudence in Talossa. And I think it should be given the chance to do just that; there were a lot of arguments from all sides that merit deeper contemplation, debate, recording, and reasoning. All in all, the obiter dicta and rationes dicendi of this case would be invaluable to future jurisprudence.

Indeed, I find this case to be of the utmost importance to Talossan jurisprudence. I really hope that the Cort will write up a more detailed reasoning of their judgement, just to understand what exactly they hold to actually be valid in the Talossan legal system.

First off, the wording of the 508 error is misleading, and by the way error 508 does not even exist as a standard HTML code. The problem is not bandwidth, it's simply 100% CPU usage on our server. This happens routinely (every Sunday) for a few seconds when Witt and Wiki are backed up.

Regarding yesterday's lengthy outage, it was caused by a number of identical processes clogging up the resources. These processes are all instances of the php-cgi parser, so I assume that something, somewhere, is freezing the parser. (Note that you can't see this through cPanel, you have to manually SSH in.)

There is an "easy" temporary fix, until we troubleshoot further - simply schedule a killall -9 "php" as a cron job, every few minutes. Since normal php requests take less than seconds, you would be very unlucky to kill a legit request (and I don't think it would be a huge hassle if it happened), while you should easily clear away any stuck processes.