Atlasia v. Jesus

[King]

I looked up the Pacific laws and you are right, so I guess our only eligible jurors from Jesus' state are:

Alcon
CultureKing
jerusalemcar5
Reignman

[King]

I will need the prosecutors charges and an opening statement asap.

Jesus is being charged with one count of maliciously editing the Atlas Wiki and one count of posting a thread of a sexual nature as made illegal in the Consolidated Criminal Justice Act. 

On August 9th 2007 at approximately 5:47 AM Pacific Daylight Time, Governor Jesus, using the alias "bgwah," modified the page for Atlas member dazzleman to note that he was a suspected pedophile who had a "very strong interest" in fellow member Rin-chan.  Members of the jury and Justice Texasgurl, regardless of what dazzleman was or was not, such harsh and potentially damaging acquisitions by the defendant are nothing but baseless opinions posted not through a private venue but on the Atlas Wiki: a government project which prides and requires itself to deliver nothing but on-topic facts about this forum.  This is an open and shut case.  The defendant has shown no remorse for his crime and I ask that the judicial system act accordingly.  If he is allowed to post such libel and bias claims about other members, then we might as well not have a legal system at all.

That's all the prosecution has to say at this time.

[King]

The statements regarding Opebo were originally posted on September 23, 2005 and then later edited with illegal content still included on January 28, 2006 while the Consolidated Criminal Justice Act was not signed into law until September 16th, 2006.  In addition, the statements regarding BRTD are insufficiently dated to be substantial evidence. 

Therefore, these incidents have no bearing on this case as it was not illegal to post such material on the Atlas Wiki at the time in which they occurred and the prosecution asks that the court strike all mentions of them from the record.

[King]

The defense is aware of the dating of these items and we are making a point about the double standard being applied here when two forumites can suffer vicious and slanderous descriptions that belittle their character for years, while the edit to dazzleman's profile was not tolerated for more than a couple days. 

The slanderous descriptions of BRTD and Opebo were LEGAL when posted and therefore a crime was not committed so there was no legal backing for outrage.  Regardless of how damaging they may have been, it's all ex post facto and shouldn't be allowed to be part of this case.

Have you spoken with dazzleman to see if he wishes for legal action to occur out of this incident?  Even if he has requested this, he has not even made a minor appearance anywhere to demonstrate that he is aware of or upset by this event.

The damage was technically done on government property so dazzleman's opinion is not required although it would be welcomed testimony.  If somebody modified the Pacific region page to say something bad about the region as a whole, there wouldn't need to be a special election held to see if the region should press charges.

You could also insinuate that dazzleman, who is now inactive, left the forum due to such ridicule.  However, I'm not going to resort to that circumstantial tactic like the defense and ask that my insinuation be stricken from the record.

Gov. Jesus has apologized for the incident, in any event, making this entire exercise unnecessary.

It is hard to believe such an apology as it conflicts with other statements such as the following:

The only thing I did wrong was saying teenage instead of teenaged, and for that I apologize.

Also, the prosecution wishes to drop the count of posting a thread of a sexual nature as a upon further review of the evidence I had planned to submit, pursuing the charge would be a waste of the court's time as this is not a Supreme Court case.

[King]

Alright, where do we go from here?

[King]

I think I'm done.

[King]

The defense maintains Gov. Jesus' innocence.

It is hard to believe such an apology as it conflicts with other statements such as the following:

The only thing I did wrong was saying teenage instead of teenaged, and for that I apologize.

The apology I referenced is dated later than the one you quote, so therefore one can only assume that the repentance displayed afterwards was genuine remorse.

Very well, but I request the later apology be quoted into evidence.

[King]

Opebo has already stated his opinion on this case in this thread so his neutrality would be questionable.

[King]

Opebo has already stated his opinion on this case in this thread so his neutrality would be questionable.

And you're my gubernatorial opponent.

I stated when I declared that it would be a joke candidacy and I didn't even vote for myself.  Well, technically I casted an invalid vote, but if it were valid I wouldn't have voted for myself.

Point being: Texasgurl said it's ok and I even offered to dropout if it became an issue.

[King]

I presume if the jury trial is waived, does it turn into regular Supreme Court form of 3 justices or is it just a single trial by judge?

[King]

That makes no sense, KIL.  How can one give an opinion if one is neutral?  If we as judges are expected to both give opinions and be neutral, I think you can see this is a legal conundrum. 

I didn't say you WERE neutral.  I said it would be QUESTIONABLE to think THAT YOU WOULD BE neutral.


Judges aren't supposed to give opinions before the trial and before either case is fully presented, opebo, and you did.   You said any law Jesus may have broken was unconstitutional and that you wish the court not take this case.  It's no wonder Jesus is jumping up and down hoping you'd be the judge when you side your opinions with defendant pretrial.

[King]

That was precisely my point - as a judge, I cannot be neutral.  You suggested that I should be.

You can't be neutral when it's time to make a decision on a verdict, but you have to be neutral before the trial even begins.  You can't say or give the impression of "I believe the defendant should win this case" before the trial.  That's not a fair case.