Attn Justices: Atlasia v. Benconstine

[Sam Spade]

As to the exhibits presented by the prosecution:

Exhibits "A" to "E" and "G" to "I" are admissible at trial.
Exhibits "F" and "J" are inadmissible.  "J" may be admissible in the future, but only upon particular circumstances occurring.

Trial shall begin once all jurors are sworn in.

[Peter]

The defense objects to the introduction of exhibits A to E and G, and if necessary will take these issues up on appeal.

[Sam Spade]

The defense objects to the introduction of exhibits A to E and G, and if necessary will take these issues up on appeal.

So noted.

[Sam Spade]

It is now over 96 hours since the first PM I sent to gporter and 24 hours since my last PM sent.

Due to the necessity of continuing this trial in a speedy manner, I find gporter in contempt of court and order that his voting privileges be suspended until he posts in this thread or this trial is over.

As this trial must proceed, I have consulted the I Ching and selected another juror from the pool.  The lucky citizen who gets to participate in this jury's august deliberations is:

AHDuke

He shall have 48 hours to swear in - or I have to consult that I Ching or a Chines prostitute again...

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

I swear (or affirm) that I will well and truly try the matter in issue between the parties, and give a true verdict according to the law and evidence, so help me Dave.



Ugh, swearing allegiance to Mr. Leip is so wrong in my book. I hope the good Lord forgives me and doesn't toss me like a dead fly to the bowels of hell.

[Sam Spade]

Ugh, swearing allegiance to Mr. Leip is so wrong in my book. I hope the good Lord forgives me and doesn't toss me like a dead fly to the bowels of hell.

Dave Leip doesn't ban anyone.  Don't think you have to worry.

[Sam Spade]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You may be seated.  As the jury has now been seated and sworn, you may now proceed to present your case Attorney General Franzl.

[Franzl]

Your honor, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, it is my pleasure to present to you the state's case against Mr. Benconstine of Virginia.

It is my intent to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did two things:

1.) Held a second account "The Populist"
2.) Registered to vote with that account, thereby meeting the Consolidated Criminal Justice Act's definition of voter fraud. (He also voted with this account, and I shall supply evidence thereof in addition.)

(3. 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.) (CCJA, Section 1, Clause 3)


On numerous occasions, the defendant himself states that he controlled the above mentioned second account, and I offer the following statements as proof:

Exhibit A:

I shall be prosecuting the Governor for voter fraud.

The Populist never voted.

The defendant shows indeed that "The Populist" was a second account by understanding immediately why he faced prosecution.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exhibit B:

I shall be prosecuting the Governor for voter fraud.

The Populist never voted.

He registered, presumably with the intent to vote.

I never planned to vote with him.

Indeed, as in Exhibit A, although he lies about having voted with the second account, as I shall prove later on, he again shows that he was in control of "The Populist"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Exhibit C:

I never planned to vote with him.

And yet you registered him with the Regional Protection Party. How ironic.

Yeah.  I almost did SDP, but decided against it.

Not only does this again prove that the defendant is guilty, but it also indicates that he registered to vote with that account, and it also shows that he gave his criminal actions some thought in advance.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exhibit D:

I would simply like to confirm that I am The Populist.  I never intended to vote, and I will continue to say that.  It is not my intent to resign, nor will I sign the recall petition.  I will, of course, not seek reelection, and I endorse Inks as well.

This is an absolutely clear confession. I don't think I need to comment further.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Exhibit E:

I really am a fucking moron   I'd forgotten all about that vote, actually.

Although registering to vote is the actual crime, by indicating that he did actually vote with the account (after having denied the action previously), he further strengthens the case against himself.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exhibit G:

Ben has some deep insecurity issues

No I don't.

yeah, you started a thread on an internet forum through a proxy account asking people what they thought of you.  that's basically the definition.

It's bad form to start one for yourself.

And once again, the defendant shows that he was "The Populist" and he even gives a possible reason as to why.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now, I believe it has been clearly proven that Benconstine controlled the second account (some of the above statements even indicate that he committed voter fraud with that account). I will now show you the voter registration and even the questionable vote.

Exhibit H:

The Populist
Tennessee
RPP

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Exhibit I:

Official ballot


[ ] Bacon King
Jesus Christ Party
[1] South Park Conservative [Chuck Hagel 08]
Regional Protection Party
[  ] Obama is my President. [lief]
Social Democratic Party
[2] Write-in: Ben Constine
[  ] None of the above

[/quote]

In conclusion, and objectively speaking, I see no way to have left any doubt as to the guilt of the defendant. I eagerly wait for the defense to respond.

The prosecution rests.

[Sam Spade]

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

[Franzl]

The prosecution rests.

As previously stated, your honor, the prosecution rests.

[Sam Spade]

Sorry, missed that. 

As the prosecution rests, you may now proceed to present your case, Counsel.

[Peter]

If it may please the Court, the defence would like until Saturday aftenoon to post its argument. I need further time to consult my client and real life work will be particularly busy tomorrow.

[Sam Spade]

Until Saturday afternoon is ok with me.

[Franzl]

Until Saturday afternoon is ok with me.

I have no problem with that either.

[minionofmidas]

I swear (or affirm) that I will well and truly try the matter in issue between the parties, and give a true verdict according to the law and evidence, so help me Dave.



Ugh, swearing allegiance to Mr. Leip is so wrong in my book. I hope the good Lord forgives me and doesn't toss me like a dead fly to the bowels of hell.

I won't forgive you. (tosses Duke to South Carolina like a dead fly)

[Franzl]

I'd appreciate it if the defense finally made their case; we shouldn't leave things open for this long.

[Peter]

The defence makes no case and will leave matters for appeal. The defence rests.

[GMantis]

The defence makes no case and will leave matters for appeal. The defence rests.

Yes, it's not like the defense had a case.

[Franzl]

in that case....do we proceed to closing arguments?

[Sam Spade]

in that case....do we proceed to closing arguments?

There's no provision in the statute for closing arguments and there's clearly no need for rebuttal of the defendant's case (unless I'm really missing something here).

However, if you wish to make a quick closing statement before the case is presented to the jury, I will allow.  Naturally, I will give Defendant's counsel the same right should he choose to exercise it.  I would ask that both of you make it fairly concise.

[Franzl]

Gentlemen of the jury,

as I stated in my original argument, I believe that I have proven beyond any possible doubt that the defendant is guilty as charged.

I ask that you do your civic duty and make sure that criminal behavior results in appropriate punishment.

Thank you.

[Peter]

No closing statement

[Sam Spade]

As both parties have now read their closing statements, I shall proceed to 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, which states:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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 "The Populist" are not to be considered by you as the jury as you make your decision, though 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 the Jury Reform Act, as interpreted by myself as judge, the decision of three 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 three jurors have agreed on the same verdict for a period of 24 hours.

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

NOTE:  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.

[Bacon King]

The answer to both questions is yes; he's quite clearly guitly.

[Josh/Devilman88]

I like Benconstine, he is a very good person and brings alot to the Atlas Forum, but I have to put feeling aside. Once you do that it is very clear that Benconstine is guitly. I don't think he was trying to do any harm, but the rules are rules. If you break them you have to pay the price. So, I sorry Benconstine, but I vote guitly, unless another juror can show how Benconstine isn't.