Atlasia v. Sewer Socialist

[bullmoose88]

Very Well,

After looking at the proffered evidence in regards to its admissibility and finding it is inadmissible, and seeing no other admissible evidence, I see no reason why this case should proceed further.  I am granting defense counsel's motion to dismiss the case; however, I should like to remind all parties that a jury has NOT been impanelled meaning jeopardy to the defendant did NOT attach during these proceedings.

So Ordered.

[bgwah]

If I may ask a random question not directly related to the case itself...

Why was this done almost entirely over PM?

[Franzl]

FTR, this post got eaten by the thread:

Very Well,

After looking at the proffered evidence in regards to its admissibility and finding it is inadmissible, and seeing no other admissible evidence, I see no reason why this case should proceed further.  I am granting defense counsel's motion to dismiss the case; however, I should like to remind all parties that a jury has NOT been impanelled meaning jeopardy to the defendant did NOT attach during these proceedings.

So Ordered.

[bullmoose88]

If I may ask a random question not directly related to the case itself...

Why was this done almost entirely over PM?

I chose to conduct much of the proceedings over PM because I did not want to taint the jury pool.  If the evidence you had presented was all admissible, then we could have done it all publically.  If on the other hand you had some admissible evidence and some inadmissible, then the inadmissible could have so biased the jury that there might be grounds for a mistrial in my view.

That said, the decision to hold a private preliminary type hearing was something I deemed appropriate at the time and welcome suggestions from you and everyone else interested as to how I could balance the interest of an unbiased jury with more open proceedings (which I am very much in favor of save certain circumstances).  Feel free to state them here, or in the court thread or PM me.  I'm not perfect and ideas are always welcome, as is constructive criticism.

A few final notes, in one sense it was unfortunate things were done by PM because both the AG and defense counsel did a very good job analogizing and distinguishing case law and statutes. Both were patient with me and my questioning and argued their cases well.  I look forward to the next time I see them in court.

[Peter]

Seriously, the Constitution of this Republic was not established to allow a cheater to hide behind protections against unreasonable searches because the moderators thought of something before the AG did.

The Court has begun to lose track of what the word Justice means - their ruling means that Sewer Socialist will continue to have two votes in elections because it cannot be established before a Court that he has done what by any standard of incontravertable fact, he did.

One can reasonably assume that this decision has its basis in the Keystone Phil v. Atlasia decision, a decision of some infamy, because it was spectacularly wrong. I liked Phil, and did want him to get off, but ultimately, his conviction should have stood up, because he confessed openly that he was Jessica Walterstein.

I was one of the few moderators to have a relatively encompassing overview of the case, and it is staggering the misrepresentation the Court engaged in to ensure the succession of Phil to the Presidency. It was a coup on the scale of Bush v. Gore. It was only due to an illness that I did not argue against it more voiciferiously at the time, but I think it is important that I do so now so that Justice may be allowed to prevail:

THE IP CHECKS WERE NEVER FOLLOWED THROUGH CORRECTLY IN THE ORIGINAL CASE. ULTIMATELY KEYSTONE PHIL WAS IDENTIFIED ON BASIS OF POSTING STYLE AND CONFESSED BELIEVING THAT THE MODERATORS HAD SPRUNG HIM.

Therefore, the entire premise of the Walterstein ruling is bunk - there was no violation of privacy, even if the defendant thought there was, and therefore the confession should stand.

The case should be now overruled, if necessary, by Amendment to the Constitution.

[Franzl]

Seriously, the Constitution of this Republic was not established to allow a cheater to hide behind protections against unreasonable searches because the moderators thought of something before the AG did.

The Court has begun to lose track of what the word Justice means - their ruling means that Sewer Socialist will continue to have two votes in elections because it cannot be established before a Court that he has done what by any standard of incontravertable fact, he did.

One can reasonably assume that this decision has its basis in the Keystone Phil v. Atlasia decision, a decision of some infamy, because it was spectacularly wrong. I liked Phil, and did want him to get off, but ultimately, his conviction should have stood up, because he confessed openly that he was Jessica Walterstein.

I was one of the few moderators to have a relatively encompassing overview of the case, and it is staggering the misrepresentation the Court engaged in to ensure the succession of Phil to the Presidency. It was a coup on the scale of Bush v. Gore. It was only due to an illness that I did not argue against it more voiciferiously at the time, but I think it is important that I do so now so that Justice may be allowed to prevail:

THE IP CHECKS WERE NEVER FOLLOWED THROUGH CORRECTLY IN THE ORIGINAL CASE. ULTIMATELY KEYSTONE PHIL WAS IDENTIFIED ON BASIS OF POSTING STYLE AND CONFESSED BELIEVING THAT THE MODERATORS HAD SPRUNG HIM.

Therefore, the entire premise of the Walterstein ruling is bunk - there was no violation of privacy, even if the defendant thought there was, and therefore the confession should stand.

The case should be now overruled, if necessary, by Amendment to the Constitution.

I don't disagree with you, but this case only followed the precedent set by Atlasia v. Keystone Phil, and was therefore the only verdict this court could have reached, at least in my opinion.

I would certainly entertain the idea of passing a constitutional amendment that would change the status quo.

[bullmoose88]

If the gentleman has disagreements with the Keystone Phil case, I have no problem criticizing my logic in that case.  No problem with constructive criticism.

I do take a great deal of offense at his insinuation that the Court, namely myself and Justice Opebo, deliberately crafted an opinion to ensure the defendant-appellant would take the presidency.  If indeed this is what he wishes the reader to conclude from his remarks, that notion is outright ludicrous.

That all being said, if our ruling in Keystone Phil v. Atlasia so offends the general public and its legislators, by all means, change it by constitutional amendment.  That is a very appropriate mechanism to correct something you think we've done wrong.  That case has been on the books for more than a year and a half, if the warrant requirements and privacy findings were so offensive, why haven't they been addressed by amendment?

[Peter]

I think it is reasonably clear from Atlasian history, that Amendments to the Constitution are only passed when the full consequences of a constitutional provision or decision become apparent. I think only through recent cases are we beginning to discover these full consequences. With this knowledge, I advocate a change in the law.

As for your decision, I apologise for suggesting you intended to install Phil as a political move specifically, rather that you made the decision that created the most entertainment value in Atlasia, at least in the short term. To some extent I understand this move - Atlasia was in trouble at the time, and needed to be kept alive - its not unreasonable for the Court to see its moment and act, however, that doesnt make it legally consistent.

[Sam Spade]

I cannot speak towards the Keystone Phil opinion because I was not a member of the Court at that time.

It seems to me that if there are complaints about the present ruling or the past ruling discussed, the correct manner is to go through the appeals process.

[Peter]

Overriding judicial decisions by Constitutional Amendment is not unprecedented - see the 11th, 16th and 26th amendments to the US Constitution for example.

[Sam Spade]

Overriding judicial decisions by Constitutional Amendment is not unprecedented - see the 11th, 16th and 26th amendments to the US Constitution for example.

I understand.  And given the fact that two members of the Court clearly support the opinion in question makes the appeal unlikely to succeed. 

But I still think the first action should involve the AG appealing the dismissal of the case and challenging the evidentiary ruling.

[bullmoose88]

Overriding judicial decisions by Constitutional Amendment is not unprecedented - see the 11th, 16th and 26th amendments to the US Constitution for example.

I understand.  And given the fact that two members of the Court clearly support the opinion in question makes the appeal unlikely to succeed. 

But I still think the first action should involve the AG appealing the dismissal of the case and challenging the evidentiary ruling.

Now that I come to think of it, yes, those grounds are appealable.  Whatever you may think of me, I am open to arguments as to why I erred at trial.

[Bacon King]

So, with this ruling in effect, IS there even a mechanism under Atlasian law where posters registering double accounts can be punished?

[Franzl]

So, with this ruling in effect, IS there even a mechanism under Atlasian law where posters registering double accounts can be punished?

Yes I think so. This primarily deals with private IP checks.