Atlasia Supreme Court-Keystone Phil v. Atlasia

[bullmoose88]

Oyez Oyez! The Supreme Court of Atlasia is now in session. Dave Bless Atlasia

The Court will preside over the case of

Keystone Phil aka Jessica Walterstein, Appellant v. The Republic of Atlasia, Appellee

Defense has informed the court that Peter will be its counsel

Counsel of record for the case below was AG Hashemite, but the court does not know if he will continue the case here.

[bullmoose88]

Defendant has


I will give my collegues 24 hours to object...should they not do so, the extension will be granted.

The assumed new deadline will be 12:30am, Sunday, February 10th, 2008

Parties can petition for an extension and will get one for good cause.

Due to the strains of personal life and a Presidential campaign, I wish to request of the court an extension of four days.

I will give my collegues and the appellee24 hours to object ...should they not do so, the extension will be granted.

The assumed new deadline will be 12:30am, Sunday, February 10th, 2008

If they object, defendant/appellant is reminded that the old deadline is still in effect (and the clock is still running) and it will be...

12:30am, Wednesday, February 6th, 2008

Counsel for atlasia is put on notice given the public nature of these proceedings.

Counsel for the defense/appellant must send a copy to appellee/atlasia of his Brief/appeal upon submitting it to the court, in turn Atlasia must submit its brief to the defendant upon submitting it to the court.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I will not object to granting an extension on the grounds of a personal life, but considering that the punishment involves a loss of office holding privileges, asking for a delay in the proceedings because he is seeking an office is not in my opinion germane.

[bullmoose88]

I will not object to granting an extension on the grounds of a personal life, but considering that the punishment involves a loss of office holding privileges, asking for a delay in the proceedings because he is seeking an office is not in my opinion germane.

I share that concern; however, in a criminal defense appeal, i feel we should give as much procedural deference as possible to the convicted.

Considering also that the extension will be granted for his counsel to file his brief...I don't see how the campaign would play a large role in that...

[bullmoose88]

Hmm...considering this is a good procedural point, how should we rule on this...shall we have a quick private poll and then very short public opinion, in this thread, as to when an extension be granted?

(I personally think such a ruling could be quite useful)...

[Peter]

At the time my client requested the extension, I had not had time to have a thorough initial consultation with him. I am well into this process at the moment, and I should be able to file a brief before the original deadline. The extension is not necessary, though I will leave the request in tact if the court wishes to make a ruling for precedents sake.

[bullmoose88]

At the time my client requested the extension, I had not had time to have a thorough initial consultation with him. I am well into this process at the moment, and I should be able to file a brief before the original deadline. The extension is not necessary, though I will leave the request in tact if the court wishes to make a ruling for precedents sake.

The court will decline to rule on the procedural matter as it moot.

Counsel for the appellant has until 1230am eastern time to file.

[Peter]

Your Honours,

I am presently planning to file on 2 points of Law. I am ready to pursue one of these, but for the second I will need the Court to issue a subpoena for evidence from the Attorney General and Justice Ernest. How would you like me to proceed?

Peter
Counsel for Keystone Phil

[bullmoose88]

Your Honours,

I am presently planning to file on 2 points of Law. I am ready to pursue one of these, but for the second I will need the Court to issue a subpoena for evidence from the Attorney General and Justice Ernest. How would you like me to proceed?

Peter
Counsel for Keystone Phil

I'd like to see these subpeonas before i consider issuing them...I don't know about my collegues...

[Peter]

If the gentlemen still have them, I would like to subpoena all Private Messages that were sent to Keystone Phil relating to the trial. Before it comes up, yes he deleted them.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

For correspondence with the appellant, I see no need for a subpoena, since a simple request should suffice.  I have sent all such correspondence to both the appellant, his counsel, and the other justices.

[bullmoose88]

Does anyone have an objection to this being in the public record/appellant's brief/this thread?

I personally see no reason to keep it private, but am willing to entertain arguments...

I hope for atlasia's sake the AG knows whats going on and is willing to participate in the proceedings

[Peter]

Having conferred with my client, we wish to put the PMs in the public domain one way or the other. To satisfy the site's ToS, we need explicit consent from Justice Ernest.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I have no objection.

[bullmoose88]

Without objection the statements will be placed in the record.

[Hash]

If it is allowed, I will use the same argument, for now, until I revise it, in this.

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.

I see nothing that would merit being added to this.

[Peter]

Keystone Phil, appellant v. Republic of Atlasia, appellee

Statement of Facts
Keystone Phil (original resident of Pennsylvania, Northeast Region), by his own admission, registered the account formerly used by the Atlasian commonly known as Mike Naso, under the new pseudonym, Jessica Walterstein, registering in the State of Ohio, Mideast Region. He admitted this publicly after suspicions about the real identity of Jessica were openly discussed.

Phil was then charged by the Attorney General under the Consolidated Criminal Justice Act of "Voter Fraud", punishable under the statute by up to one year ban from voting and two year ban from holding office. Justice Ernest presided over the trial, which was tried by a Mideast jury of 6 persons. My client enterred a plea of "I don't give a damn". He was found guilty by a vote of 4-2 by the jury.

Justice Ernest sentenced him to a one week voting ban and 6 months ban from holding office. Keystone Phil then sought to appeal and appointed Peter as his counsel.

Question(s) Presented
1. The Use of a Mideast Jury was illegal: The text of the Constitution does not allow the presideing Justice to determine which Region to draw the jury from.

2. My client was not informed of his rights, specifically his rights to silence and to compel witnesses to testify

Argument
Jury Issue
Article III, Section 2, Clause 1 states:
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the region wherein the crime shall have been committed, which region shall have been previously ascertained by law.

Justice Ernest made the interpretation that the Region where the offence was committed was the Mideast. We contend that this interpretation is not within his powers, as the Constitution quite clearly provides that the "region shall have been previously ascertained by law."(emphasis added). There is no statutory provision anywhere which would allow us to definitively decide whether this crime was committed in Keystone Phil's original residence, i.e. the Northeast, or the Region where Jessica Walterstein filed a registration, i.e. the Mideast.

Because there is no statutory provision, Justice Ernest should not have proceeded with a trial because inserting his own Judgement where the Constitution quite clearly directs that a Law should direct such judgement is not permissible. Justice Ernest exercised a power that the Constitution by its language intended to be vested in the legislative branch, and thus committed a violation of the separation of powers which is inherent in the text of our Constitution.

Right to Silence
Whilst my client was informed of some of his rights, he was not informed at any point either by investigating authorities or by the Court that he retained a right to remain silent, nor was he informed that he could compel witnesses to testify for his defence. Since my client was not informed of these right, it constitutes a violation of the due process clause (Article VI, Section 2) because he was not able to mount the strong defence that he would have been able to had he been properly informed of his rights. We cite as precedent Miranda v. Arizona

Conclusion
It is our contention that a jury could not be legally established to try my client because the determination of which Region a jury would be comprised can only be made by the legislature, not the Court itself, and thus any attempt by a presiding Judge to do so constitutes a violation of separation of powers. Secondly it is our contention that my clients lack of due process in being informed of his many rights greatly diminished his ability to present a robust defence.

I thank the Court for its time.

[bullmoose88]

The Attorney general has 3 days from the original deadline for the appellant to submit its brief to file its response brief...then oral argument will commence some short time after.

[Hash]

Keystone Phil, appellant v. Republic of Atlasia, appellee

Statement of Facts
Keystone Phil (citizen of Pennsylvania), by his own confession, registered the account formerly used by the Ohio voter Mike Naso (who had been inactive), under the pseudonym Jessica Walterstein, registering in Ohio. The Office of the Attorney General believes this to be voter fraud.

In a case presided by Justice Ernest, Phil was found guilty by the jury, composed of Mideast citizens. Thus, Justice Ernest sentenced him to a 1 week voting ban and 6 months ban from holding office.

Response to Question(s)
1. Article 2, Section 2, Clause 7 says that the jury is drawn from the region in which "the crime"  was committed, and this region is the Mideast.

2. If the AG understand correctly, this was the job of the Chief Justice to do so.

Response to Argument
Jury Issue

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Attorney General understands the lack of statutory provision to determine the region, but he believes that since the case's crime involves the registration of a voter identity in the Mideast, and not in the Northeast region.

However, since this case needed to be brought to trial, what alternative would Mr. Peter have preferred?

Right to Silence
The Attorney General recognizes that he did not fully inform Keystone Phil of his rights. However, the AG concludes that Keystone Phil did not make any demand to compel witnesses during the trial and he was not actively involved in the trial. It is our assumption that, if Phil had wished to do so, he would certainly have been allowed to compel witnesses, and it is our understanding he made no public post that would have hinted towards that intention. In fact, Phil pleaded "I don't give a damn" before the trial even began.

Conclusion
The AG believes that, while some breaches of law in regard to such trial have occurred, Phil remains guilty of a crime, and an independent jury came to that conclusion. He believes, however, that the court should investigate these breaches and make an independent judgment.

I thank the Court for its time.

[bullmoose88]

Attention to both Mr. Peter and the AG...both of you will now be facing questions from the court.  I haven't decided to set a time limit to this, but I think we'll all know when the need for questioning has concluded.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I'd like to begin with a line of questioning on the jury issue.

Peter, in your line of argument, you pointed out that no law has been passed by the Atlasian Senate to determine the specific Region of the offense the appellant was convicted of.  However, the Constitutional provision only requires that the Region in question be ascertained by law, not that it be determined by "statutory" law.  Are you arguing that only statutory law applies here and that a determination made by applying common law is invalid?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

And a second line of questioning to the appellant's counsel on the Lack of Information.

Miranda v. Arizona did not establish a right to have a case overturned on a mere technicality.  It found that because of those technicalities, specific harm to the defendant's case occurred as a result and the cases argued there were overturned to redress the damage done by failure to follow due process.  What specific evidence do you argue should have been excluded because of the failure to inform the defendant of his right to silence?  What evidence would the defendant have hoped to obtain by compelling witnesses to testify?

[bullmoose88]

I'd like to ask both the Attorney General and Counsel for the Appellant this question,

What are your thoughts on the use of IP addresses as evidence in this case?  Is it the sort of personal evidence that requires a warrant/judicial approval before its used to ascertain/match identities or is it the sort of evidence publically presented the board and thus not private enough to merit protection?

If you believe that there is some privacy aspect to an IP address, what in your view should be done to get that information?  Is it enough to have an administrator/moderator to get it for you? or must you come to us first?

I also echo the questions posed by Brother Ernest...especially the question as to what the word "law" encompasses...just code law, or code and common law...

[Hash]

I'd like to ask both the Attorney General and Counsel for the Appellant this question,

What are your thoughts on the use of IP addresses as evidence in this case?  Is it the sort of personal evidence that requires a warrant/judicial approval before its used to ascertain/match identities or is it the sort of evidence publically presented the board and thus not private enough to merit protection?

If you believe that there is some privacy aspect to an IP address, what in your view should be done to get that information?  Is it enough to have an administrator/moderator to get it for you? or must you come to us first?

I also echo the questions posed by Brother Ernest...especially the question as to what the word "law" encompasses...just code law, or code and common law...

On the subject of IPs, I'd be very careful using them. I believe that it does require warrant/judicial approval.

As for the second question, I would ask a moderator/admin to provide it, guaranteeing that it will be use only for judicial purposes. That said, the mod/admin, IMO, is in position to refuse providing it.

[bullmoose88]

Mr. Attorney General,

Could you explain to me again how Atlasia confirmed that the Appellant and Ms. Wallerstein were indeed the same individual?