Voice Of The Zombies

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Apparently Libertas doesn't enjoy giving people complete quotes.

And I completely disagreed with what you were doing. Quite frankly, you had no earthly clue how to handle legal affairs, and you were doing this only because Purple State told you to.

Some of your arguments were completely ridiculous, too:

Also, I have a firm beflief that intentions are not important here. The results are.

That is possibly the dumbest thing the ATTORNEY GENERAL could have ever said in a case that is quite literally all about intent. The entire case revolves around trying to prove intent, and you just casually say "well, intent doesn't matter at all." It does because the entire law is about intent. You completely mishandled this case from the beginning, and Libertas totally abandoned the case after I made him the offer of appointing anyone he wanted.

This was never a case about the law. You prosecuted Antonio because you were under order to and wanted to look like you were nonpartisan by going after a member of your own party and Libertas didn't care about the law, he only cared about trying to have as little to do with the case as possible, so he could bitch about the outcome even if he totally abandoned the arguments. This case was a personal and partisan circus.

Kalwejt's previous argument I was highlighting and responding to is curiously absent in Libertas' propaganda piece of trash.

Which was irrelevant of course, since I was quoting you, not Kalwejt.

It's not irrelevant at all. That post of mine makes no sense whatsoever out of context, since the entire point of it was responding to that specific line from Kalwejt. Not including that makes it seem confusing and senselessly angry, which is precisely what your crackpot newspaper was intended to do to people anyway.

I assure it seems quite "confusing and senselessly angry" with or without Kalwejt's quote.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Once again, the entire point of that post was my desire to respond to that specific argument Kalwejt posted during his time as Attorney General. That's what the entire post is centered around Removing that tiny little snippet from Kalwejt eradicated the context and actually takes more effort than just keeping it in. You removed it because you didn't want my post to have any legitimacy when you quoted it, or it would be much harder to feign outrage over.

There's a striking difference between our respective papers. Mine actually cites things and includes necessary information to come to a conclusion. You might as well rename your paper "Isn't Libertas Grand?"

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Once again, the entire point of that post was my desire to respond to that specific argument Kalwejt posted during his time as Attorney General. That's what the entire post is centered around Removing that tiny little snippet from Kalwejt eradicated the context and actually takes more effort than just keeping it in. You removed it because you didn't want my post to have any legitimacy when you quoted it, or it would be much harder to feign outrage over.

There's a striking difference between our respective papers. Mine actually cites things and includes necessary information to come to a conclusion. You might as well rename your paper "Isn't Libertas Grand?"

Well no, you told Kalwejt "you had no earthly clue how to handle legal affairs" merely because he didn't obey your orders not to prosecute 'friends' of yours.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Once again, the entire point of that post was my desire to respond to that specific argument Kalwejt posted during his time as Attorney General. That's what the entire post is centered around Removing that tiny little snippet from Kalwejt eradicated the context and actually takes more effort than just keeping it in. You removed it because you didn't want my post to have any legitimacy when you quoted it, or it would be much harder to feign outrage over.

There's a striking difference between our respective papers. Mine actually cites things and includes necessary information to come to a conclusion. You might as well rename your paper "Isn't Libertas Grand?"

Well no, you told Kalwejt "you had no earthly clue how to handle legal affairs" merely because he didn't obey your orders not to prosecute 'friends' of yours.

If you could've proved "malicious intent" beyond "he was doing it so it had to be malicious!" I would've wanted the maximum penalty. My defense of the law is colorblind and my history proves it.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Once again, the entire point of that post was my desire to respond to that specific argument Kalwejt posted during his time as Attorney General. That's what the entire post is centered around Removing that tiny little snippet from Kalwejt eradicated the context and actually takes more effort than just keeping it in. You removed it because you didn't want my post to have any legitimacy when you quoted it, or it would be much harder to feign outrage over.

There's a striking difference between our respective papers. Mine actually cites things and includes necessary information to come to a conclusion. You might as well rename your paper "Isn't Libertas Grand?"

Well no, you told Kalwejt "you had no earthly clue how to handle legal affairs" merely because he didn't obey your orders not to prosecute 'friends' of yours.

If you could've proved "malicious intent" beyond "he was doing it so it had to be malicious!" I would've wanted the maximum penalty. My defense of the law is colorblind and my history proves it.

I'm affraid this CCJA section is botched and is making actual prosecution impossible.

Apart of Antonio now, everyone can defend "I had good intentions" and how are any prosecutor going to prove intentions were malicious?

This is my suggestions Senate might work on wording.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Once again, the entire point of that post was my desire to respond to that specific argument Kalwejt posted during his time as Attorney General. That's what the entire post is centered around Removing that tiny little snippet from Kalwejt eradicated the context and actually takes more effort than just keeping it in. You removed it because you didn't want my post to have any legitimacy when you quoted it, or it would be much harder to feign outrage over.

There's a striking difference between our respective papers. Mine actually cites things and includes necessary information to come to a conclusion. You might as well rename your paper "Isn't Libertas Grand?"

Well no, you told Kalwejt "you had no earthly clue how to handle legal affairs" merely because he didn't obey your orders not to prosecute 'friends' of yours.

If you could've proved "malicious intent" beyond "he was doing it so it had to be malicious!" I would've wanted the maximum penalty. My defense of the law is colorblind and my history proves it.

I'm affraid this CCJA section is botched and is making actual prosecution impossible.

Apart of Antonio now, everyone can defend "I had good intentions" and how are any prosecutor going to prove intentions were malicious?

This is my suggestions Senate might work on wording.

I absolutely agree, the wiki editing laws need revamped.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Once again, the entire point of that post was my desire to respond to that specific argument Kalwejt posted during his time as Attorney General. That's what the entire post is centered around Removing that tiny little snippet from Kalwejt eradicated the context and actually takes more effort than just keeping it in. You removed it because you didn't want my post to have any legitimacy when you quoted it, or it would be much harder to feign outrage over.

There's a striking difference between our respective papers. Mine actually cites things and includes necessary information to come to a conclusion. You might as well rename your paper "Isn't Libertas Grand?"

Well no, you told Kalwejt "you had no earthly clue how to handle legal affairs" merely because he didn't obey your orders not to prosecute 'friends' of yours.

If you could've proved "malicious intent" beyond "he was doing it so it had to be malicious!" I would've wanted the maximum penalty. My defense of the law is colorblind and my history proves it.

I'm affraid this CCJA section is botched and is making actual prosecution impossible.

Apart of Antonio now, everyone can defend "I had good intentions" and how are any prosecutor going to prove intentions were malicious?

This is my suggestions Senate might work on wording.

     FWIW, malice in real life is extremely difficult to prove, for the basic reason that you can't really get inside the defendant's mind. Of course there are ways it can be done, such as examining statements made by the defendant.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Once again, the entire point of that post was my desire to respond to that specific argument Kalwejt posted during his time as Attorney General. That's what the entire post is centered around Removing that tiny little snippet from Kalwejt eradicated the context and actually takes more effort than just keeping it in. You removed it because you didn't want my post to have any legitimacy when you quoted it, or it would be much harder to feign outrage over.

There's a striking difference between our respective papers. Mine actually cites things and includes necessary information to come to a conclusion. You might as well rename your paper "Isn't Libertas Grand?"

Well no, you told Kalwejt "you had no earthly clue how to handle legal affairs" merely because he didn't obey your orders not to prosecute 'friends' of yours.

If you could've proved "malicious intent" beyond "he was doing it so it had to be malicious!" I would've wanted the maximum penalty. My defense of the law is colorblind and my history proves it.

I'm affraid this CCJA section is botched and is making actual prosecution impossible.

Apart of Antonio now, everyone can defend "I had good intentions" and how are any prosecutor going to prove intentions were malicious?

This is my suggestions Senate might work on wording.

     FWIW, malice in real life is extremely difficult to prove, for the basic reason that you can't really get inside the defendant's mind. Of course there are ways it can be done, such as examining statements made by the defendant.

That's why we should to specify what exactly wiki vandalism is, instead of basing it on "malicious intentions", which are almost impossible to prove.

Get real, I can go right now on wiki, cause a real mess and then say "I had good intentions", "it wasn't malicious". And what now? Maybe it was just my stupidity, not malicious intentions.

If we want wiki vandalism section to be a real law, not dead law, again, we need to clarify few things via legislative amending.

Looks like that Antonio case may be a lesson to all of us

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Once again, the entire point of that post was my desire to respond to that specific argument Kalwejt posted during his time as Attorney General. That's what the entire post is centered around Removing that tiny little snippet from Kalwejt eradicated the context and actually takes more effort than just keeping it in. You removed it because you didn't want my post to have any legitimacy when you quoted it, or it would be much harder to feign outrage over.

There's a striking difference between our respective papers. Mine actually cites things and includes necessary information to come to a conclusion. You might as well rename your paper "Isn't Libertas Grand?"

Well no, you told Kalwejt "you had no earthly clue how to handle legal affairs" merely because he didn't obey your orders not to prosecute 'friends' of yours.

If you could've proved "malicious intent" beyond "he was doing it so it had to be malicious!" I would've wanted the maximum penalty. My defense of the law is colorblind and my history proves it.

I'm affraid this CCJA section is botched and is making actual prosecution impossible.

Apart of Antonio now, everyone can defend "I had good intentions" and how are any prosecutor going to prove intentions were malicious?

This is my suggestions Senate might work on wording.

I proposed legislation to try to reform Wiki vandalism laws. Everyone pounced on me claiming there was no need to do anything because the existing law already dealt with it, and the bill was tabled against my wishes.


The precedent set by this ruling is really quite unfortunate. Basically if someone vandalizes your party's article, you have no legal recourse whatsoever. Instead you'll have to accept signing on every single day to engage in a Wiki edit war to fix your own party's article from vandalism.

Of course I really don't see how launching a Wiki edit war to vandalize an opposing party's article can be interpreted as anything other than malicious.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Once again, the entire point of that post was my desire to respond to that specific argument Kalwejt posted during his time as Attorney General. That's what the entire post is centered around Removing that tiny little snippet from Kalwejt eradicated the context and actually takes more effort than just keeping it in. You removed it because you didn't want my post to have any legitimacy when you quoted it, or it would be much harder to feign outrage over.

There's a striking difference between our respective papers. Mine actually cites things and includes necessary information to come to a conclusion. You might as well rename your paper "Isn't Libertas Grand?"

Well no, you told Kalwejt "you had no earthly clue how to handle legal affairs" merely because he didn't obey your orders not to prosecute 'friends' of yours.

If you could've proved "malicious intent" beyond "he was doing it so it had to be malicious!" I would've wanted the maximum penalty. My defense of the law is colorblind and my history proves it.

I'm affraid this CCJA section is botched and is making actual prosecution impossible.

Apart of Antonio now, everyone can defend "I had good intentions" and how are any prosecutor going to prove intentions were malicious?

This is my suggestions Senate might work on wording.

I proposed legislation to try to reform Wiki vandalism laws. Everyone pounced on me claiming there was no need to do anything because the existing law already dealt with it, and the bill was tabled against my wishes.

Ftr, I actually endorsed this.

[Badger]

Reposted here just because:

I can't do the Attorney General's job. Who the frig was I going to appoint?That was a ridiculous cheap and lazy cop-out on the AG's part.

Not to mention that I'm not sure what was even left to argue. Kalwejt and I put forth the case and addressed numerous arguments. Antonio put up essentially no defense. We didn't need some special prosecutor to be appointed to do Marokai's job for him. What we needed was a jury to be assembled, but apparently the JCP was afraid that a real jury might rule against them.

First, do you deny that it is the DEFENSE's sole right to decide whether to try a case before a judge or a jury? This was not a decision for "we", the prosecution, to make but Antonio's and his alone.

Secondly, this of course leads to your interminable screaming that this trial was a "JCP orchestrated fix" from the start. Well, isn't KALWJET part of the JCP? Fritz's Veep and JCP Vice Chair actually. By your own admission you and he "put forth the case and addressed numerous arguments", apparently quite to your satisfaction. What about MaxQue? He's strong JCP and a former senator. Antonio knew he was a juror who alone could've hung the entire jury. Not to mention the JCP-rich Pacific would've undoubtedly ultimately put multiple more JCP jurors in the box to hear this case. And yet Antonio chose to waive jury anyway.

SO, Senator, if this case was such a "JCP fix" from the start, why did Vice Chair Kal so aggressively and effectively prosecute this matter until his election to VP? Why did Antonio waive jury when Max alone could've prevented a conviction (and assuredly would've had other JCP Pacific jurors to assist)? The answer should be undeniable even to you---there was no orchestrated "JCP fix". Your typical scattergun attacks wrongly and unfairly maligns the ENTIRE JCP--including people who attempted to help this prosecution like Kal and (apparently, if sworn as a juror) Max. As AT WORSE (can't emphasize this enough, more to follow...) your beef here is with A-G Marokai Blue and/or Justice Ebowed, your repeated libel of the entire JCP deserves to utterly stop, if not an apology for your broad brushed maligning 50+ forum members.

Third, you say this is Blue's fault for not pursuing the case. "I can't do the Attorney General's job. Who the frig was I going to appoint?" Alas, reality differs with your assessment again. Let's look at the facts:

I'm certainly not going to argue a case that I don't support.

If someone wants this case to proceed then find me someone who's interested in arguing the case on the government's behalf.
Unless of course everyone involved in this case just wants it to go straight to the jury from here, in which case I'll just stand here and look pretty in the meantime while everyone else deliberates, but if it's a guilty verdict and Antonio appeals, don't expect me to participate in the case a second time.

This case was brought against Antonio V by your own administration, in which you had served as VP. It's not like this was some partisan witch hunt started by an opposing party administration. There's really no justification for dropping this case. Rather, there is a clear basis for charging the defendant here with criminal misconduct; this was recognized as such by members of both the Purple State and Fritz administrations, under which you've served.

Are you really going to be so shamelessly partisan and biased in your role so as to blatantly refuse to prosecute Antonio V? Why did you become AG if you're not going to enforce the laws of Atlasia? You're supposed to disregard your own personal beliefs and instead give your all into arguing on behalf of the Atlasian government and its laws. It's part of the job description.

Purple State ordered Kalwejt to prosecute Antonio. I was part of the Administration, but I certainly wasn't in charge, there was nothing I could do. I was Vice President, not Supreme Ruler of the Cosmos.

I'm perfectly willing to appoint anyone to take on the case aside from me or let the case go straight to the jury. If I wanted to be "shamelessly partisan" I couldn't just waltzed right in here and done my damnedest to derail the entire process. I didn't. I offered you the choice of anyone you wanted to pursue the case in my stead, as I don't believe in the case, and publicly argued in Antonio's favor before I became Attorney General.I became AG to pursue what I considered to be breaches of the law and uphold our statute, as well as keep the regions in line. I didn't become AG to play a part in any petty squabbling. But instead of taking my offer that I was under no obligation to give you, you're here bitching at me instead of being mature and letting the case continue with someone else at the helm. You certainly have no moral highground here.

I have no desire to pursue this case because I do not believe there is any breaking of the law here, and I've already publicly argued against the government's position before I became AG. Therefore, I've done the responsible thing and backed out. You once complained to me when I served on the Court for refusing to back out of a case, and now you're complaining that I'm offering you full control over the prosecution while I step back out of it.
This case will continue if you decide to make it do so, Libertas. I don't want to hear any complaints.

<highlights bolded>

You were offered EVERY chance to proceed with the prosecution, by appointment of either yourself or any bar member you would've put forward, but completely failed to step up. Blue "didn't do his job as A-G"?? As Bacon King pointed out, Senator, the A-G recusing himself he feels biased in is specifically authorized by statute. In recusing himself, Blue WAS doing his job as A-G. NO prosecutor, as Junkie wisely noted, is required to prosecute a case they believe to be legally or factually sustainable. That IS NOT the A-G's job. Furthermore, if I was in your shoes as a non-party victim in the case, I would've been highly upset if someone who repeatedly and publically declared the deep skepticism over this case tried taking over the prosecution. And of course if the case then wound up as an acquittal you would've never accused Blue of dereliction of duty in failing to appoint independent counsel. It's so unlike you to complain when you have the option of actually being constructive....

So the ball was in your court--handed to you on a golden platter even, and you chose to punt rather than run with it. If you truly believe that a prosecutor's job is prosecute any case they have fundamental misgivings about the facts and law over, let alone stated so publically, then you have no room criticizing Blue or anyone else, as such grossly non-judicial views make one professionally incapable of being a parking ticket magistrate. It's not MB's fault he DID HIS JOB as A-G by seeking independent counsel, not Justice Ebowed's for finding Antonio not guilty when Blue could not find worthy grounds to present the court, but your fault and yours alone.

Senator, we already knew you were abrasive, arrogant, a sucker for conspiracy theories, antisemitic, and flexable as a crowbar. But at least before now, and all your recent missed votes, I at least never thought you were lazy.

Nah, you just wanted something new to complain about I bet. That warm fuzzy aggrieved feeling of "fighting the corrupt system" is worth more to you than convicting Antonio 20 times over.

(Oh, and ftr, my views on the case are similar to Max's)