Atlasia v. Giovanni

[Franzl]

The precedence set by Atlasia v. Devilman88 is relevant here. It's an almost identical case.

Now Giovanni wasn't able to access his account, but I don't think that matters under Atlasian law.

[Franzl]

I believe that because Giovanni himself revealed true idenity, he did not deserved to be prosecuted like some troll.

You can argue about whether he should have been charged, but the facts in this case are pretty clear.

[Franzl]

I don't see how it could be voter fraud. My real account, Giovanni was unable to work for me, so It's not like I could vote twice or something. Do I agree that I deserve some sort of punishment? Yes. But not voter fraud.

Voter fraud, in Atlasia, is defined as entering an account other than one's primary identity into the voter roll. Actually voting is not required to be guilty of voter fraud.

[Franzl]

I don't see how it could be voter fraud. My real account, Giovanni was unable to work for me, so It's not like I could vote twice or something. Do I agree that I deserve some sort of punishment? Yes. But not voter fraud.

Voter fraud, in Atlasia, is defined as entering an account other than one's primary identity into the voter roll. Actually voting is not required to be guilty of voter fraud.

Has anyone ever tried to appeal this? Because that's a pretty ridiculous definition of voter fraud, especially when it's also impossible to deregister from the voting roll.

I suppose you could try, but I don't see how it could be unconstitutional. It's just a matter of what you call it. You could just as well change the name of the crime to "voter registration" fraud.

[Franzl]

Just thinking out loud here: If Gio did in fact violate the letter of law, any apparent lack of malice/damage here may be more a mitigating circumstance for sentencing (e.g. suspending any sentence imposed on condition of good behavior and no further violations of law for 'x' months or a year) than an actual defense to the charge itself.

^^, yes I agree.

[Franzl]

As my client has stated, I am serving as defense counsel in this case.

I require a short while to review this case before we make decisions about what to plea and, should it be necessary, what type of trial to request.

[Franzl]

We are entering a plea of not guilty on Constitutional grounds and are prepared to take the matter up on appeal in the event of a conviction.

[Franzl]

I don't see how it could be voter fraud. My real account, Giovanni was unable to work for me, so It's not like I could vote twice or something. Do I agree that I deserve some sort of punishment? Yes. But not voter fraud.

Voter fraud, in Atlasia, is defined as entering an account other than one's primary identity into the voter roll. Actually voting is not required to be guilty of voter fraud.

Correct. However, since he did not and does not have access to that account, it is difficult to see how it could be considered his primary identity.

Shhhhh....don't use my defense before I have the chance to present it

[Franzl]

This case is very much like my case, but he was locked out of his account, and I wasn't. But he did not tell anyone who he was when if first joined again, like me. But my old account in Atlasia was unuse and my new account devilman88 was my main account. But I was found guilty. I hope Giovanni isn't, but the law is the law.

I originally felt the same way, but I have discovered meaningful differences between this case and yours.

We'll see how the court feels.

[Franzl]

I only want to inform the court that I will be calling a witness during the trial. Al will testify for my client's case.

[Franzl]

Witness Inks, are you aware of my client's attempts outside of the forum to find a way to get back on through his old account? Such as on the LNF forum?

Would it not be fair to assume in this context that my client desired to participate in Atlasia using his old account, but was simply unable to?

[Franzl]

I was aware of your client's attempts to gain access to his old account.  This was the reason that I was in contact with Mr. Leip.

I agree that your client was unable to access his old account; however, I contacted your client 2 times (via PM on his new account) trying to straighten out the situation and never received a reply back.  During the time period that I PMed your client, the user Farmer-Labour was active and logged into the forum.

Yes, I understand, sir.

I have no further questions for this witness, your honor.

[Franzl]

I have already stated my intent to call Al as a witness, but I also wish to call the defendent, Giovanni as well.

I will have my case posted in a few minutes.

[Franzl]

Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury,

Voter fraud. It's a charge that has been brought against several people in recent times, dating back to the infamous Keystone Phil case, but that's another matter entirely.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Most people probably are aware of the definition in Atlasia, but for those that are not, it is important to read the law in question.


In all Atlasian history, no defendent has ever been found "not guilty" of voter fraud. Charges have been thrown out because of the circumstances surrounding evidence, but that's not the same thing.

You may ask: Why is this case any different from the times others have been convicted? The concept of "primary identity" has always been the main point of discussion in voter fraud trials. Back in Atlasia v. Devilman88, as you will remember, I argued that Devilman88 was not guilty of voter fraud becase his old account could no longer be considered his primary identity, seeing as he hadn't done anything with it in Atlasia for a long period of time. That claim was rejected by Justice Opebo.

In this case, however, one might say that Giovanni was clearly still the primary identity of my client because he had just recently been elected to the Mideast Assembly and had been active in other parts of Atlasian life.

The problem, here, however, is that my client had no access to his primary account (he does now...but not at that time). I believe this is a big difference, because I don't think anyone can argue that a primary identity exists that one could use alternatively to creating a second account if one has no way of accessing and using that account. Giovanni may still have been a registered voter, and indeed, there is no way of deleting someone from the voter roll, as I can confirm in my role as SoFA. But "primary identity" should be more open to interpretation than simply saying it is under all circumstances the account registered to vote originally, regardless of any other circumstances.

Assuming that Giovanni indeed had no way of using his primary account (and I intend to establish that beyond reasonable doubt through the testimony of both Al and my client), there was absolutely no potential for harm. The primary identity was not legitimately a "primary identity" any longer because there was zero chance that my client could ever use that account again under normal circumstances (Dave, of course, was able to merge the accounts...but without that intervention, the account would have been gone forever.)

The fact that there was no chance whatsoever to use both accounts, or to vote with both accounts, is the main difference between this case and the ones that have been argued in the past.

Primary identity, in my opinion, implies that a certain potential for harm exists. In other words, it implies that one could return to that identity if so desired. The fact that that was impossible leads me to claim that no primary identity existed at the time my client registered a new account in Atlasia.

Although not specifically mentioned in the Constitution, I believe a general right to vote can be established. I would argue that not having access to one's original account and not being allowed to register a new account until that original account is removed from the voter roll unfairly deprives my client of his franchise.

It is only logical, in my opinion, to declare that no primary identity existed anymore, and that therefore no crime was committed by my client.


Thank you very much.

[Franzl]

Your Honor, I would like to call Al as my first witness at this time.

[Franzl]

Al, can you perhaps also confirm that my client had no access to his orginal account during that time, and that that was also the reason that Dave decided to merge the two?

[Franzl]

(BTW: I just got a PM from Judge Marokai, he has some major personal business to attend to, and will get back to us as soon as possible.)

[Franzl]

Al, can you perhaps also confirm that my client had no access to his orginal account during that time, and that that was also the reason that Dave decided to merge the two?

I cannot confirm this because I do not have access to the sort of information that would make such a confirmation possible (only Dave does). It seemed that Dave thought that this was the case, however.

Alright, that's fair enough Thanks for your testimony. I yield to the prosecution to ask any questions should it so desire.

[Franzl]

I call Giovanni to the stand.

[Franzl]

(Just a piece of information for the Court: I am at my grandparents for Christmas, so I only have limited Internet access. Sorry if it inconveniences anyone, but I will do my very best to keep this running as smoothly and quickly as possible.)

So I apologize to Judge Marokai that I start my questioning without waiting for explicit permission

(For the record, I asked Giovanni to swear in immediately, so get upset with me if it is a problem )

Giovanni, can you explain to the Court why you created a second account? Are we correct in assuming that you simply had no access to your old account und thus had no other way to participate?

[Franzl]

The prosecution will clearly ask this...so I will get it out of the way.

Why did you act like a different person with your 2nd account?

[Franzl]

Fine. I thank you for your testimony, and I yield to the prosecution to ask further questions if necessary.

[Franzl]

If the prosecution has no questions, I rest my case and would request that we proceed to closing arguments as quickly as possible.

Alternatively, should the Court prefer, I would also be prepared, in the interest of everyone involved, that we recess until the day after Christmas. Would any party object to that?

[Franzl]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I object. My client never said (to my knowledge) that he had lost his password. My client had no access to his account because he was unable to receive a confirmation e-mail after incorrectly submitting his e-mail address.

[Franzl]

I must protest. The jury is unfairly being influenced by a question which includes clearly false content.