Attn. Justices: Atlasia v. Ghost_White / Mint

[Sam Spade]

Does the prosecution rest?

[Marokai Backbeat]

Unless you have any questions, your honor, yes, we have nothing more.

[Sam Spade]

Defendant, please present your defense.

[Sam Spade]

Defense, I'm giving you 72 hours to present your case, otherwise you will be held in contempt.

[courts]

The only reason I registered again was because it would be impossible to vote with my old account without abandoning my current one. Those are the rules per the mods. Hence I considered my current account my primary one. Either way I honestly don't really care, do as you wish.

[Badger]

The only reason I registered again was because it would be impossible to vote with my old account without abandoning my current one. Those are the rules per the mods. Hence I considered my current account my primary one. Either way I honestly don't really care, do as you wish.

Erg! Um, Mint, I'm actually somewhat sympathetic to your case, so as someone who's done hundreds of trials and hearings I'd like to suggest this is usually not the best way to wrap up one's argument to the Court.

Maybe you'd like to briefly expound your remarks so this isn't the last thing the Court reads before considering your fate?

[Sam Spade]

I have to assume that the Defendant is done.  If the prosecution wishes to counter within the next 48 hours, they may do so.

Otherwise, I will post my decision around then.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I've no need to respond, feel free to move forward as you please, Spade.

[Badger]

I've no need to respond, feel free to move forward as you please, Spade.

Don't you mean "Justice Spade"?  Or better still "Your Honor"?

A little decorum here, folks.   It's a fantasyland court, but its still our fantasyland court.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Just a bad habit, Badger.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Can I have a good seat to watch Mint's execution?

[Sam Spade]

Sorry for the slowness, but the decision will be released tonight.

[Sam Spade]

Decision:

This Court's precedent in Giovanni v. Atlasia clearly establishes that Section 1, Clause 3 of the Consolidated Criminal Justice Act (CCJA) mandates conviction if a person: 1) creates of another identity other than the person's "primary identity" (meaning the identity contained in the registered voter roll); and 2) knowingly enters this second identity into the registered voter roll, he is guilty of the crime of voter fraud.  The facts are plainly clear that Ghost_White made these actions.

However, since that decision, the Consolidated Criminal Justice Act, Section 1, Clause 3, has been amended to read (amendment in bold):

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Returning to the trial of Atlasia v. Giovanni, one of Giovanni's defenses was that he was unable to access his account and thus created a new one and registered it, believing the old account would no longer be registered.  This provision, on its face, appears to allow such a defense to stand if said person proves that he 1) no longer has access to his previous forum account; 2) identify the former account as theirs when registering the new account.  Indeed, on the legislation thread, bgwah specifically states that this amendment is meant to allow for such a defense, as would have been present in the Giovanni case referenced above and Atlasia v. JewishConservative.

In the instant matter, although Ghost_White did identify himself as Mint when registering the new account (see evidence presented by the prosecution), he has provided no evidence that he could not access the Mint account.  Rather, Ghost_White testified that "[t]he only reason I registered again was because it would be impossible to vote with my old account without abandoning my current one."  Such testimony unequivocally establishes that Ghost_White had access to the Mint account and nevertheless registered the Ghost_White account.

Accordingly, this Court finds Ghost_White guilty under CCJA Section 1, Clause 3.

We next turn to sentencing.  The defendant shall have 24 hours to exercise his right of allocution before the court hands down its sentence.

[Sam Spade]

After much thought, I sentence the defendant to a sixty-day ban from voting and a one hundred and twenty-day ban from holding office.

So ordered.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I thank the court for their time and decision.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Of course I find the decision bogus not only in this case, but in precedent as well.  I will work on legislation to make this a non-issue in the future.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Of course I find the decision bogus not only in this case, but in precedent as well.  I will work on legislation to make this a non-issue in the future.

How, exactly? We may be in complete agreement on how this needs to be fixed (has my presidential platform been leaked to the entire flipping world, already?), but the law and precedent seems clear in every way possible. Considering the current constraints of the law and having no fall-back should something actually go wrong, we couldn't afford to open that can of worms.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Was Ogis ever tried under this statute?  Just curious...

[tpfkaw]

Of course I find the decision bogus not only in this case, but in precedent as well.

Agreed completely.

If the AG were truly so sympathetic to the defendant, he would not have initiated prosecution less than two minutes after the "offense."  At very least, he would have given fair warning to the defendant that he ought to have withdrawn his registration, or even allowed a reasonable time period (say 5 minutes) in which the defendant might have recognized his error and corrected it.  Of course, if he truly disagrees with the law in question, he would not have prosecuted it at all.  Given how strenuously he insisted that he could not possibly prosecute Atlasia v. Antonio V because he disagreed with the law in question, there appears to be a somewhat incongruous inconsistency here, one that appears to be explainable by the party registration and ideology of the defendants in both said cases.  The AG's use of his office as an ideological weapon as opposed to a legitimate institution of fair and competent justice is something that should be considered by every voter.

On a slightly different subject, (although I don't claim to speak for it), I believe our party would look very favorably upon the JCP if President Fritz were to grant a pardon in this case.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Of course I find the decision bogus not only in this case, but in precedent as well.

Agreed completely.

If the AG were truly so sympathetic to the defendant, he would not have initiated prosecution less than two minutes after the "offense."  At very least, he would have given fair warning to the defendant that he ought to have withdrawn his registration, or even allowed a reasonable time period (say 5 minutes) in which the defendant might have recognized his error and corrected it.  Of course, if he truly disagrees with the law in question, he would not have prosecuted it at all.  Given how strenuously he insisted that he could not possibly prosecute Atlasia v. Antonio V because he disagreed with the law in question, there appears to be a somewhat incongruous inconsistency here, one that appears to be explainable by the party registration and ideology of the defendants in both said cases.  The AG's use of his office as an ideological weapon as opposed to a legitimate institution of fair and competent justice is something that should be considered by every voter.

On a slightly different subject, (although I don't claim to speak for it), I believe our party would look very favorably upon the JCP if President Fritz were to grant a pardon in this case.

There are extraordinary differences. First of all, was it really that quickly that I opened prosecution? I recall Fritz PMing me telling me to prosecute him before I actually did so.

Of course, due to absurd rules, I'm unable to actually show that to you.

Regarding the comparison to Antonio's case, the difference is I didn't believe there was actually a law broken in that case. The law itself there came down to a very difficult definition of "malicious" intent. There is no "intent" condition in this law; the law is straightforward and clear. You do something, you're a criminal. If the law on the wiki editing issue was as straightforward, I would've supported prosecution. It wasn't.

Was Ogis ever tried under this statute?  Just curious...

Is Ogis' previous accounts still on the books with the one he's using right now? If so, I'll get right on it, but I don't actually know his previous account names.

[tpfkaw]

First of all, was it really that quickly that I opened prosecution?

Oops, sorry.  It was actually the earth-shattering epoch of 3 minutes and 16 seconds.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, you seem to have passed over the post (which we can see) where President Fritz ordered you either to prosecute Antonio or to appoint someone *yourself* to prosecute it for you.  Perhaps you would care to explain for us why it was so crucial to follow the orders of your president in this case, but not in the previous one.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If repeatedly, without invitation or permission, editing the page of another party, and continuing to do so after being repeatedly told to stop does not qualify as "malicious" I'm not sure what does.  You may also note that in neither of the laws applied in either of these cases does the word "intent" appear.  This is because intent is an implicit concept that the prosecution must consider prior to pressing charges.  Mint clearly did not intend to commit voter fraud, nor does someone who accidentally bumps into a passerby intend to commit assault, or a person who unwittingly bounces a check intend to defraud the recipient.  In fact, part of the prosecution's job to prove a criminal case beyond a reasonable doubt is that they must establish intent to commit the crime, or willful negligence that led to its happening, depending on the charge in question.  Given the AG's apparent misunderstanding of this basic legal concept, either his competence or his integrity (or both) must be called into question.  It is perhaps something to consider when his name appears on the ballot in the future.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Intent doesn't matter at all in this case. You are the master at twisting and responding with trollish levels of horrific reading comprehension. Let me make this incredibly clear for you:

The law regarding wiki editing is all about proving someone's intent. Therefore, intent matters because it is the crux of any successful prosecution of that case.

The law regarding registration of multiple accounts has nothing to do with intent at all, merely the simple action of doing something, and that is backed up by numerous precedent, like it or not. Therefore, Mint's intent with registering this account do not matter at all. Intent plays no part in this law, unlike the other case.

As for Fritz, the difference was that I actually agreed this was a breach of the law because it actually totally was. Because as, like I said, this law has nothing to do with intent. You do it, you're doing something illegal. It doesn't matter if you didn't mean to do it, it doesn't matter if you meant to do something entirely different. Registering multiple accounts itself is the crime.

Also, I wasn't entire biased in this case like I was in the last, where I had argued in Antonio's defense before being asked to argue against him. If anything, I've been biased in Mint's favor here by thinking the law needs revised. But the law right now is what it is.

[Sam Spade]

The President can't pardon people - see Xahar v. Lief.

[Marokai Backbeat]

The President can't pardon people - see Xahar v. Lief.

New Constitution. Was included in there.

[Sam Spade]

The President can't pardon people - see Xahar v. Lief.

New Constitution. Was included in there.

hmmm...  Guess I should read it now - in case of appeal