| Welcome to Europeia! So what the heck is Europeia anyways? Can I join? So, I came here representing another region? I do not want to become a citizen. Where should I go? What offices are there for people to be elected into? What is there for me to do in Europeia? That answers most of my immediate questions. What if I have any more? |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| Europeia v. Samsara; Mock Trial | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Dec 15 2013, 08:10 PM (985 Views) | |
| Pope Lexus X | Dec 15 2013, 08:10 PM Post #1 |
|
40% Alcoholic
![]()
|
Good evening Europeia, Welcome to the second Mock Trial of my term (the first might recommence at some stage)! The Republic shall be represented by Kraketopia and the accused Defendant shall be represented by Moronist Decisions, with the Right Honourable Matthew Vinage MJ presiding. The facts of the case at hand will be teased out by the two parties and in the interests of fairness (and entertainment), the Mock-Justice has no idea about the facts. As with last time, this is a mock trial so I can dispense with some of the formalities of the Judicature Act (2012); we will take it that Samsara has entered a plea of not guilty to the following charges under the Criminal Code (2012):
The order of proceedings will be as per section 9 (a) of the Judicature Act:
As with all trials, members of the public may use the Skizzy Grey Public Gallery to comment on the proceedings but not in here. I now hand the floor over to Matthew Vinage MJ. *potters off to the gallery with candyfloss* |
|
~The Venerable Pope Lexus X~ Son of HEM [hide=Awards] ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() [/hide][hide=Some Quotes..] Recruiting is the kind of mindless activity that makes me less pissed. ~AsianaticThere is nothing more exhilarating than to be shot at without result. ~Sir Winston Churchill The entire Kodiak Republic combined has almost the amount of judicial competency and common sense as Pope Lexus when he dines alone.~HEM Horrifying. Awful. Bad, bad, bad. Lex should feel bad. ~ Kazaman[/hide] [hide=Europeian Former Positions]President (x6) ![]() Vice Chancellor ![]() Chief Justice ![]() Senate Speaker (x3) ![]() Associate Justice (x2) Senator (x 9) Vice President (x3) Minister of Foreign Affairs Minister of the Interior Minister of Culture Assemblyman Junior Minister Ambassador Rear Admiral of the ERN City Councillor More.. [/hide] | |
| off | Quote |
| Matthew Vinage | Dec 17 2013, 05:39 PM Post #2 |
|
Hot and spicy man
![]()
|
I hereby call this case to order. Mr. Kraketopia, you may now present your opening statement. |
Matthew Vinage-Sovetskie EEN OR4 WE3
| |
| off | Quote |
| Kraketopia | Dec 17 2013, 07:31 PM Post #3 |
![]()
|
Thank you, your Honour. The prosecution intends to prove that Samsara violated four sections of the Criminal Code(2012), regarding identity theft, deceiving the public, use of a proxy, and obscenity. These are serious charges and the prosecution intends to prove that there is compelling evidence and reason to convict Samsara on all counts. Samsara entered the region using a proxy to conceal her IP address, and after ten posts altered her account to appear to be Lethen's, thereby impersonating a prominent Europeian individual. She then deceived the public by standing for election, and winning, while impersonating Lethen. Finally, she engaged in a series of inflammatory comments against Europeia which can easily be considered obscene. The prosecution will provide all evidence of said charges after the defense's opening statements. |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() C.V.
| |
| off | Quote |
| Matthew Vinage | Dec 17 2013, 07:51 PM Post #4 |
|
Hot and spicy man
![]()
|
Thank you. Mr. Decisions, please present your opening statement. |
Matthew Vinage-Sovetskie EEN OR4 WE3
| |
| off | Quote |
| Moronist Decisions | Dec 18 2013, 02:54 AM Post #5 |
![]()
|
Your honour, As counsel for the defense, I intend to show that the evidence that my client has been using a proxy is circumstantial and does not amount to proof that my client has, in fact, been using a proxy. I shall further show that my client's speech does not amount to "obscene, offensive, profane or derogatory language"; and, furthermore, even if that is the case, it is not excessive as has been interpreted in recent cases. I finally shall show that the charges of both deceiving the public and identity theft can be contradicted by speech used by my client as well as tacit administrator approval of some of his actions, which can be explained as the actions of a neophyte citizen who did not intend to deceive the public or steal the identity of Supreme Chancellor Lethen. Thank you. [edited to fix typo: attorney --> counsel] Edited by Moronist Decisions, Dec 18 2013, 11:47 AM.
|
Moronist Decisions ED EOB EIN ESH ESS![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Formerly: Attorney General, Associate Justice/PIP, World Assembly Delegate, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Minister of World Assembly Affairs, Senator | |
| off | Quote |
| Moronist Decisions | Dec 18 2013, 09:26 PM Post #6 |
![]()
|
If I may, Your Honour, I would like to request an informal recess for my scheduled Leave of Absence. While I do not wish to prevent the prosecution from proceeding, with his initial argument, I would like to say that I will be unable to respond or advance arguments until Saturday night EST at the earliest. |
Moronist Decisions ED EOB EIN ESH ESS![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Formerly: Attorney General, Associate Justice/PIP, World Assembly Delegate, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Minister of World Assembly Affairs, Senator | |
| off | Quote |
| Matthew Vinage | Dec 18 2013, 09:56 PM Post #7 |
|
Hot and spicy man
![]()
|
Request granted. Mr. Kraketopia, you may present your evidence, and if you have any witnesses, you may also present them. |
Matthew Vinage-Sovetskie EEN OR4 WE3
| |
| off | Quote |
| Kraketopia | Jan 1 2014, 05:53 PM Post #8 |
![]()
|
OOC: Apologies for the late response, the Christmas break ate most of my rl time. IC: Thank you, your honour. I will now demonstrate evidence that conclusively proves Samsara's guilt on all four charges. Samsara violated Section 17 of the Criminal Code - "Any citizen who uses a proxy, defined as a website, program, or server which allows said citizen to change or conceal their Internet Protocol Address, without a legitimate proxy waiver, to view the forums of Europeia, is guilty of the offense of Unlawful Use of a Proxy..." This is evident when one simply looks at the admin log showing Samsara's IP addresses on Nov. 30, 2013 from 10 am to 12 pm GMT. Her IP address locates her in Madrid, then Bordeaux, then Unlanbaatar, Lima, and other locations. Finally she decides on Mumbai, and her location remains consistent. This is clear use of a proxy to hide her IP location, as it would be physically impossible for somebody to travel to all of these locations in the mere time frame of two hours. Samsara did not have a legitimate proxy waiver. Samsara also violated Section 10 of the Criminal Code - " Anyone who knowingly impersonates or attempts to impersonate another member of Europeia is guilty of the offense of Identity Theft under this law..." On Dec. 4, 2013, one day after Lethen announced his Leave of Absence, Samsara changed her avatar to Lethen's, changed her name to Lethun, and her signature to the same used by Lethen. The admins have provided a record of all these changes. These are clear violations of the identity theft law, as Samsara tried to copy Lethen in every way possible. Samsara violated Section 12 Subsection i of the Criminal Code - "Anyone who knowingly: (i) provides members with misleading or deceitful information in order to favor one's self." After making her account look as much like Lethen's as possible, Samsara then stood for election to seek to gain power from the good reputation Lethen possesses in the region. On Dec. 4, 2013 Samsara stood for election to the Senate, and was elected on Dec. 6. On Dec. 5 she created her campaign thread, which stated "Please vote Lethun for a new perspective in the Senate! I may have only just joined but I know I can make Europeia a better place." I imagine the defense will attempt to use this statement to prove that she was not trying to deceive the public, but I will make note of the fact that she only chose to change her profile to match Lethen's after he went on a Leave of Absence, and only chose to disclose information that might make her look new on that thread, probably to try to cover herself in case of legal proceedings, such as the one she is currently in. At no point in her campaign did she indicate that she was actually Samsara, or someone who was clearly not Lethen. The campaign thread only has three views, showing that the voters of the region did not check her thread, and simply voted for her on the poll. This effectively was deceiving the public for personal gain, even if Samsara did make a statement that may seem to show she was new. She had no reason to make an account similar to Lethen's except for personal gain, especially within that time period. Finally, Samsara violated Section 19 of the Criminal Code - "Anyone who knowingly uses, in excess, obscene, offensive, profane or derogatory language or implications towards another Europeian, on the Europeian forums or RMB, or as a representative, authorized or unauthorized, of Europeia is guilty of the offense of Obscenity..." Evidence of Samsara's obscenity can be found on Lethen's "WTF" thread posted in the Grand Hall on Dec. 7, 2013. Samsara states "Go fuck yourselves you wankers, I only wanted to make a difference here!" and "Fuck your court and fuck your region!" The first statement is not that obscene, and if it were alone, would probably not result in obscenity charges. The second statement is highly obscene as it directly insults the court of the region, and the region itself. In the recent case of Europeia v Zenny the bar for obscenity was set quite high, with exceptions being made for the use of commonly accepted terms/images which may have been considered obscene in the past. I will argue that directly attacking the honor held by the courts of Europeia and Europeia itself has crossed the line into obscenity, as it directly insults all of the members of Europeia, and insults the traditions and codes that bind us as citizens. This is not a case of cultural bias, this is a case of direct assault on the very institutions of Europeia. If this is not obscene, then nothing deserves to be considered obscene. The prosecution concludes its demonstration of the volume of evidence against Samsara. |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() C.V.
| |
| off | Quote |
| Matthew Vinage | Jan 7 2014, 04:28 PM Post #9 |
|
Hot and spicy man
![]()
|
Sorry for being late. I've been busy with holiday stuff. Thank you. Mr. Decisions, you may now present the defence's evidence, as well as any witnesses you may have. Edited by Matthew Vinage, Jan 7 2014, 06:43 PM.
|
Matthew Vinage-Sovetskie EEN OR4 WE3
| |
| off | Quote |
| Moronist Decisions | Feb 7 2014, 04:28 AM Post #10 |
![]()
|
Your Honour, I must first apologize for my delay in responding. My real life commitments have left me wanting in this regard. In response to the charges, I shall divide my defense by charge Unlawful Use of a Proxy If I may cite examples from my own real life experience, the IP address pools of organizations may be intermingled at times, and my own RL institution has issues in that our own library proxy server was found to reside in the IP range of another institution. I believe that Samsara is dealing with a temperamental internet connection, where his IP address was renewed into a range of different IP pools. When this was resolved, it was unsurprising that his IP remained consistent geographically. It cannot be expected that our citizens have control over the IP addresses they use, provided they did not use a proxy server. Deceiving the Public/Identity Theft The law states, for both charges:
and
In this case, the newness of Samsara has to be considered, especially given the term knowingly. While ignorance of the law is no defense, the law states that the act must be committed knowingly. In Europeia v. Jerrymania [OCTOBER 2010] 1 HCE, Hyangyo CJ stated that [/i]
Therefore, I submit that for the requisite mens reas for the lesser Identity Theft charge, it must be proven that Samsara knew that changing his avatar would lead to others believing that he (as Lethun) is, in fact, going to be confused for Supreme Chancellor Lethen. It is a relevant fact that an administrator had to have approved the username to Lethun. It indicated that the change in screen name, at least to one Europeian, did not indicate a problem with the name per se. Furthermore, while he did change the signature and avatar to those of Supreme Chancellor Lethen, at least there is no indication that there is a problem in the criminal code with actually adopting others' avatars; indeed, the forum provides standard avatars that may be used by others. Furthermore, there is no evidence that Samsara in fact was aware of Lethen's leave of absence, or that he actually was trying to do anything other than imitate Lethen's style. As far as the charge of Deceiving the Public is concerned, the evidence is even more shaky. Firstly, the main evidence that the voters of Europeia voted based on the similarity of the username is, in my view, not an issue, given that an administrator actually considered this to be a legal act, suggesting that the usernames are considered to be sufficiently dissimilar to not be a problem within Europeia. Furthermore, while the prosecution dismisses the campaign thread of Samsara/Lethun as being a legal "cover your ass" act, the fact is that, in posting this thread - through its contents and style - he clearly indicated to the Europeian electorate that he is not Lethen. Furthermore, the low number of views of this thread - in the absence of evidence that Samsara posted elsewhere beyond the citizenship threads - suggests further that there was little, or no, effect of Samsara's changing of his avatar or signature. Therefore, there is no indication that the actus reus of deceiving the public was committed beyond using an administratively-approved username. Regarding Clause 12 of the Criminal Code, one must deliberately provde members with "misleading or deceitful information". "Information", according to the Cambridge Academic Content Dictionary, is defined as "news, facts, or knowledge". Since neither Lethen's signature nor avatar actually contain "news, facts, or knowledge", I submit that Samsara did not provide any "misleading or deceitful information". He cannot be held responsible for the fact that so few voters viewed his candidacy thread. I also note that a new citizen cannot be expected to know the "who's who" of Europeia. For these offenses to occur knowingly, the citizen must be aware of the quality of his action. While he may have seen the signature and avatar of Supreme Chancellor Lethen, Samsara is likely unaware of Lethen's standing in Europeian society and therefore there is no proof that he was aware of the implications of his actions. Obscenity Obscenity, defined as
We need to consider whether the statements are "obscene, offensive, profane or derogatory language". In Europeia v. Zenny [DEC 2013] 1 HCE, Drecq J used the definition that obscene is "offensive or disgusting by accepted standards of morality and decency". Given modern Western standards of informal speech, the word "fuck" is not significantly offensive or disgusting in the context used, and the term "wanker", while derogatory, is acceptable in moderation in normal use. Furthermore, the law requires that there be an excess of such language or implications. I submit that these are, therefore, "commonly accepted terms" when not used in excess. Given the limited severity of the obscenity, and that the quantity of such speech is extremely low. Therefore, in comparison with Europeia v. Zenny, again the degree and number of instances of such obscenity is significantly less, given that there are only four words - in two different posts - where such language was used, and Drecq J did acknowledge the fact that "a picture is a thousand words". Furthermore, Hyangyo J in Europeia v. Jerrymania [OCTOBER 2010] 1 HCE declared that offensive speech must occur in at least two occasions for it to even be considered. Given that these occurred effectively in a single exchange within a single thread, separated by one post, I submit that there is insufficient grounds to consider there to be an excess of "obscene, offensive, profane or derogatory language" that is used. The defense concludes its rebuttal of the prosecution at this time. Edited by Moronist Decisions, Feb 7 2014, 04:40 AM.
|
Moronist Decisions ED EOB EIN ESH ESS![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Formerly: Attorney General, Associate Justice/PIP, World Assembly Delegate, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Minister of World Assembly Affairs, Senator | |
| off | Quote |
| Matthew Vinage | Feb 7 2014, 04:59 PM Post #11 |
|
Hot and spicy man
![]()
|
Thanks again. Mr. Decisions, your closing statement, please. |
Matthew Vinage-Sovetskie EEN OR4 WE3
| |
| off | Quote |
| Moronist Decisions | Feb 17 2014, 01:35 AM Post #12 |
![]()
|
Your Honour, It is clear from custom that the prosecution must prove that the defendant is guilty, and not for the reverse. Furthermore, while there is no definitive statement of the standard of proof, Hyangyo wrote, in his Europeian Law, that "in criminal cases 'proof beyond reasonable doubt'" is required. In the case of illegal proxy use, it is clear that there is no proof that my client performed the actus reus of using a proxy beyond what can be classified as circumstantial evidence of fluctuating IP addresses, without firm evidence that these IP addresses were associated with proxy servers. Similarly, no proof was provided beyond circumstantial evidence that Samsara intended to impersonate Lethen; he intended merely to use such interesting icons. I shall remind Your Honour that Hyangyo CJ, in Europeia v. Jerrymania [OCTOBER 2010] 1 HCE indicated that it is reasonable to expect the prosecution to prove that the defendant had the requisite actus reus except under certain, very limited circumstances. In the case of Deceiving the Public, Samsara clearly did not know the identity and importance of Lethen in Europeian society, and furthermore indicated in his thread that he is running as someone who is new - and thus cannot be said to be running under Lethen's assumed identity. He therefore cannot be said to have "knowingly: [provided] members with misleading or deceitful information" beyond newbie mistakes that were colluded by the Administrators of this forum. Regarding the obscenity charge, beyond two or three derogatory phrases that are commonly used in everyday, informal language, there is clearly not an excess of "excess, obscene, offensive, profane or derogatory language" and therefore I submit that he is not guilty of obscenity either. I therefore ask Your Honour to restore my client's good name and return him to Europeian society. I rest my case. |
Moronist Decisions ED EOB EIN ESH ESS![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Formerly: Attorney General, Associate Justice/PIP, World Assembly Delegate, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Minister of World Assembly Affairs, Senator | |
| off | Quote |
| Matthew Vinage | Feb 19 2014, 02:57 PM Post #13 |
|
Hot and spicy man
![]()
|
Mr. Kraketopia, please present your closing statement. |
Matthew Vinage-Sovetskie EEN OR4 WE3
| |
| off | Quote |
| Kraketopia | Apr 28 2014, 10:48 PM Post #14 |
![]()
|
OOC: My apologies for taking so long, I forgot IC: Your Honour, The defence seeks to place an unreasonable burden of proof upon the prosecution, similar to making someone scientifically prove God's existence in a theology debate. In Europeia v. Jerrymania a burden of proof is placed upon the prosecution to prove intent, but within reason. One must show a connection between the activity and intent, but this can be done through the evidence presented here, as I've demonstrated and will further analyze below. To reach the level of proof the defence asks for, one would essentially require a confession from the defendant. Unlawful Use of a Proxy By accepting the defence's position on varying IP addresses Europeia would never be able to prosecute those who use proxies, and our forums would become seriously jeapordized. Varying IP's associated with proxies are essentially the only way to track proxy usage. Samsara could have easily been experimenting with proxies, and then have finally found one in Mumbai which worked for her(or so one of my techie friends tells me). While it is possible she could have simply experienced the technical problems MD alludes to, I believe the burden would be on Samsara to provide some kind of notice or proof of technical issues in such a case. Normally the burden is not on the defendent, but since IP variability is the only way to detect the usage of a proxy server, in this case some burden is placed on the defendant to prove their intentions. Just as in a murder trial if a defendent is proven guilty of shooting somebody, they then need to provide some proof that it was self defence or an accident(whether it be their own testimony, or defence provided evidence). Identity Theft Samsara did everything within her power to look like Lethen. She picked a name as close as possible to Lethen's, and put Lethen's exact avatar and signature on her profile. This shows a deliberate attempt to mimic Lethen as much as possible. The fact that an administrator deemed the name change legitimate holds little credibility here. Administrators have precedence when it comes to violations of Zetaboards policy, but where matters of the Court are involved, they have no jurisdiction. In Europeia v. Zenny Zenny received the Admins' consent to post her images/articles, but this did not prevent the Court from trying her for Obscenity. Obscenity is a charge of the High Court of Europeia, and is therefore not under the jurisdiciton of our Administration. The exact same principle applies here. The judgement call of one administrator does not mean it was not Identity Theft Deceiving the Public The fact that Samsara made all of these changes to her account after Lethen went on LoA and immediately preceding an election makes the motivation behind these changes highly suspicious. The Defence has argued that as a newcomer she could not have known about things such as the importance of Lethen, but I believe that is a ridiculous argument since 1) She may not be a newcomer, as demonstrated by her possible use of a proxy 2) Lethen's popularity is incredibly easy to notice, I knew about his position in Euro within the first day of my arrival. We even post his title and position at the top of the site, for all to see 3) The timing of her identity change was absolutely perfect for commiting fraud. The Criminal Code(2012) defines the crime of Deceiving the Public as
The defence defined information as "news, facts or knowledge." It is clear that MD has never taken a philosophy of language class, or he would have realized how he had doomed his client. An avatar and a signature are information. They tell those viewing you something about yourself, and in this case they serve as a form of identity. This identification serves as information, that you *are* somebody specific. So to try to claim that Samsara provided no information to deceive the public would be ignorant of what information is. The fact that only three people read her platform doesn't matter. The intent to defraud Europeian voters was there by her simply trying to pretend to be Lethen. Also, while many people may not have read the campaign thread they most likely saw her post to stand, and concluded that she was, indeed, the real Lethen. Finally, while the defence has claimed that Samsara did inform the region she wasn't Lethen, I would argue that this "confession" wasn't explicit enough, and if anything, was simply put in place to try to prevent a court case. Samsara wrote " Please vote Lethun for a new perspective in the Senate! I may have only just joined but I know I can make Europeia a better place." Many Senate hopefuls write that they will bring new perspective to the Senate, and the statement "I may have only just joined" could easily apply to the Senate race itself. At no point does Samsara make it explicit that she is not Lethen, nor does she ever explain why she has chosen to look like Lethen. This is what I would call unacceptable, and an omission of information with the intent to deceive the public. The Prosecution argues that the timing of the identity change and run for office, as well as the thoroughness of the identity change, all provide enough evidence to prove intent. Intent must be proven, but within a reasonable definition. The only way the Court could prove greater intent would be to provide a confession from the accused, which is an insanely high burden of proof to put on any court. Obscenity Three counts of obscenity are present, and two of the counts are separated from a warning by HEM(or "HAM" :P) that this type of behaviour could land Samsara in court. I believe this counts as an adequate separation of counts for this to be considered a case of Obscenity. The fact that Samsara insulted the spirit of Europeia, and this very Court itself, through profanity and a spirit of hostility constitutes one of the greatest forms of obscenity that could be conducted through text. Besides spouting off a large text body of grotesque, disgusting phrases, what could be worse than flippantly insulting Europeia itself? I believe many Europeians would even consider grotesqueness less offensive, as it shows a less malicious attitude towards Europeia. If such behaviour towards Europeia and its Court are not obscene, then I'm not sure what the point of having an Obscenity law could be. The prosecution rests. |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() C.V.
| |
| off | Quote |
| Kraketopia | Jun 30 2014, 02:28 AM Post #15 |
![]()
|
Could someone rule on this?
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() C.V.
| |
| off | Quote |
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
|
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Judicial Archives · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2

.








[/hide]
~Asianatic















