[Chambers] TNP v Ihese

[Zyvetskistaahn]

Pigeonstan has filed a request for indictment charging Ihese with Fraud and Gross Misconduct.

As I indicated on Discord, I think there may be something in the charges, in that the alleged claim by Ihese that Pigeonstan reported Ihese maliciously to harm them, rather than due to them having made offensive posts could potentially satisfy the charge of Fraud (and through that a breach of the citizenship pledge to obey the law).

For reference, the elements of Fraud are:

• Falsehood or omission (the provision of false information or deliberately withholding of true information);
• That this was deceptive (that it related to some matter of fact; that the fact was material; and that it was plausible);
• That the deception was intentional (that the prospective Defendant knew or could be reasonably expected to know that their statement or omission lacks truth);
• That the deception would somehow benefit the prospective Defendant or harm someone else;
• That the above effect was intended or was something a reasonable person could have expected, such that the prospective Defendant can be reasonably expected to have either expected or recklessly ignored the effect.

I do wonder whether the specifics of crime might be insufficient, in that they do not in fact allege any untruth by Ihese. Defaming someone using an old (true) mistake is not Fraud. However, I think Pigeon might just be averring that as being a motive for the Fraud.

 

[Mall]

I think the alleged falsehood is referenced in this paragraph:

now while this may be something he would sit out he decided to gloat on the forum about how i was making a political play to disable him for TNPV8 and how i was some person abusing the power of reports as he was the one who was harrassing me

The allegation that Pigeonstan made certain reports for political reasons. That having been said, it's not clear. We could reject the indictment on those grounds - the indictment should allege facts sufficient to support a charge without us having to decrypt it.

 

[Zyvetskistaahn]

I think that the more I consider this the more I lean towards accepting the indictment. I do think that it is a far from ideal indictment, in terms of its clarity, but it does seem like the relevant points are there.

It does seem to aver a falsehood (although not in the specifics of crime).

I think one can properly call Pigeonstan's motivation a factual matter, though it may be difficult to prove at trial it does seem like the statement shown in the imgur link is sufficient for now. I wonder whether it is a material fact, in that it seems to me an argument could be made that Pigeonstan's reputation is so poor that the truth or falsity of the allegation that he abused the report function would not actually affect people's views, but I think that is something that would need to wait for the defence to put forward. It seems to me that the allegation that someone would abuse a report function could be plausible if a person is not presented with the context shown to us in the indictment.

I think if the evidence is borne out, it would be easily open to us to conclude that Ihese would have to have know that it was untrue, given their posts seem clearly to be rulebreaking.

Detriment to Pigeonstan could be made out, though again I wonder if there is an argument to say their reputation is so poor that it would not in fact harm it. Presuming that harm does result, I think it clear that Ihese could be concluded to have reasonably expected that harm.

 

[Mall]

Are we confident that the falsehood is what I identified above? That's the crux of it to me, we're assuming that Pigeonstan takes issue with that allegation.

 

[Zyvetskistaahn]

Are we confident that the falsehood is what I identified above? That's the crux of it to me, we're assuming that Pigeonstan takes issue with that allegation.

I think that must be the falsehood being pursued, if the request is looked at overall. Perhaps it is an overly generous view of a Pigeonstan’s understanding, but given that the prosecution will (one hopes) not be managed by them the prosecutor should be able to understand and put the case on that basis.

 

[Zyvetskistaahn]

It seems that is what we are going to get, I am not minded to continue with argumentation any further. If we were minded to find the Defendant guilty, I might say that further time should be given for defence counsel to address our concerns, but I do not think that is where we are going and even then defence counsel has had the opportunity.

As to where we are at on a verdict, I am fairly sure of where I am at: Not Guilty on both counts.

On Fraud, I don’t see any need to get into lengthy discussions about the nature of falsehood, objectivity or subjectivity, materiality, plausibility, etc. With the admissible evidence, there is no documentary evidence showing posts of a harassing nature other than exhibit E, witness testimony is all vague on the issue of the nature of messages (due, I am afraid, to the prosecution failing to ask sufficient questions). The only evidence suggesting harassing posts or messages at the time of the alleged falsehood is Pigeon’s answer that Exhibit E was part of continuing behaviour by the Defendant, which simply isn’t enough for us to be reasonably certain of guilt, in my mind.

On Gross Misconduct, all I would say is that the Defendant’s oath or status as a citizen are not shown by the evidence, so there, necessarily, is no way for the prosecution to prove violation of a sworn oath, whether or not the Defendan may have violated the citizenship oath.

I don’t really think we need to address the identity points, if you are in agreement on the above issues, but I am satisfied Ihese and Tasihese are the same. The overall picture of the evidence points clearly towards that fact: the similarity of names; the opening post of Ihese in the thread in exhibit D; the testimony of REG; and exhibit J.

 

[saintpeter]

I agree with the above—not guilty on both charges. In addition to the above, I will add what I already said on Discord:

Ihese said that the following was a "lie": "you were sending dirty [] messages [that] amount to harrassment [sic] to my alts" (as you see, the message was quite badly written to begin with). "sending dirty messages ... to my alts" seems to be much more specific than "bad relations" or continued harassment even (which can take many forms, including many that do not include "sending dirty messages") and even if I were to be particularly charitable and consider the "bad relations" or continued harassment proven, I don't see how it establishes that Ihese made a fraudulent statement.

Even if we fully accepted Pigeon's testimony as evidence, I don't think his testimony would prove Ihese's statements false.

 

[Zyvetskistaahn]

I have drawn up a judgment for this matter which, I think, reflects the above posts. Please read and comment.

I will hand it down if both of you approve of it. If you approve (@saintpeter), but @Mall doesn't comment by midnight tomorrow (UTC+1), I'll probably hand it down with a majority as noted.

Spoiler

Judgment of the Court of The North Pacific
Judgment drafted by Zyvetskistaahn, joined by saintpeter, with Mall abstaining​

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

The Defendant, Ihese, is found Not Guilty on the charge of Fraud;

The Defendant, Ihese, is found Not Guilty on the charge of Gross Misconduct.

Reasoning:

In relation to the crime of Fraud, the prosecution must prove to the Court by reasonably certain evidence that the Defendant has intentionally deceived, by falsehood or omission, for some benefit or to damage another individual. In this case, the deception is said to have been the post shown in Exhibit D, stating that Pigeonstan’s allegation that the Defendant had been “sending dirty and messages amount to harrassment to [Pigeonstan’s] alts” was a lie. That effectively means that the prosecution must prove that the Defendant had been sending such messages (though that, alone, would not be enough to prove Fraud).

The Court is limited to considering the admissible evidence before it. The Court cannot rely on material that is not in evidence or testimony that was not given.

As to the material that is before the Court, its capability of proving the Defendant’s statement false is limited. It was not put to Pigeonstan that the Defendant had sent messages of a harassing nature, nor did they say in evidence that the Defendant had done so. While general questions were put about “messages”, no particular message was put to or authenticated by Pigeonstan, nor were they asked to set out the terms of any message not in documentary evidence.

The only specific message that appears to have been the subject of questioning is that shown by Exhibit E. Pigeonstan stated, when asked by defence counsel why that message was a matter for the Court, that “[Pigeonstan thought] they are a matter for court because they are part of the evidence of his continued behavior and that the behavior was not because of an account hack”. That message post-dates Pigeonstan’s allegation and the alleged falsehood, so cannot itself prove the alleged falsehood. While this Court does, from the terms of the message and in light of the testimony of Eluvatar, find that the message in Exhibit E was grossly offensive and sent by the Defendant, even coupled with the testimony of Pigeonstan that it was part of a continued pattern of behaviour, the Court does not consider that it is enough amount to reasonably certain evidence of such behaviour at the time of the alleged falsehood.

The testimony of REG, similarly, was unspecific in relation to what offensive posts may have been made by the Defendant and directed at Pigeonstan. Mere references to “comments” or “attacks” in questions asked are not enough, the prosecution cannot rely on innuendo and is bound to put its case clearly so that the defence can respond. While some posts were shown by REG which showed the Defendant’s distaste for Pigeonstan, such as Exhibits F and G, their terms (describing Pigeonstan as “annoying, liar and inmature”) do not meet anything like that suggested by Pigeonstan’s comment in a Exhibit D or that shown in Exhibit E, nor do they appear directed towards Pigeonstan.

In view of those deficiencies in the evidence presented to the Court, the Court cannot be satisfied that it is reasonably certain of the Defendant’s guilt.

In relation to the crime of Gross Misconduct, it is a requirement of the law that the oath violated must be the legally mandated, sworn oath of the Defendant. No evidence was adduced proving the Defendant to have sworn a legally mandated oath. The Court cannot, therefore, be satisfied of guilt.

 

[saintpeter]

I approve.