Attn. Justices: Atlasia v. Ghost_White / Mint

[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

[tpfkaw]

You are the master at twisting and responding with trollish levels of horrific reading comprehension.

You are the master of projection.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Let us take a look at the law under which Antonio was charged:

"5. Maliciously editing the AtlasWiki to remove legitimate content or create off-topic pages. "

I do not see the word "intent" anywhere.  It does not say "Intentionally and maliciously editing the AtlasWiki to remove legitimate content or create off-topic pages."  It does not say "Maliciously editing the AtlasWiki to remove legitimate content or create off-topic pages, with intent to do so."  That's because intent is an implicit concept, inherent to every criminal charge.  Merely holding the intent to commit a crime is not a crime, if someone intends to rob a bank but does not actually do so, they have not committed any crime (unless Atlasia is in the business of prosecuting thoughtcrime now).  On the other side of the coin, if Antonio vandalizes the wiki because of his implacable obsessive-compulsive need to do so, but would rationally prefer not to, then he is not guilty by reason of insanity, as there is no intent.  This is why there is such a thing as "not guilty by reason of insanity," because intent is an implicit concept that must be established to provide proof in criminal law.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Passing bad checks itself is the crime.  Touching someone without their consent itself is the crime.  But nobody rational would argue accidentally bumping into someone or bouncing a check is a crime worthy of prosecution and conviction.  Intent always matters, it's part of proving a crime beyond a reasonable doubt.  I'm not sure how you are unaware of this, as this is a simple enough concept that it reaches below the level of Law 101 or even Law & Order, and should be readily-enough apparent to a semi-frequent viewer of Perry Mason.

[Marokai Backbeat]

"5. Maliciously editing the AtlasWiki to remove legitimate content or create off-topic pages. "

I do not see the word "intent" anywhere.  It does not say "Intentionally and maliciously editing the AtlasWiki to remove legitimate content or create off-topic pages."  It does not say "Maliciously editing the AtlasWiki to remove legitimate content or create off-topic pages, with intent to do so."  That's because intent is an implicit concept, inherent to every criminal charge.  Merely holding the intent to commit a crime is not a crime, if someone intends to rob a bank but does not actually do so, they have not committed any crime (unless Atlasia is in the business of prosecuting thoughtcrime now).  On the other side of the coin, if Antonio vandalizes the wiki because of his implacable obsessive-compulsive need to do so, but would rationally prefer not to, then he is not guilty by reason of insanity, as there is no intent.  This is why there is such a thing as "not guilty by reason of insanity," because intent is an implicit concept that must be established to provide proof in criminal law.

Are you daft? Malice is a matter of intent. When you trying to convict someone of "maliciously editing the wiki" you have to show how they are doing it maliciously.

[tpfkaw]

"5. Maliciously editing the AtlasWiki to remove legitimate content or create off-topic pages. "

I do not see the word "intent" anywhere.  It does not say "Intentionally and maliciously editing the AtlasWiki to remove legitimate content or create off-topic pages."  It does not say "Maliciously editing the AtlasWiki to remove legitimate content or create off-topic pages, with intent to do so."  That's because intent is an implicit concept, inherent to every criminal charge.  Merely holding the intent to commit a crime is not a crime, if someone intends to rob a bank but does not actually do so, they have not committed any crime (unless Atlasia is in the business of prosecuting thoughtcrime now).  On the other side of the coin, if Antonio vandalizes the wiki because of his implacable obsessive-compulsive need to do so, but would rationally prefer not to, then he is not guilty by reason of insanity, as there is no intent.  This is why there is such a thing as "not guilty by reason of insanity," because intent is an implicit concept that must be established to provide proof in criminal law.

Are you daft? Malice is a matter of intent. When you trying to convict someone of "maliciously editing the wiki" you have to show how they are doing it maliciously.

The word "malice" implies additional conditions on intent, but it does not create the requirement of establishing intent in the first place, which is already implicitly part of the prosecutor's job in any criminal case.  In the case of Atlasia v. Antonio V, the defendant "edited the AtlasWiki to remove legitimate content," and did so after being repeatedly told not to.  That is malicious intent, and the same definition of malicious intent that distinguishes rape from sex, or theft from gift-giving, or kidnapping from free association.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Dude, my job is to argue in front of the court. Not you. I did so twice, and I got a desirable outcome twice. I know this stuff and have demonstrated that frequently. Each time you or your ilk have tried to rally up some bogus controversy, you've been slapped down by people that have actual real-life legal experience, like Spade or Badger, for not knowing your ass from your elbow on this issue.

It's over. Both cases are.

If Fritz decides to pardon Mint and you decide to use that as some sort of political football in the election in your party, that's none of my business, but those sort of favors can be bargained elsewhere.

If Mint wants to appeal, he can do so in a separate thread. But this one has reached it's end. Now, bugger off.