Atlasia v. Antonio V

[Ebowed]

A consolidation of facts from both the Attorney General and the defendant's council would be appreciated before moving forward.

[Ebowed]

If the Court permisses, I would like to make a statement as amicus curiae in this case on behalf of Antonio V

Absolutely.

[Ebowed]

Jury selection is presently in the process of recruiting.  The plaintiff should feel free to bring in any witnesses, assuming they have not already spoken.

[Ebowed]

Ok, Marokai, but if we use your logic now, everyone can easily claim "no, it wasn't malicious" etc.

I would advise against suggesting this as a potential precedent, because yes; anyone can claim a lack of malicious intent.  In order to analyze this case properly we must consider not only the defendant's claim but any facts that might corroborate his assertion.  If we are to find that he is not guilty, that does not necessarily indicate that anyone can just claim to be innocent and then be acquitted.  This being said, there are legitimate reasons to consider the argument you are providing as being contrary to the spirit of the statute that has enabled this lawsuit.  The hinging clause clearly restricts itself to decidedly malicious behavior, and whether the defendant's actions were truly malicious is not as clear-cut as you seem to suggest.

Mr. Attorney General, do you believe that the defendant's actions can be accurately described as malicious in light of the steps he took to communicate with his adversary?  Would you go so far as to say that these public records enhance the strength of your case?

I will have some questions for the defendant soon also.

[Ebowed]

I believe this case may become precedental for simple reasons: the issue was never brought to the court, we have a lot of problems defining a status of party colours and, last but not least, this is the first prosecution under a section regarding wiki vandalization.

The manner in which the law is applied, and the narrowness of the lens with through it is interpreted, may indeed be affected by the outcome of this case.  Your allegation, however, that someone could simply claim that they were not malicious and then subsequently be let off the hook has no basis in reality.

Now, while you may not value the intent of the defendant, but rather the result of his actions, my understanding of the law that you are requiring us to consider is that the behavior be decidedly malicious -- so once again, I ask, and this time I certainly expect an actual response, do you feel as though Antonio V was committing an act of malice in light of his publicly available efforts to negotiate with Libertas?  If not, what about his actions point specifically towards malicious intent?

[Ebowed]

Of course parties have the right to choose their own colors. It's part of the fun. You know, name, logo, slogan, motto, platform, colors; it's what gives a virtual party an identity.

I am absolutely inclined to agree with you that parties have a moral right to choose their own color and other related efforts to control their cosmetic representation on the Wiki or on the forum.  I am also sympathetic to your claim of suffering continual harassment, or the perception thereof.  I am curious as to whether you made any attempt on the forum to address the issue publicly?  Opening this thread was the first I had heard of this series of events, and I am wondering whether non-legal avenues of persuasion were tried first.  I am minded to believe that a potential response from the defendant to such a public opinion piece would provide serious insight as to what motivation possessed him to repeatedly make these Wiki edits.

[Ebowed]

Nobody here is going to be arguing any cases they don't have any agreement with.  The fact that this has erupted as a point of controversy, out of anything else from this thread, is confounding and disappointing.  I can't even begin to comprehend the implication that the Attorney General is somehow improper for not being able to argue on behalf of this case when prior to his appointment he was providing help in this very thread to the defendant.  If anything, impropriety would be in not recognizing a potential conflict of interest.

Unrelated, but we are encountering a lot of difficulty in finding people who are active and willing to serve on the jury.

[Ebowed]

For those seeking a resolution to this case, it is my opinion that the prosecution effectively withdrew from consideration its arguments, rendering the case pointless at best, and an ungrounded accusation of wrongdoing at worst.

Never was I or anyone else watching ever presented with evidence that the defendant pursued his course of action with decidedly malicious intent, with multiple opportunities given to answer this explicitly simply ignored, and as the central question relating to the application of this particular statute, it is difficult to entertain that the arguments presented by the plaintiff have much merit, or indeed warrant anyone's careful consideration.  I make no judgment as to the nature of Antonio's intentions in editing the Wiki: only failure to see any proof of malicious intent.

[Ebowed]

Yes, good thing Antonio got his friend Ebowed to show up and help out a fellow JCPer rather than assemble the jury the rest of us have been waiting for.

Ebowed's failure to even pretend to have considered the substantial amount of argument that already took place makes this an especially embarrassing case of corruption here in Soviet Atlasia.

Actually, I am only concerned in dealing with facts, and I have no affinity for Antonio V for being a member of the JCP any more than I do for Kalwejt.

[Ebowed]

I admire the talent you seem to possess in crafting wonderful paranoid prose in virtually any circumstance, and I am thoroughly amused at some of these accusations, but nonetheless, you are simply entertaining notions of an alternate reality, and I can only give you my word so many times that I am not actually some sort of Soviet bureaucrat who seeks to pervert the justice system in the name of power accumulation.  If you didn't accuse everyone else of nearly exactly the same thing, and with such tiring levels of frequency, perhaps we could take it seriously.  Instead, the boy who cried wolf has been something of a lost cause for quite some time, since no one goes to check on him anymore, but we can only assume we are dealing with a carcass.

[Ebowed]

I don't call people names. Where did I do this? "Fascist" is a political ideological label, not an example of name-calling.

I guess this is why American politicians are always referring to themselves as fascists.