[Special Chambers] Re: The North Pacific v. Grosseschnauzer

Romanoffia

Romanoffia

Garde à l'eau!
Re: The North Pacific v. Grosseschnauzer

I've been mulling over the motion to dismiss introduced by the Defense. The Defense is requesting that the case be dismissed With Prejudice.

My conclusion at this point is that the Prosecution's Case is very thin as presented in terms evidence concerting means, motive and opportunity. I do not feel that the Defense has met the requirements of "fraud" by definition concerning an election. It is more a case of slander given that it is impossible to prove that any statements or intent by the Defendant resulted in any change of the election results. Therefore, it would be hard to prove that the Defendant 'defrauded' anyone as the indictment claims. The indictment itself is defective in terms of the very term 'defraud' as in, what did the defendant defraud the plaintiff of? How did the Defendant benefit or damage the Plaintiff? The Indictment is not clear nor does it specify damages to the Plaintiff nor gain to the Defendant. No one was denied their right to vote nor can any such claim be proved to have materially altered an election result.

At best, the Defendant's statements might be considered slanderous or libelous, not fraudulent as it may be argued (and in fact essentially has) that such statements made by the defendant were an expression of opinion. Also, the Prosecution would have to prove the Defendant's motivations and mental state at the time of the statements.

If we treat this as a criminal act on the part of the defense, we must assume evidence that supports means, motive and opportunity on the part of the Defendant as it relates to what benefit and gain the Defendant would gain as a result of his actions. That said, if the Defendant was a candidate in the election or working as an active agent of a candidate, then there would be good standing. However, if the Defendant was acting on his own regardless of his motivation, he would have to have somehow personally gained, in a generally material sense of the term 'gain' in order to 'defraud' the Plaintiff of something of value. That is, the Defendant needs to gain something of value by 'fraudulent conversion' from the Plaintiff. This has not occurred.

This entire indictment is more a case of slander and libel which, as we have seen, has never been entertained by the Court; but there are many instances whereby 'fraud' has been applied to get satisfaction as a result of slanderous and libelous statements.

As such, I am inclined to dismiss the case but have a problem dismissing it with prejudice because the Prosecution is having a really big problem in obtaining additional testimony from material witnesses. My inclination is to dismiss the case without prejudice so as allow for this to be prosecuted at a later date should the Prosecution obtain additional evidence that makes this a case of 'fraud' rather than slander or libel.

I am inclined to dismiss this case, without prejudice.

Citing the actual code:

Section 1.3: Fraud
8. "Election fraud" is defined as the willful deception of citizens with regards to the candidates running, the time and venue of the elections, or the requirements and methods by which one may be eligible to vote or run for office.

9. “Fraud” is defined as an intentional deception, by falsehood or omission, made for some benefit or to damage another individual.

Or as quoted in the indictment (incorrectly, but not a material issue as far as I am concerned in "1.4.10: Fraud"

10. Fraud is defined as an intentional deception, by falsehood or omission, made for some benefit or to damage another individual.
Click to expand...


The Defendant is charged under 1.4.10: Fraud which states "10. Fraud is defined as an intentional deception, by falsehood or omission, made for some benefit or to damage another individual." which again begs the question, how did the Defendant obtain a benefit or damage the Plaintiff?

My conclusion is that no gain nor damage has occurred.

Any one of us who has run for political office or is a well known figure in TNP has been subject to such statements. Is it slander or libel? Yes, but the Legal Code is silent on Slander and Libel. Instead, we have this wonderful and totally incorrect legal definition of "Fraud" under which everyone who feels they have been slandered or libeled files suit or charges. The problem is the legal code. It is misusing terms, contorting definitions and then allowing someone to claim slander and libel as fraud.

Any thoughts before I decide to dismiss or continue?
 
Personally, I think that the reasoning behind dismissing the case seems to boil down to "Grosse is innocent." In other words, the defense is asking you to rule on the case before arguments have been made. I don't see any reason not to let this play out. Let's give Kiwi a chance.
 
I just saw Elu's most recent post. It's true what he says: the original charges do not allege intentional deception. However, given that the original charges were filed by the previous AG, I don't think we should fault the current prosecution for an error that was essentially just bad writing. Kiwi is going to argue that Grosse was being intentionally deceptive, and I think we should hear him out.
 
I've got three choices here:

1: Dismiss the case without prejudice which would allow Kiwi to re-file the charges as he sees fit if Kiwi chooses to do so. Of course I will have to hand down an opinion just to keep the natives from getting restless, so to speak.

2: Let the case go to trial and then you have all the technical issues involving legalistic contortions which will go on forever and ever.

3: Dismiss the case with prejudice and that's it for ever.

I am partial to the first choice. This in no way makes a determination of guilt or innocence. I am just looking at the way the case was presented in the indictment. The indictment is entirely mal-constructed and to let it go to trial under the charges as exactly written would result in a clusterf*ck of epic proportions.

This is why I am saying to 'dismiss without prejudice' which leaves this instance open to the prosecutor to refile the charges if he so desires.
 
For the record:
[17:48] <Romanoffia> The indictment as presented is a real piece of poorly constructed shit.
[17:48] <COE> Yeah, it kinda is.
[17:49] <Romanoffia> Which means that the prosecutor is locked into prosecuting the case as constructed in the indictment...
[17:49] <COE> Well, he's limited to prosecuting the charges, but he can do that however he likes. The indictment is rather vague on the details
[17:50] <Romanoffia> Which means it would be impossible for him to get a conviction on technical terms as the indictment is incorrect in the application of the law and a few other arcane legal principles, so...
[17:50] <COE> I don't think Elu's motion is well-founded. It's pretty obvious to anyone that the prosecution thinks Grosse intentionally decieved, and that's what they're aiming to prove. Kiwi even said it himself.
[17:51] <Romanoffia> Yes, but it would be impossible to prove in a satisfactory way that meets the claims of the indictment...
[17:51] <COE> I don't think it's in the interest of the region to dismiss a case because the indictment is poorly written - what matters is whether or not Grosse committed fraud. I don't think that a poorly constructed indictment is going to result in a false conviction. If anything, it actually benefits the defense
[17:51] <COE> [17:51] <Romanoffia> Yes, but it would be impossible to prove in a satisfactory way that meets the claims of the indictment... <<< if that's true, then the defense will win
[17:52] <COE> But I think Kiwi deserves a shot
[17:53] <Romanoffia> I think that if the case is dismissed 'without' prejudice, It will give Kiwi the opportunity to construct a correct and more viable indictment, or amend the indictment and re-file with the court.
[17:53] <COE> I also have the image of the court in mind. This case has been going on over a year - if we dismiss it after all that time, it makes us look pretty dysfunctional. Not that that's a primary concern - far from it. But something that bears considering
[17:54] <Romanoffia> Yeah, indeed, it is worth considering. I can simply say that I am not dismissing the case and let the games begin and see if Kiwi can prove the indictment as it stands.
[17:55] <COE> Honestly, I'm ok with Kiwi redefining the goals of the prosecution mid-case, and arguing outside the confines of the original indictment. To dismiss a case because punk wrote something poorly a year ago seems like just a bunch of red tape.
[17:55] <COE> Also, Kiwi seems to be arguing that the indictment as it stands is sufficient to base an argument for fraud off of
[17:56] <Romanoffia> I can give him the benefit of a doubt and let him try to prosecute the case as it stands. Who knows, he might be able to prove it sufficiently.
[17:57] <Romanoffia> But, all things given, I can let it go to trial and see how it goes.
[17:57] <COE> That's probably what I would do if I were in your shoes. The risk there is that if grosse actually did commit fraud, and Kiwi loses the case because of a bad indictment, double jeopardy will prevent a better trial from occuring.
[17:57] <COE> But I don't think that's a major concern
[17:58] <COE> Anyway, it's your call, as the moderating justice.
[17:58] <Romanoffia> That is also true. If a case is poorly constructed or argued badly, not the court's concern, as you say.
[17:59] <COE> Yeah
Click to expand...
 
And, for the record, BW, I objected formally in the Court to COE removing me as Presiding Justice out of a concern for a fast trial rather than thorough trial.

COE also removed the Objection and motion for a mistrial from the record despite its relevance. You will hear my objections in deliberation.
 
OK, COE and BW, we are near the end of this trial. Finally!

We start deliberations immediately.

Please review the case thread and the the arguments and present your deliberations so we can finally decide on a verdict.
 
We're all in the same timezone. Let's deliberate on #court on IRC when we're all online.

Best times for me: Noon-5:30 PM Sunday, Noon-5:30 PM Monday, pretty much all day Tuesday. Not free on Christmas Day, sorry.

How about you guys?

EDIT: Wolf has informed me that he's available during the times I've specified on Sunday. Roman - is there a time in there that works for you, or will you be unavailable?
 
As a note, beyond the verdict itself, we only need a paragraph or two of reasoning (that's the precedent set by the only other verdict in TNP history of a trial where the defendant plead not guilty). I think we should be able to hammer this out in an hour, at most.
 
Excellent. I don't foresee any schedule conflicts (which, of course, means that I will turn off my cell phone so no one can get at me!).
 
We logged in, we talked, points were made, insults were exchanged, shots were fired, fights broke out, mass panic ensued, riots erupted into revolution, I got drunk and slept through the whole thing, and then we finally came to a consensus.
 
Judgement of the Court of The North Pacific

court-seal.png


After deliberating on the case of The North Pacific v. Grosseschauzer, the Court rules as follows:

Grosseschauzer is found Not Guilty on the charge of Fraud.

Reasoning:

To prove a charge of Fraud, reasonably certain evidence must indicate that the defendant perpetrated an intentional deception. While the prosecution did provide evidence that indicated that Grosseschauzer's statements were false, they were not successful in proving that Grosseschnauzer intentionally deceived anyone. Indeed, the defense provided some evidence that supported a claim that Grosseschnauzer believed his allegedly fraudulent comments to be true. In the face of a paucity of evidence regarding Grosseschnauzers intent behind his comments, the Court could not possibly render a Guilty verdict on the charge of Fraud.

Code: 
[center][b][big][big][big]Judgement of the Court of The North Pacific[/big][/big][/big][/b]

[img]http://www.thenorthpacific.org/images/court-seal.png[/img][/center]
[hr]

After deliberating on the case of The North Pacific v. Grosseschauzer, the Court rules as follows:

Grosseschauzer is found [b]Not Guilty[/b] on the charge of [b]Fraud[/b].

[i]Reasoning[/i]:

To prove a charge of Fraud, reasonably certain evidence must indicate that the defendant perpetrated an intentional deception. While the prosecution did provide evidence that indicated that Grosseschauzer's statements were false, they were not successful in proving that Grosseschnauzer intentionally deceived anyone. Indeed, the defense provided some evidence that supported a claim that Grosseschnauzer believed his allegedly fraudulent comments to be true. In the face of a paucity of evidence regarding Grosseschnauzers intent behind his comments, the Court could not possibly render a Guilty verdict on the charge of Fraud.
 
Log of deliberations:
[13:15] <COE> Let's start with a quick nosecount. Based on your impressions so far, guilty or innocent?
[13:15] <COE> er..."not guilty" that is. Not "innocent"
[13:16] <COE> Wolf?
[13:16] <Romanoffia> Semi-on the fence.
[13:16] <COE> I'm thinking innocent
[13:16] <COE> Blue_Wolf
[13:16] <Romanoffia> I'm leaning that way.
[13:16] <Blue_Wolf> Strong suspicion of guilt.
[13:17] <COE> Alright, wolf - which parts of the evidence and the prosecution's argument did you find most persuasive?
[13:18] <Blue_Wolf> Well, the Defense never established that Tim was actually planning a coup or that Kingborough supported him.
[13:19] <Blue_Wolf> So at the very least, that makes Gross' accusations to the contrary false.
[13:19] <COE> No, but Grosse didn'
[13:20] <COE> No, but Grosse didn't necessarily assert that they were, merely stated his impressions of the situation - not really presenting them as fact, in my opinion. Did you get a different impression?
[13:21] <Blue_Wolf> I did.
[13:21] <Blue_Wolf> When Gross stated "I wonder what Tim has promised you to aid in his coup against the elected Delegate." He did not state it as a belief. He presented it in a manner that would suggest it was a clear fact.
[13:22] <COE> However, wouldn't the burden of proof be on the prosecution to prove that he was lying, not on the defense to prove that he wasn't? I don't see how the defense's failure to prove that there was a coup going on is relevant
[13:23] <COE> Also, for an intentional decpection to take place, Grosse would have to know that what he was saying is false, and I don't think the prosecution has been successful in proving that either
[13:23] <Romanoffia> Kiwi brings up a point, in particular "mens rea" which implies that Grosseschnauzer was acting not with malice of forethought, but because he actually believed that Kingborough was involved in a coup attempt. Mens rea also requires that one also look at mens acta - the mental state that is the act itself. If Grosse truly believed that King was involved in a coup then mens rea as an applied...
[13:23] <Romanoffia> ...theory means that Grosse could not a have acted with malice of forethought in terms of fraud. Kiwi's insertion of mens rea into his closing argument essentially undermines the prosecution argument involving intentional deception on Grosse's part.
[13:24] <Romanoffia> IOW, Kiwi shot himself in the foot by bringing up mens rea.
[13:24] <Romanoffia> :P
[13:24] <Blue_Wolf> <Romanoffia>: Kiwi brings up a point, in particular "mens rea" which implies that Grosseschnauzer was acting not with malice of forethought, but because he actually believed that Kingborough was involved in a coup attempt <-- If this is true, then why did he only level his accusation against King in a thread appealing King's decision to throw out Gross' vote?
[13:24] <COE> I don't think the location of the alleged fraid is relevant. There's certainly nothing in the evidence or arguments to suggest is it
[13:24] <COE> it is*
[13:24] <COE> fraud*
[13:24] <Romanoffia> It was more a result of Grosse's mental state of general paranoia at the time
[13:25] <COE> In other words, no matter where he posted it, it was either fraud or it wasn't.
[13:25] <COE> and that fact will not change with the location
[13:25] <Romanoffia> true.
[13:26] <Blue_Wolf> Fine, I'll concede to that point.
[13:26] <COE> And any conjecture behind why he posted it in that particular place has no grounding in the evidence
[13:26] <Romanoffia> Also true.
[13:27] <Romanoffia> The whole thing is more a matter of slander/libel when you get right down to it...
[13:27] <COE> Both of which are fraud under our legal code
[13:27] <Blue_Wolf> Aye, they are :P
[13:28] <Blue_Wolf> "10. Fraud is defined as an intentional deception, by falsehood or omission, made for some benefit or to damage another individual."
[13:28] <COE> But I don't think he made slanderous or libelous comments either, because it hasn't been established that he knew they were false, or had reason to believe they were false
[13:28] <Romanoffia> How many people have been accused of all manner of wrong doing as a mater of course during elections as a political tool? And how many times in the past have such charges been thrown out/dismissed or rejected by the court as frivolous or not applicable as fraud?
[13:28] <COE> In fact, I think the defense has presented several pieces of evidence that provided grosse with reason to believe what he said was true
[13:28] <Blue_Wolf> Yes, but he clearly intended to use what he thought was correct information against King to damage him.
[13:29] <COE> That's not fraud - that's politics
[13:29] <Romanoffia> I tend to agree with that as an over-all flavor to the evidence.
[13:29] <Blue_Wolf> It would be politics, COE, except he was wrong.
[13:29] <Blue_Wolf> The fact now comes to it being an intentional falsehood, or an unintentional falsehood
[13:29] <Romanoffia> When dealing with fraud, how was Grosse to benefit and how was King to be damaged as a result of Grosse's statements?
[13:30] <COE> [13:29] <Blue_Wolf> It would be politics, COE, except he was wrong. <<< I don't think that's been established with reasonably certainty, and it's also missing the crucial aspect of intention which is required for fraud
[13:30] <Blue_Wolf> If King was removed as Speaker, Gross vote would have presumable been allowed by the next Speaker, Roman :P
[13:30] <Romanoffia> And, what if Grosse absolutely believed his conjecture? Does a conclusion that seemed logical and true to him constitute a willful deception?
[13:30] <Blue_Wolf> If he truly believed it and was tricked. No.
[13:31] <Blue_Wolf> If he knew it was a lie, yes.
[13:31] <Romanoffia> Also, how many times have there been major kerfluffles because someone was clearly joking about a coup?
[13:31] <COE> Grosse clearly stood to benefit from his actions, but that just makes it a good political maneuver, if there was no intentional deception
[13:32] <Romanoffia> I think Grosse was just pissed at King being pissed over the many shade of purple in Grosse's posts.
[13:32] <Blue_Wolf> Revenge is a possible motive, yes :P
[13:33] <Romanoffia> Yeah, but there are better forms of revenge available to a global mod than that. :P
[13:33] <Romanoffia> If Grosse really wanted to be a bastard in a vengeful fashion, he could have globally changed all the text on the forum to purple. :D
[13:34] <Romanoffia> Just kidding.
[13:34] <COE> The bottom line, in my opinion: nothing the prosecution has presented proves with reasonable certainty that Grosse intentionally decieved anyone
[13:34] <Blue_Wolf> The problem being is that I don't think the prosecution could clearly establish Gross knew what he was saying was a lie, even if he had a motive to benefit from it.
[13:35] <Romanoffia> That is exactly true.
[13:35] <Blue_Wolf> "<flemingovia>: I was not aware that Grosse was privy to any of the evidence against Tim at all." <-- All we really got was that Flem wasn't aware of Gross having any evidence to suggest a coup.
[13:35] <COE> Yeah, which is far from reasonably certain
[13:36] <Blue_Wolf> It's highly likely he knew what he was saying was bullshit, but it was never proven to beyond a reasonable doubt.
[13:36] <Romanoffia> Yeah, in that sense the prosecution's argument is trying to prove a negative which cannot be done, logically speaking.
[13:37] <Blue_Wolf> So, I'm going to have to say not guilty due to a lack of evidence.
[13:37] <COE> I'm also thinking "not guilty"
[13:38] <COE> [13:36] <Romanoffia> Yeah, in that sense the prosecution's argument is trying to prove a negative which cannot be done, logically speaking. <<< well, I can imagine hypothetical scenarios where evidence exists that proves intent. It's not *impossible* to convict someone of fraud
[13:38] <COE> brb
[13:38] <Romanoffia> The how prosecution's case is essentially based upon proving a negative, i.e.: that Grosse did not actually believe that a coup was afoot.
[13:39] <Romanoffia> *whole
[13:40] <Blue_Wolf> Well, if someone had a log of Gross saying "I know this is bullshit but I'm going to use it against King to try to discredit him. Teehee" The Prosecution's case would have been a slam dunk. :P
[13:40] <COE> Yeah
[13:40] <COE> That's the hypothetical I was imagining :P
[13:40] <Romanoffia> Hence, you can absolutely prove that something indeed exists, but you cannot prove that it absolutely does not exist.
[13:40] <COE> You can't prove it absolutely, but you can prove it with reasonable certainty in some cases, I think. Just not this one
[13:40] <Romanoffia> The whole case on both sides is entirely hypothetical when you take it as a whole.
[13:41] <COE> Alright, Roman: guilty or not guilty?
[13:41] <Romanoffia> I say not guilty as the prosecution did not sufficiently prove that Grosse indeed did not believe a coup was afoot...
[13:42] <COE> Alrighty, we're in unanimous agreement. We'll need a couple paragraphs of reasoning. Anyone want to draft something for us to discuss/revise?
[13:42] <Romanoffia> And that all things considered in terms of mens rea and mens acta, it is reasonable that Grosse actually believed a coup was affot.
[13:42] <Blue_Wolf> Not it :P
[13:42] <Romanoffia> LOL!
[13:43] <COE> I can do it - will you guys still be here in 15 mins or so?
[13:43] <Blue_Wolf> Suuuure.
[13:43] <Romanoffia> I'll be here.
[13:43] <COE> Alright, I'll go write
[13:44] <Blue_Wolf> Thankee
[13:45] <COE> Actually, it looks like the precedent is about 1 paragraph per charge
[13:45] <Blue_Wolf> Oh, so that's a short write
[13:45] <COE> Yeah, I'll pound this out in the next five minutes
[13:47] <Blue_Wolf> Kinky.
[13:50] <COE> To prove a charge of Fraud, reasonably certain evidence must indicate that the defendant perpetrated an intentional deception. While the prosecution did provide evidence that indicated that Grosseschauzers’ statements were false, they were not successful in proving that Grosseschnauzers intentionally deceived anyone. Indeed, the defense provided some evidence that supported a claim that Grosseschnauzers
[13:50] <COE> believed his allegedly fraudulent comments to be true. In the face of a paucity of evidence regarding Grosseschnauzers intent behind his comments, the Court could not possibly render a Guilty verdict on the charge of Fraud.
[13:51] <COE> Comments?
[13:51] <COE> Anything you guys think I worded too strongly? Anything you wanted included that I didn't include?
[13:51] <Blue_Wolf> This trial was dumb and we should all feel dumb for being part of it.
[13:51] <COE> haha, I'm not putting that in the record :P
[13:51] <Romanoffia> Hmmm, hold on...
[13:51] <Blue_Wolf> It's my official input on the matter , surely you must:P
[13:52] <Romanoffia> LOL!
[13:52] <Romanoffia> Actually, the verdict as written is sufficient.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top