Attn Justices: Atlasia vs. Keystone Phil

[Hash]

Gentlemen, it is my pleasure to present the government's case to you. Keystone Phil, registered Atlasian voter from Pennsylvania was found in violation of Section 1, Clause 3 of F.L. 15-1, the Consolidated Criminal Justice Act. Using the account of another registered voter, Mike Naso, he created a separate registration under the name "Jessica Walterstein" of Ohio. It has since been proved, and Phil himself confessed to have been "Jessica Walterstein".

On December 24, 2007; Jessica Walterstein registered as a voter. This is considered voter fraud by S1, C3 of F.L. 15-1, which literally states "Voter fraud, defined as the creation of identities other than ones primary identity in Atlasia and subsequently entering this identity into the tally of registered voters.", which is exactly what Phil did. Whether or not Phil intended at the outset to use the other registration actively or not, it remains a clear breach of the above mentioned clause. I find nothing to add to this but I will take questions if the judge allows such questions.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Is it possible to be excused from the jury on grounds of ill health?

[Kaine for Senate '18]

I have some questions for the Attorney General.  Is it allowed for me to question him?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Is it possible to be excused from the jury on grounds of ill health?

Not at the moment, since jury deliberations could continue until your leave of absence from the DEA is finished, since you've indicated that you hope it to be about a week.  In the event you prove unable to return in a timely fashion, then I'll select a replacement juror if need be, but since the Mideast Jury Selection Statue specifies that four jurors are sufficient to convict, then unless the jury is closely divided that may not be needed.

I have some questions for the Attorney General.  Is it allowed for me to question him?

In a real life trial you would not, so no.  However jurors may ask questions of the judge if they are unclear on anything after the prosecution and defense have finished their cases and I have charged the jury.

Does the Attorney General have any more to say, or does the prosecution rest?

[Hash]

I have no more to say, I have made my case.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The defense may proceed.

[Keystone Phil]

Ladies and Gentlemen, I will make this as simple and brief as possible.

A few months ago, I resigned my Senate seat and left Atlasia for what I originally thought would be an indefinite amount of time. A couple of week ago, I grew curious of the activities here and decided to return. I returned under the alias of "Jessica Walterstein," under Mike Naso's account. I returned under this account with the permission of Mr. Naso and, since Mr. Naso had also left Atlasia for quite some time, I returned here and registered to vote.

The act as Jessica continued for some time until I confessed that I was actually the true identity. A short while after my announcement, I was made aware that I was being charged with voter fraud. I had no intention of voting and while there is no way to physically prove that, I can point to the fact that both registrations - my original as Keystone Phil and Mr. Naso's - were inactive for months. I would understand and accept punishment if I had returned as Jessica and as Keystone Phil but that never occured. Legally, I suppose I didn't have to make an attempt to re-register as Keystone Phil since I technically wasn't inactive according to Atlasian standards. However, I fail to see the need to pursue this with punishment when I did not make an attempt to vote or become active under two registrations.

As someone who has been a champion for voting reform and a strong voice against voter fraud in Atlasia, I ask the jury to have faith in my word.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Does the prosecution have any rebuttal or objections to make concerning what the defense has said?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Since the prosecution has not chosen to reply to my last query, I shall assume that he does not have any rebuttal or objections to make, so I shall charge the jury.

The defendant is charged with violating the Consolidated Criminal Justice Act and in particular, clause 3 of section 1 of that Act:

"Voter fraud, defined as the creation of identities other than ones primary identity in Atlasia and subsequently entering this identity into the tally of registered voters. "

In order to find the defendant guilty of voter fraud, you must therefore answer the following two questions in the affirmative.

1.  Did the defendant at the time of the alleged crime possess a "primary identity in Atlasia"?
2.  Did the defendant at the time of the alleged crime enter an identity into the tally of registered voters?

The intent of the defendant and the effect of the actions undertaken under the name of "Jessica Walterstein" are not to be considered by you as the jury as you make your decision, tho they may play a role in determining sentence if you find the defendant guilty as charged.

Jurors may choose to discuss the case here, and may cast their verdict as soon as they feel they have come to a decision on the facts.  Under Mideast jury law, the decision of four jurors is sufficient to determine guilt or innocence.  To give jurors a chance to reflect on their decisions, jurors are  free to change their decision until a final decision is reached.  To allow sufficient time for them to do their job, no verdict will be considered final until both 72 hours have passed since the jury was charged, and four jurors have agreed on the same verdict for a period of 24 hours.

If jurors have any questions, they may ask the judge.

Until a decision is reached, a post in this thread by anyone other than a juror or this judge may subject the poster to punishment for contempt of court.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

The law is pretty clear cut on this issue, so I vote Guilty.

[Peter]

Your Honour,

If a juror feels there has been an error of procedure or a violation of constitutional rights of the defendant, is it permissable to vote "Not Guilty" even if we feel the evidence presented is sufficient to convict the defendant?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Your Honour,

If a juror feels there has been an error of procedure or a violation of constitutional rights of the defendant, is it permissable to vote "Not Guilty" even if we feel the evidence presented is sufficient to convict the defendant?

The question of whether there has been an error of procedure or a violation of rights is a question of law, not of fact under a common law system such as that used by Atlasia.  Questions of law are for the presiding judge or an appelate judge to decide.  As such it would not be within the scope of the jury to decide that question directly, tho if a juror's concerns on such a point are sufficent as to cause that juror to doubt the credibility of a piece of evidence, it would be within his judgement to discount or ignore such evidence when reaching a verdict.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Your Honor,

Is there a definition of "Primary identity"?

Also, the definition of voter fraud isn't making sense to me, particularly "ones primary identity in Atlasia."  Is that supposed to read "one primary identity" or "one's primary identity"?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Your Honor,

Is there a definition of "Primary identity"?

Not much beyond the dictionary definition in either the law or legislative history thereof.  The "in Atlasia" qualifier would clearly serve to make a Forum account not used for participation in Atlasia as not counting for the purposes of the Act, but what standard is to be used in judging participation or primariness is not given.

Also, the definition of voter fraud isn't making sense to me, particularly "ones primary identity in Atlasia."  Is that supposed to read "one primary identity" or "one's primary identity"?

The latter, since that is the reading given in the Voter Fraud Act which the relevant portion of the Consolidated Criminal Justice Act was based on.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Lacking a clear definition of "primary idenitity" I cannot without a reasonable doubt find Keystone Phil guilty.

Therefore my verdict is Not Guilty.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Guilty

[Peter]

Guilty

[Joe Republic]

Your Majesty, I have espied a golden filling within the accuséd's mouth from half a dozen fathoms away, and therefore I do declare he be gilty.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

While we do have enough juror votes for a verdict, I'm going to wait a little while longer to give the remaining juror a chance to vote and perhaps persuade another juror that their vote should be changed.  I have sent a PM reminding that juror that he's on the jury.

[opebo]

Not Guilty.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The jury have voted 4 Guilty and 2 Not Guilty, thus a verdict of Guilty has been rendered by the jury.

In my judgment, no direct injury was either intended or inflicted by the defendant.  However, I am troubled by a definite pattern involving the nature of fake identities in Atlasia.  Like Girl Gone Wild before her, Jessica Walterstein was a fake female identity in a forum and body politic that is sadly lacking much female participation.  I am concerned that such impersonations intimidate greater participation by actual females by creating the perception that they will be mocked or otherwise treated as not worthy of politics here.  I note that intimidation of citizens under some circumstances is considered treason under Atlasian law, though those circumstances do not pertain to this case as no force or violence was involved.  Still, that law clearly indicates that it is the judgment of the Atlasian people as voiced through their government that intimidation is something to be treated seriously.  I am not of the opinion that the defendant consciously chose to use a female identity for the purpose of mocking females, but I am of the opinion that was the result.

As for sentence, I sentence the defendant, Keystone Phil, to a ban from voting for a period of one week and a ban from holding office for a period of six months.

Ernest
Associate Justice of Atlasia

[Keystone Phil]

I'm appealing this ruling.

[bullmoose88]

The appellant shall have 7 days to acquire counsel and file his appeal formally by brief, the Appellee, atlasia, shall have 3 days to file a response.

The court recommends that the brief (modeled after an abridged law school brief to simplify things) should be constructed as follows, the parties don't have to follow but it can only help them.  The length, and detail are also at the parties' discretion

Structure...

The Caption (Appellant's name vs. Appellee's Name

Statement of Facts

Here should be your brief outline of the facts in the case, including the procedural history.  Parties are reminded they have a duty to be honest to the court.

Question(s) Presented

Here you should state the questions of LAW (not fact) you want the court to consider

Argument

Here you should try to answer the questions you asked in the QP section.  If you have multple questions, you should break your argument up to answer each, prefaced by a sentence long point heading answering your QP for that part.

Conclusion

Briefly sum up your argument


The length and depth is up to you...the brief is your way of helping the court.


After briefs will be oral argument (well Q&A session with the justices)...

As always the court recommends counsel for the appellant.

[bullmoose88]

Of course if both parties need time, they can get it provided they give a decent reason.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Since an appeal has been filed, I am suspending the sentence until the appeal has come to a conclusion unless the defendant indicates that he does not wish such a suspension during the appeal.