Peanut Gallery, et. al. comments from Criminal Complaint

Can we put Francos Spain on trial next in that case? He was never tried and over half a decade in the past is never too late to put someone up on show trial :P
 
BW, actually FS got away with it; we did have a statute of limitations before this constitution was adopted, and it cleared the docket from all old longstanding violations of TNP law.

As I recall, even you benefited from that one.
 
Blue Wolf II:
Wait, is he on trial for the things he did as Durka, Durka II, or posting a badly misquoted RA oath? So confusing...
Click to expand...
The trial is a desperate attempt to find some shred of legal justification for the actions of Felasia in blocking JAL's RA application. It is a classic case of "throw so much shit at the wall that eventually something will stick".
 
There is a inaccuracy of the facts surrounding Limi's banning from the forums and a communication I had with Limi in May that is referred to by Limi in his testimony.

His original puppet (Limitless Events) was banned by forum Admin (under Hersfold) and the government of the day (under then outgoing PM flemingovia) because the conduct in question as reported to Hersfold by (I believe it was Shoeless Joe) for violation of the prior constitution and legal code, and as a forum ban by forum administration. One of the conditions of such a ban is that the person banned may not seek to join the forums with a different account for the duration of the ban.

During the ensuing period, other new accounts were associated with Limitless Events, and the ban was extended to those accounts; as a result of those activities, the ban was made permanent to any and all accounts related to the player past or future. (Limi was not the first person hit with this permanent ban, others have as well.)

As far as Limi's status with forum administration here is concerned, that ban has never been rescinded or modified, so as to permit that player to have another account here under any past or new names. In that same period, the old version of the Security Council acting on behalf of the R.A., and the Cabinet both ratified the action of Flemingovia as Prime Minister and of Hersfold as director of the NPIA. When I took office a week later as the new Prime Minister, I reaffirmed Flemingovia's actions as my predecessor and of Hersfold as NPIA director.

It's clear from Limi's comments that he dealt with a Speaker and possibly a forum admin who was not involved in the earlier decisions and therefore did not act in accordance with them when the Limi account was granted R A status. When I learned of this problem in the spring of this year, I went back and verified that the threads still existed in our forum archives, including the screenshots of the information posted with the Lexicon that showed the format of the information, but which had personal identifying details obscured for privacy reasons as required by the Invisionfree TOS. That fact is important -- for the conduct clearly violated Invisionfree's Terms of Service which dealt with protecting the privacy of personal information such as IP and email addresses. Some members of the RA at the time reported serious concerns that their own information would possibly compromise other data that was confidential on their individual computers. (This was at a period where trojans and malicious software wasn't well understood or well-defended.)

I advised Limi at that time (May of this year) that he was not entitled to seek yet another review of whether the original actions were or were not valid; they had been reviewed more than once at his request previously. I did tell him that if he wished to submit a request to modify the ban to forum administration based on his subsequent behavior supported by documentation, then I would submit that request and the earlier threads to the moderation team for review and decision on a new request. I made clear that the review would not involve any presumption one way or the other on the question of a modification or lifting of the ban as that would be the decision the team would determine.
Limi never submitted a request. His current masking is a courtesy from me to allow him to post his request to the moderation team. He has not done so. Once this trial is over he will be remasked to his proper group unless the review request is submittted to the moderation team.

That's it, it's quite simple, and there really isn't any more I can offer unless Limi chooses to cooperate in submitting a bona fide request with documentation supporting a request to modify the ban. I have an obligation to follow the decision made by Hersfold as the original root admin, and Flem as the successor root admin on these earlier questions. and I will stand on what I told Limi directly in May as to the current situation. The next move is up to him. If he chooses not to offer a sufficient request, the forum ban as it is based on the violation of the Invisionfree TOS will be reinstated to include any and all past or future accounts used or that will be used by Limi (being the player's current persona.)

The next step is up to him. Period.

I am posting this statement in this thread since I am not a party or witness in the current trial (and it really doesn't deal with JAL, just Limi) and my name has been brought up in Limi's testimony in a way that conveys an inacurrate statement of Limi's status here.
 
as chief justice i have an overall view of the trial but will not give any more statements.

considered this as a warning any more negative comment towards the justices will not be tolerated and if not stop will have to establish a gag order on the trial.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
When I learned of this problem in the spring of this year, I went back and verifed that the threads still existed, including the screenshot of the information posted with the Lexicon that showed the format of the information, but which had personal identifying details obscured for privacy reasons. That fact is important -- for the conduct clearly violated Invisionfree's Terms of Service which dealt with protecting the privacy of personal information such as IP and email addresses. Some members of the RA at the time reported seriously concerns that there information would possibly compromise other data that was confidential on their individual computers. (This was at a period where trojans and malicious software wasn;t well understood or well-defended.
Click to expand...
There are a few inaccuracies in your statement which I felt obliged to correct:

1. As a member on the Lexicon's forum, I never had access to the threads in question. They were probably very closely controlled. If merely posting any private data anywhere in an InvisionFree forum is a violation then this forum has violated that ToS clause as well.
2. The posts were not on this forum and therefore were not a violation of ToS on this forum.
3. There are other instances, which I will not mention or link to to avoid drawing attention to them, where (months older) such IP lists have not only been posted but posted publicly. Flemingovia, when he became aware of them, was irate but did not ban the person responsible for either posting the IPs or opening the forum in question to public access.
4. I don't think any significant improvement has occurred in the fields of security since late 2006.

I advised Limi at that time that he was not entitles to seek yet another review of whether the original actions were or were not valid; they had been reviewed at his request previously. I did tell him that if he wished to submit a request to forum administration based on his subsequent behavior supported by documentation, thay I would submit that request and the earlier threads to the moderation team for review and decision on a new request. I made clear that the review would not involve any presumption on the issue of a modification or lifting of the ban as that would be the decision the team would determine.
Click to expand...

When were they previously reviewed?
 
Before Hersfold's reitrement, as I recall. It wasn't after I became an Admin. It was before the Activini affair.

As to GBM's authority, that was under the last Constitution; the Security Council that was an elected standing committee of the RA gave GBM the authority to eject Activini from TNP before she asked for it. She wanted to complete her term without an ejection, but Activini made that impossible.

Had we known then that Limi was actually Activini, my speculation is that the RASC would have insisted on a trial for evading the prior ban and ejection, since both forum rules and TNP law were violated. And I think GBM would have been persuaded not to wait as long as she did.

The only reason that didn't come up recently was due to the statute of limitations adopted under the prior constitution which was repealed when the current Constitution was ratified.

But the important thing here is that the door has been opened for Limi to request a modification of the forum ban if he can demonstrate sufficient grounds to do so based on his conduct after the permanent ban was issued.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top