The Advocate for Guilt has cited the existing precedent set by this Court in Ulpiaj v. Ulpiaj (7918), affirming that for one sophont to appropriate property from themselves in the past constitutes theft, inasmuch as a worldline-past time-slice of an individual cannot consent to the actions of a worldline-future time-slice.
However, in this case, we must instead affirm that for one sophont to appropriate property from themselves in the future cannot constitute theft, insofar as so doing is a performative act binding one’s future self, and a worldline-future time-slice has, ex sequens, consented to all voluntary actions of worldline-past time-slices of the same individual.
The Shareholders’ Court therefore finds for the DEFENDANT, Ulpiaj of 7994, who is VINDICATED upon all counts. The charges of the plaintiff, Ulpiaj of 8002, are DISMISSED.
– Ulpiaj v. Ulpiaj (8002),
Shareholders’ Court (City of Synchrony, Resplendent Exponential Vector)
Of course these are the people involved. Messing with the timeline is very them, and I suppose also a great way of finding new edge cases that the Curia hasn’t had to rule on yet.
This is a bit of a bump, but I just noticed the hilarious little detail; both the prior and the current court case are the same person. They stole from themselves, went to court over it, won and lost to themselves, and then a few decades later they did it again, but in reverse this time.
Whatever the context is, it must be amazing.
The question is whether this was part of their research, and whether they coauthored it with their temporal selves…
Ulpiaj (7918), Ulpiaj (7994), Ulpiaj (8002) et al.
Continue the discussion at eldraeverse.discourse.group