Atlasia v. Devilman88

[bgwah]

If the court allows me, I would like to respond to the defense's arguments.

[bgwah]

In response to this part:

As opposed to the circumstances surrounding Atlasia v. Benconstine I, my client never used, nor had the intention to use both accounts simultaneously in Atlasia. Benconstine's second account, The Populist, went so far as to actually vote in an election that Benconstine also voted in

I believe we should follow the precedence set by Atlasia v. Keystone Phil. During that case, then-Attorney General Hashemite said:

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.

Despite the fact that Phil, like Devilman88 aka Josh22, likely did not have malicious intent and did not intend to use both accounts to vote at the same time, it is still a crime. Phil was found guilty and that precedence must be considered here.

Devilman88 became active in Atlasia at a point where Josh22 no longer had any connection to Atlasia. It would be unfair to convict my client of voter fraud when "devilman88" was de facto my client's primary identity by that point.

Keystone Phil was not using multiple accounts at the same time. He was "primarily" using the Jessica Walterstein account, before deciding to switch back to the Keystone Phil account. But even then I do not believe this or the name of the case is relevant.

[Franzl]

I'm willing to respond to this....but I'd first like to wait for Justice opebo to rule whether anything mentioned during the court's recess will be listened to or accepted by the court.

(And it's getting late here....so I'd prefer to do this in the morning)

[opebo]

I'm willing to respond to this....but I'd first like to wait for Justice opebo to rule whether anything mentioned during the court's recess will be listened to or accepted by the court.

(And it's getting late here....so I'd prefer to do this in the morning)

Yes, go ahead.

[Franzl]

A couple of points, your honor:

1.) I maintain the fact that the name of the case is a valid and concerning point. The honorable Attorney General is accusing my client, Devilman88 (as opposed to Josh22), of entering someone other than his primary identity into the voter roll. I ask the court, how can Devilman88 not be Devilman88's primary identity?

2.) I would like to draw attention to a key difference between the Keystone Phil case and the accusations against my client. As previously stated, my client had practically dissolved all ties to Atlasia, having failed to vote in 4 consecutive elections, and indeed, that leading to his removal from the voter roll, albeit a few weeks after devilman88 had registered. For all practical purposes, however, I believe it is only just to say that josh22 had no ties to Atlasia, as he went so many elections without using his voting rights.

Keystone Phil, on the other hand, maintained his identity in Atlasia until his departure. I am unaware of the exact date, but I believe it, after a little research, to be a few months before he was accused of a crime in December 2007, most likely at some point in Fall. As you will see, I have evidence below of Keystone Phil voting in the following elections:


https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=58858.45 June 2007

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=53540.60 February 2007

I believe this establishes that Keystone Phil maintained ties to Atlasia, and thus, his primary identity....which made Jessica Walterstein a secondary identity when that account was entered into the voter roll.

I believe this is a key difference and has great impact on the defintion of "primary identity".

3.) Keystone Phil's secondary account, Jessica Walterstein, registered to vote in Atlasia very shortly after coming to the forum. Again, I am not aware of exact dates, but based on these statements, I have come to this certain conclusion:

I found it!

Name: Jessica Walterstein
State: Ohio
Party: Independent

Dear Forum Members,

The game is over. Over the past couple of days, I have posed as "Jessica Walterstein," the "girlfriend" of "Michael" Naso as a joke poster.

Thus it appears that it was his immediate intention to participate in Atlasia with the secondary account.

In contrast, my client, with his newly assumed identity, participated in other parts of the Atlas forum before registering on March 30, 2009. His first recorded posts were on March 11, 2009.

Devilman88
Kentucky
RPP

4.) Regardless of the above mentioned circumstances, my client has made it clear that his assumption of Devilman88 is a permanent change. My argument in 1.) should again strengthen this argument, as Devilman 88 is now widely accepted to be my client's primary identity.

In both other voter fraud cases, the accused both returned to their original accounts to face the charges against them, Keystone Phil and Benconstine. In this case, however, my client has maintained his primary identity, Devilman88, despite revelations about his history.


In conclusion, I believe it would be a great injustice to convict my client of voter fraud when his previous account was clearly not in usage at the time of his departure. This would be an unjust interpretation of the meaning of "primary identity", and I hope the court agrees with my opinion.

[Franzl]

I also don't mean to put unnecessary pressure on the court....but a speedy decision would be greatly appreciated, due to my upcoming leave of absence starting on Thursday, July 23.

[bgwah]

Even using your logic, the Republic of Atlasia still views someone as an active citizen until they have missed four elections.

Additionally, Keystone Phil also tried to argue that due to the inactivity of his previous account, it was no longer his primary identity. Although the case was later overturned due to an unwarranted search, this claim was not considered as part of the decision leading me to conclude that it did not justify what Phil did.

Justice Ernest,

The information in question wasn't exactly the specific lists. There was a post by the SoFA listing registered voters who would not be allowed to vote in upcoming elections due to inactivity which, as far as I know, would call into question the idea that I had a "primary identity" in Atlasia. I was included in that post and I sent that to my counsel just yesterday. I cannot find that post now.

As for the name of the case, just like the crime was committed in the Mideast Region because that is where the Devilman88 account was registered, the crime was committed with the Devilman88 account. It made sense at the time, but I still do not believe it has any relevance.

[Franzl]

I do not believe that that conclusion is correct. Simple lack of reference to that argument in the overturning of the case doesn't necessarily mean that it isn't relevant because there were far greater concerns in that case. The unwarranted search clearly was the reason the conviction was overturned, and I believe this court can make its own decision in regards to the definition of one's primary identity.

[opebo]

I find in favor of the prosecution.

[Franzl]

I thank the court for its time, and I shall be consulting with my client about further potential legal steps pending sentencing.

[Franzl]

After consulting with my client, I wish to state that the defense accepts the court's ruling and will not be appealing it.

I personally request a lenient sentence for my client due to the circumstances I hoped would lead the court to reach a verdict of "not guilty", but as said, I respect the court's opinion.

I would hope, however, that the court recognizes these factors.

[bgwah]

The penalty according the Consolidated Criminal Justice Act is "i. Up to a one year ban from voting in any Atlasian elections. ii. Up to two years ban from holding any office under the Republic of Atlasia."

The Attorney General is willing to agree that the maximum punishment does not match the severity of the crime committed and recommends a four month ban from voting and holding office.

[Franzl]

I beg your pardon, Mr. Attorney General?

In Atlasia v. Keystone Phil, the case that you believed offered clear precedence for this case, Keystone Phil was sentenced to a 1 week voting ban and 6 month ban from holding office.

In Atlasia v. Benconstine, where the criminal actually voted with the secondary identity, he was sentenced to a 13 week voting ban and 26 week ban from holding office.


May I ask why you believe my client should lose suffrage for 4 entire months?

[bgwah]

I fail to see what the point of a voting ban is if one does not actually miss any elections.

[Marokai Backbeat]

lol, One week?

[Franzl]

I fail to see what the point of a voting ban is if one does not actually miss any elections.

What happened to precedence?

I hope that the court recognizes that my client's crime was certainly not any more serious than in the Keystone Phil case, whose precedence, I assume, contributed to the court's final verdict.

[bgwah]

The meaning of certain laws isn't always crystal clear. Precedence helps us greatly here.

The possible punishments, however, are crystal clear. There is no question surrounding the wording of the punishment for the crime committed.

I cannot speak for past Attorney Generals, but I do believe some of the punishments handed out in the past have paled in comparison to the crime committed.

A voting ban is not a punishment if the criminal is not actually banned from voting in any elections. My recommendation is for four months--just 1/3 of the maximum (and 1/6 of the maximum for the office holding ban). It is essentially one full election cycle.

[Franzl]

Well the defense's desire is clear, that my client be treated no differently than Keystone Phil.

Should the court find this unacceptable, then I would still request that it disregard the honorable Attorney General's demand due to its absurdity.

If Benconstine, who not only fraudulently entered a second account into the voter roll, but also voted with that account, only had his voting rights terminated for 13 weeks, then the punishment for my client must be lower.

Accepting the prosecution's request would be an enormous injustice.

[bgwah]

Benconstine had clearly been wronged by Attorney General Xahar, which was taken into consideration by Justice Spade. That is not the case here.

Furthermore, Franzl himself was AG towards the end of the Atlasia v. Benscontine I case, so perhaps his judgment is clouded by a desire to defend his record as Attorney General.

[Franzl]

Furthermore, Franzl himself was AG towards the end of the Atlasia v. Benscontine I case, so perhaps his judgment is clouded by a desire to defend his record as Attorney General.

Seems rather interesting, considering that I made no suggestion in regards to Mr. Constine's penalty.

[Fritz]

I find in favor of the prosecution.

If it please the court, some explanation as to your ruling?  This was put forth with no explanation as to why the court reached this decision whatsoever.

[Peter]

In Atlasia v. Keystone Phil, the case that you believed offered clear precedence for this case, Keystone Phil was sentenced to a 1 week voting ban and 6 month ban from holding office.

The main thrust of punishment for Keystone Phil was to deny him the office of President - it didn't matter that he couldn't vote, what was key was the denial of office.

Here, what will actually punish your client is to deny him his vote, therefore a lengthier voting ban is in order.

[Fritz]

I find in favor of the prosecution.

If it please the court, some explanation as to your ruling?  This was put forth with no explanation as to why the court reached this decision whatsoever.
[/quote

I'm serious.  Sam Spade always puts out a rather lengthy and detailed explanation of rulings.  I expect no less from Justice Opebo.

[opebo]

I find in favor of the prosecution.

If it please the court, some explanation as to your ruling?  This was put forth with no explanation as to why the court reached this decision whatsoever.

I'm serious.  Sam Spade always puts out a rather lengthy and detailed explanation of rulings.  I expect no less from Justice Opebo.

Senator, with respect, the court is not here for either your entertainment or your education.  I accept that such explanations may be of some use in a normal Supreme Court case, but this was a criminal trial.  My decision implied an acceptance of the argument already presented by the prosecution, and a rejection of that presented by the defense.  I here state that this implication was in fact the basis of my decision.

Back to the interested parties:

I sentence the defendant to a four month ban from both voting and holding elective office. 

[minionofmidas]

I find in favor of the prosecution.

If it please the court, some explanation as to your ruling?  This was put forth with no explanation as to why the court reached this decision whatsoever.
[/quote

I'm serious.  Sam Spade always puts out a rather lengthy and detailed explanation of rulings.  I expect no less from Justice Opebo.

But Justice Opebo's opinion are usually two words. "I concur."