Newsletter Ranting: Honesty, Delivered Brutally [Mad Marokai!]

[Marokai Backbeat]

Newsletter Ranting

Telling it like it is. Angrily.

Senator Pretender.
November 29th, 2010

Hear that I'm a big bad evil biased JCPer always trying to tilt the justice system in favor of the left-wing and against people I don't like? You haven't? Why, it's the latest trend! Like the color black, it goes with anything in any season! Entirely unfounded, of course, but isn't it fun to play games once in awhile?

Libertas' latest fact-free screed concerns the case of Atlasia v. Antonio V. Brought up by former Attorney General Kalwejt under the order of former President Purple State, Antonio was being prosecuted for the crime of "maliciously editing the wiki." The trick, of course, comes with proving the malicious intent, difficult to do, since Antonio on a variety of occasions spelled out his completely legitimate reasons for doing what he did.

Of course, it's also difficult to prove such malice when there is no prosecution, and here's where Libertas comes into play. Previously before becoming AG, I argued in defense of Antonio, such a thing made me biased, of course, and I didn't believe that I was in a good position to argue against him, since I'd already made arguments against the prosecution of him in the first place. Since I'm under no obligation to prosecute cases I don't believe in myself, in my confirmation hearing, I made this offer to Libertas: (Bolded for emphasis.)

As Attorney General, would you dedicate yourself 100% to arguing and pursuing justice even in cases against your political allies in the JCP?

Yes, I believe I've demonstrated in my legal career in Atlasia a rather unbiased outlook.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's a sticky issue for me. I don't believe in the case myself, and I've even argued from outside of the case against you. I'd hate to just drop charges and I don't believe that would be the appropriate thing to do in that case. If it pleases you, I'd appoint you or anyone you desired in my place for that case to continue arguing and let the case play out.

Libertas proceeded to completely ignore that offer. He accused me of trying to let off a friend, and ignoring his case, because I don't like Libertas much.

In a disappointing turn of events for the incoming administration, recently-confirmed Attorney General Marokai Blue will not be enforcing Atlasian law against political allies, VOTZ has learned.

The news came when Marokai announced his refusal to defend Atlasia in the case of Atlasia vs. Antonio V, a case initiated and supported by more mature members of the Purple State and Fritz administrations, including former Attorney General Kalwejt.

Marokai has implied that the case would never have even be prosecuted in the first place had it been up to him, leaving serious doubts about his commitment to justice. Antonio V is charged with violating Section 1, Clause 5 of the Consolidated Criminal Justice Act, related to acts of partisan Wiki vandalism dating back to July of this year.

Despite serious questions about his lack of qualifications for the role, which have only been magnified by recent events, Blue was easily confirmed as AG by the Senate yesterday. After very little debate, he received the unanimous support of the JCP and RPP delegations.

Many Atlasians might be left wondering what the point is of having an Attorney General who refuses to even do his job.

Repeat such accusations in a variety of different ways. The general thrust of his insanity is that I don't want to do my job or go after a friend in court. Nowhere in any of his posts does Libertas respond to my offer. He never even really acknowledges that I proposed to give him complete control over the prosecution. Counting the offer I made in the confirmation thread (that the Pretender Senator didn't even vote in), here are just some other instances where I repeated or referenced my offer to him:

In order to accommodate Libertas, along with my personal belief that ongoing cases should at least be respected to some degree, I will personally appoint anyone Libertas desires to argue the case on his behalf.

Mmhm.

You're free to respond to the offer I gave you during my confirmation hearing about appointing anyone you want to argue the case in my stead. Which, you know, you haven't. I suppose it's much more fun to have something to bitch about instead of deal with the issue to move on.

I will ask you one more time before I take this to the presiding Justice to deal with himself:

I will appoint anyone you desire in my place to prosecute this case against Antonio. Do you accept my offer or not, and if you do, pick someone for me to appoint.

I'm perfectly willing to appoint anyone to take on the case aside from me or let the case go straight to the jury. If I wanted to be "shamelessly partisan" I couldn't just waltzed right in here and done my damnedest to derail the entire process. I didn't. I offered you the choice of anyone you wanted to pursue the case in my stead, as I don't believe in the case, and publicly argued in Antonio's favor before I became Attorney General.

No, that's probably not even half.

Libertas clearly lacked any interest in actually pursuing the case at all. The only thing the Senator wanted was a good fake controversy he could peddle for political benefit, nothing more. It had nothing to do with making the case go through, it had nothing to do with getting a good prosecution, it had nothing to do with the alleged crime at all. It had to do with Libertas seeking a political victory against the JCP on his own petty motives.

Moreover, the guy's image is completely fraudulent and the people who fawn over endorsing him as their token radical on the basis of "opposing voices" or "debate" should all stop fooling themselves and move on.

A couple weeks ago or so, there was some silly huge controversy over Bacon King's inactivity in the Senate and the threat of him getting kicked out. All the spectators of course expressed concerns of his inactivity and were very disappointed and yadda yadda yadda. People like North Carolina Yankee, Tmthforu94, and wormyguy were all on a crusade against him and thought he should be expelled from the Senate. Tmth later in other threads condemned BK for his inactivity.

Libertas, however, hasn't been active in the Senate very much himself lately. His refusal to vote in the PPT election caused a huge controversy when Kalwejt was forced (due to Libertas again wanting to neglect his duties to cause a JCP-targetted controversy) to break the tie, and Kalwejt later went on to point out just some of the votes Libertas has missed, not to mention the lack of debate from him:

The Green Homes Act
Hans confirmation for RG
Marokai Blue confirmation for AG
Hashemite confirmation for SoEA
Doctor Cynic confirmation for SoIA
Federal-Regional Relations Act of 2010
Amendment to the Rebuilding Haiti Act
Amendment to the Proportional Representation Act
Amendment to the Consolidated Electoral Systems Reform Act
Resolution on extending the CON-CON
Omnibus Trade Reorganization & Wiki Consolidation Act
Expansion of Emergency Credit Access Act
Afleitch confirmation for SoIA
Kalwejt confirmation for AG
Teddy confirmation for SoFE

But when it came time for Libertas to announce his intentions to run for re-election as a Senator, the endorsements flooded in. I think you know where I'm going with this. Want to see something fun?

Endorsed!

Endorsed! Best of luck to you.

Endorsed

The inactivity of Bacon King is a pressing issue that very much disappoints them.
The inactivity of Libertas gets him an endorsement from them.

Apparently, a controversy always matters more when it's the JCP in the crosshairs.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Libertas, Sewer Socialist, & Marokai's Blast From The Past
Going back in time since.. well, wouldn't you like to know?

November 29th, 2010

Remember how I'm an evil partisan bastard who hates Libertas and that's why I throw court cases against him in favor of left-wing voters?

Let's take a trip in the Newsletter Ranting Time Machine back to February and March 2010.

Sewer Socialist was on trial for the alleged crime of impersonation of another forum member. Impersonation of who, exactly? Libertas.

Despite the fact that Libertas, a member I supposedly hate and slant the Justice system against, was impersonated by Sewer Socialist, a member who traditionally votes for left-wing candidates I would support and vote for, I pulled no punches. Not only did I pull no punches with judging Sewer Socialist by adding contempt of court charges against him on top of that crime, here's the totally-soft-letting-him-off-easy-cause-I'm-so-biased-and-hate-Libertas punishment I gave him:

Impersonation may be a minor crime, in my opinion, and it's certainly something that Sewer Socialist is guilty of. But evading the court, intentionally snubbing the court with refusals to appear even after repeatedly being told to and quite obviously being active on the Atlas forum at large, is something I, personally, and the court, generally, takes extremely seriously and is not to be done jokingly.

The further action of re-appearing after the court had to engage in unprecedented procedure to move the wheels of justice along was, seemingly, just another attempt to frustrate the court and throw a wrench in the judicial process.

All of this adds up to a clear intent to upset the legal system the defendant has, in the past, skirted dangerously close to the lines of, and now, faces with a guilty plea. I don't take kindly to any of this.

The court hereby sentences the defendant to two concurrent punishments.

For the charge of impersonating another Atlas member, Libertas specifically, the defendant is sentenced to a fifty-day voting ban and a fifty-day office-holding ban starting tomorrow, March 11th, 2010.

For the contempt of court charge, Sewer Socialist is sentenced to a ninety day voting ban and a one-hundred and eighty day office-holding ban starting tomorrow, March 11th, 2010.

I'd advise the defendant not to violate these punishments.

Worth thinking about in light of recent events.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     I have no clue how the case against Antonio V even materialized. As I understand it, he only changed the color of the Populares on their wiki page. Unless he was changing it to puke or something, it doesn't seem like something that would damage them in the least.

     Last time I checked, criminal cases generally do not get prosecuted unless harm or the potential for harm exists. Not to mention this case specifically requires malice. According to the Fourth Edition of the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, malice refers to:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

     Note in particular the second definition. As far as I know, Atlasian law uses the same definition of malice as American law does. How changing the Populares's color to a slightly different shade of green could possibly be a wrongful act that would result in their harm is as of yet unclear to me.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Haha, how stupid do you think you readers are? Sewer Socialist is not and never has been a JCP insider nor does he have a red avatar nor is he a personal ally of yours. Tony is all of those things, as well as a loyal partisan hack and social democrat.

     I have no clue how the case against Antonio V even materialized. As I understand it, he only changed the color of the Populares on their wiki page. Unless he was changing it to puke or something, it doesn't seem like something that would damage them in the least.

     Last time I checked, criminal cases generally do not get prosecuted unless harm or the potential for harm exists. Not to mention this case specifically requires malice. According to the Fourth Edition of the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, malice refers to:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

     Note in particular the second definition. As far as I know, Atlasian law uses the same definition of malice as American law does. How changing the Populares's color to a slightly different shade of green could possibly be a wrongful act that would result in their harm is as of yet unclear to me.

Vandalizing the Wiki page of an opposing party 13 times over a four month period, after being repeatedly asked to stop, is inherently malicious.


But it's okay, since the precedent has been set, I guess I'll be deciding what's best for the JCP's Wiki article from now on.

[Keystone Phil]

I am happy to stand with Marokai on the issue of Libertas' inactivity and am equally outraged at making inactivity an issue then completely ignoring it when endorsing individuals.

[SvenssonRS]

All other issues aside, I can tell you exactly why the dear editor deigned to point out Libertas' campaign endorsements with such contempt.

None of them were liberal. There you have it.

Good day.

[Keystone Phil]

All other issues aside, I can tell you exactly why the dear editor deigned to point out Libertas' campaign endorsements with such contempt.

None of them were liberal. There you have it.

Good day.

I think he pointed them out because they are hypocrites. One person in particular gets on me case for being "unfit to lead" and questions my activity then endorses Libertas. It's a joke.

[Marokai Backbeat]

All other issues aside, I can tell you exactly why the dear editor deigned to point out Libertas' campaign endorsements with such contempt.

None of them were liberal. There you have it.

Good day.

I intended on naming Oakvale too, but I couldn't find any direct criticism he had of BK, though I think he was critical of him. If I'd found it, I would've posted it, I promise.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Haha, how stupid do you think you readers are? Sewer Socialist is not and never has been a JCP insider nor does he have a red avatar nor is he a personal ally of yours. Tony is all of those things, as well as a loyal partisan hack and social democrat.

     I have no clue how the case against Antonio V even materialized. As I understand it, he only changed the color of the Populares on their wiki page. Unless he was changing it to puke or something, it doesn't seem like something that would damage them in the least.

     Last time I checked, criminal cases generally do not get prosecuted unless harm or the potential for harm exists. Not to mention this case specifically requires malice. According to the Fourth Edition of the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, malice refers to:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

     Note in particular the second definition. As far as I know, Atlasian law uses the same definition of malice as American law does. How changing the Populares's color to a slightly different shade of green could possibly be a wrongful act that would result in their harm is as of yet unclear to me.

Vandalizing the Wiki page of an opposing party 13 times over a four month period, after being repeatedly asked to stop, is inherently malicious.


But it's okay, since the precedent has been set, I guess I'll be deciding what's best for the JCP's Wiki article from now on.

     How did his actions cause your party harm?

[Ebowed]

     I have no clue how the case against Antonio V even materialized. As I understand it, he only changed the color of the Populares on their wiki page. Unless he was changing it to puke or something, it doesn't seem like something that would damage them in the least.

     Last time I checked, criminal cases generally do not get prosecuted unless harm or the potential for harm exists. Not to mention this case specifically requires malice. According to the Fourth Edition of the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, malice refers to:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

     Note in particular the second definition. As far as I know, Atlasian law uses the same definition of malice as American law does. How changing the Populares's color to a slightly different shade of green could possibly be a wrongful act that would result in their harm is as of yet unclear to me.

Careful with that Soviet thinking.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Two excellent posts. As usual, you put it better than anybody else could have. Let's let Libertas cry and scream, and hope some day nobody will keep taking him seriously.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Damn, Guess I'm not alligned with Marokai. 


I didn't go on a "crusade" against Bacon King. I treated him as fairly as possible considering he did violate the existing activity standard and as it turns out, I even caved in against my better judgement, because I didn't want the Senate to be in limbo while a case was heard and dealt with. The fact that it was Bacon King made it easier for me to make that decision, and most certainly wouldn't have launched a personal crusade against Bacon King. As was pointed out, I could have shut my trap and let him expire. I am not surprised that this trash would engage in such distortions of the record.  I have been critical of all who have been innactive irregardless of party. There is no way to hold a Senator accountable for innactivity in in a five way, At-Large election, so I won't even try to do the impossible. If Bacon King decides to run again, I would endorse him as well. This isn't a partisan disregard for innactivity, it is a statement of the flaws in an election system you love so much.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I have an amazing idea for how to hold the inactive individuals accountable: Don't preference them or give them any verbal support.

And not aligned? How silly, we're aligned in many ways.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I have an amazing idea for how to hold the inactive individuals accountable: Don't preference them or give them any verbal support.

And not aligned? How silly, we're aligned in many ways.

But we need Libertas. He tweaks too many people to such an extent that activity as a whole would suffer without him.

Maybe, but without a campaign directed against the individual, it is not feasible to ace him out of a 5 way election. Don't get me wrong, few systems woudl hold such a Senator accountable in a game based on such close relationships between voter and candidate and with such partisanship.

I trust that if BK runs, you will not be endorsing him after criticizing Libertas and me for endorsing him? Because then you would be hypocritical about hypocrisy.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Haha, how stupid do you think you readers are? Sewer Socialist is not and never has been a JCP insider nor does he have a red avatar nor is he a personal ally of yours. Tony is all of those things, as well as a loyal partisan hack and social democrat.

     I have no clue how the case against Antonio V even materialized. As I understand it, he only changed the color of the Populares on their wiki page. Unless he was changing it to puke or something, it doesn't seem like something that would damage them in the least.

     Last time I checked, criminal cases generally do not get prosecuted unless harm or the potential for harm exists. Not to mention this case specifically requires malice. According to the Fourth Edition of the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, malice refers to:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

     Note in particular the second definition. As far as I know, Atlasian law uses the same definition of malice as American law does. How changing the Populares's color to a slightly different shade of green could possibly be a wrongful act that would result in their harm is as of yet unclear to me.

Vandalizing the Wiki page of an opposing party 13 times over a four month period, after being repeatedly asked to stop, is inherently malicious.


But it's okay, since the precedent has been set, I guess I'll be deciding what's best for the JCP's Wiki article from now on.

     How did his actions cause your party harm?

Uh, vandalizing our party page to contain incorrect information? Forcing me to constantly sign on to the AtlasWiki having to undo his vandalism in a Wiki edit war lasting over four months? How is this okay with you?

One hell of a can of worms has been opened up with this ruling.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Libertas, I really can't escape impression you actually wanted Antonio to be found innocent and contributed to this with rejecting Marokai's offer for independent prosecutor.

Why? I can only guess... more drama, "bad clique, conspiracy, evil machine".

I'm not pleased with how this case goes. I really hoped for a proper trail, but you're not without guilt this ended this way too.

And before you're start to throw s**t at me, remember I was, as AG, on your side.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Haha, how stupid do you think you readers are? Sewer Socialist is not and never has been a JCP insider nor does he have a red avatar nor is he a personal ally of yours. Tony is all of those things, as well as a loyal partisan hack and social democrat.

     I have no clue how the case against Antonio V even materialized. As I understand it, he only changed the color of the Populares on their wiki page. Unless he was changing it to puke or something, it doesn't seem like something that would damage them in the least.

     Last time I checked, criminal cases generally do not get prosecuted unless harm or the potential for harm exists. Not to mention this case specifically requires malice. According to the Fourth Edition of the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, malice refers to:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

     Note in particular the second definition. As far as I know, Atlasian law uses the same definition of malice as American law does. How changing the Populares's color to a slightly different shade of green could possibly be a wrongful act that would result in their harm is as of yet unclear to me.

Vandalizing the Wiki page of an opposing party 13 times over a four month period, after being repeatedly asked to stop, is inherently malicious.


But it's okay, since the precedent has been set, I guess I'll be deciding what's best for the JCP's Wiki article from now on.

     How did his actions cause your party harm?

Uh, vandalizing our party page to contain incorrect information? Forcing me to constantly sign on to the AtlasWiki having to undo his vandalism in a Wiki edit war lasting over four months? How is this okay with you?

One hell of a can of worms has been opened up with this ruling.

     If the incorrect information is of a wholly trivial nature, there is nothing obligating you to bother with changing it back right away. So tell me, what did he do besides changing your party's color?