The People v. Jamski - Case No. 2151-01

[Mead]

We, THE SUPREME PEOPLE'S COURT (Magistrate Octavian and Magistrate Mead),

Provide guidance in the upcoming proceedings. We understand that attempts are being made to appoint a third judge to this case, but we are prepared to hear the case by ourselves if a third judge is unavailable. This would mean that a unanimous decision would be required before we found the defendant guilty. Additionally, we would impose only the most severe sentence that both of us agreed to.

First we will define the elements that must be proven.


CHARGE 1
Public Disturbance

1. The defendant was disorderly in a public place; and

2. That, under the circumstances, the conduct of the defendant was of a nature to prejudice the good order of the hive OR was of a nature to bring discredit upon the Hive.

Note: Disorderly means conduct of such a nature as to affect the peace and quiet of the persons who may witness it and may be disturbed or provoked to resentment thereby. It includes conduct that endangers public morals or outrages public decency and any disturbance of a contentious or turbulent character.

Further note, that because this is not a specific intent crime, voluntary intoxication on the part of the defendant is not a defense to the crime. Although, it could perhaps be a mitigating factor in sentencing.

CHARGE 2
Attempted instigation of unlawful activities.

1. That the accused did an act with the specific intent to commit an offense that is a crime; and
2. That the accused solicited another to commit an offense that is a crime.

Note this means that the prosecution will be required to prove:

That the defendant did a certain act;
That the defendant did this act with the specific intent to commit an offense that is
a crime (that is in this case to solicit another to commit a crime)
The actual crime that the accused sought another to commit.

Note that because this is a specific intent crime, voluntary intoxication would be a defense. That is, if the defendant can show that he was intoxicated, even if it was voluntary intoxication, he cannot not be convicted of this crime as it requires clear (not drunk) intent of the defendant in order to possess the 'mens rea' (will) to commit the offense. If the defendant was drunk at the time of his acts he could not possess the capability to commit the crime.

CHARGE 3
Countermanding the will of the People

That the defendant with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of lawful civil authority, creates, revolt, violence, or other disturbance.

Note that because this also is a specific intent crime, voluntary intoxication would be a defense. That is, if the defendant can show that he was intoxicated, even if it was voluntary intoxication, he cannot not be convicted of this crime as it requires clear (not drunk) intent of the defendant in order to possess the 'mens rea' (will) to commit the offense. If the defendant was drunk at the time of his acts he could not possess the capability to commit the crime.

CHARGES 4 and 5
We are unfamiliar with the last two charges offenses: Violation of the Emergency Management Act of 2150 and the Constitutional Reestablishment Act of 2149

We would expect the People's prosecutor to familiarize the court with these two above Acts. We would also expect the People's prosecutor to show the court how the Acts were in force prior to the defendant's actions. If the People's prosecutor cannot do that, we would encourage the People's prosecutor to consider dropping these charges, as the court cannot enforce 'ex post facto' laws.

The max punishment for these offenses includes banishment and any sentence that the court sees fit up to banishment (exile).

If a conviction results from the trial:
The People may offer evidence of aggravating factors that it believes the court should see to enhance the court's sentence.

The Defense may offer evidence of mitigating factors that it believes the court should see to reduce the court's sentence.

We will establish a timetable, after discussions with the Prosecution and Defense, for the trial. We anticipate the Prosecutor and Defense to make appearances, as well as the Defense to enter pleadings, to be completed in this forum this week.


THE SUPREME PEOPLE'S COURT

[Jamski]

(with one hand on the Conclave Bible)

I promise to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help me Googliegod.

The max punishment for these offenses includes banishment and any sentence that the court sees fit up to banishment (exile).

I think we agreed that banishment can only be applied if it can be proven that a rule of the game was broken, or a member fails to post ever and a period of x months passes.

-Jam

[Mead]

Originally posted by Jamski
(with one hand on the Conclave Bible)

I promise to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help me Googliegod.


I think we agreed that banishment can only be applied if it can be proven that a rule of the game was broken, or a member fails to post ever and a period of x months passes.

-Jam

Comrade Jamski

Are you making an appearance for yourself?

Will you be representing yourself?

Will you have co-consul? (Did Hong Hu agree to represent you?)

We would see like to the agreement, regarding limiting the use of banishment as a punishment, you mentioned above.

But, please note, that the Court, generally, does not like discussing the sentence before, when AND IF, the Defendant is found guilty.


THE SUPREME PEOPLE'S COURT

[Voltaire]

I think we agreed that banishment can only be applied if it can be proven that a rule of the game was broken, or a member fails to post ever and a period of x months passes.

The Supreme People’s Court has the right to ascribe any punishment it needs fit for the crime. In fact working off of president, Comrade Jamski, you were already once sentenced into exist, therefore it can occur again.

-Chairman Voltaire

[Voltaire]

DOUBLE POST

[Enigma_Nova]

***IMPROPER OFF-TOPIC COMMENTS DELETED***

[Voltaire]

This threat will be dedicated solely to the trial of one Citizen Jamski, refrain from posting unless asked to do so by the Magistrates, Defense, or People’s Procurator. Witnesses will be called upon at a later time, whereupon they will answer the questions of the court.

If you wish to discuss the trial as it proceeds please do so in another thread.

[Jamski]

Comrade Jamski

Are you making an appearance for yourself?

Yes.

Will you be representing yourself?

No, consol Jamski will be representing me, as in the last time I was here.

Will you have co-consul? (Did Hong Hu agree to represent you?)

Only my poor old clone, consol Jamski, will be speaking for me. Noone else dared.

We would see like to the agreement, regarding limiting the use of banishment as a punishment, you mentioned above.

Ummmm, I've got it here *shows Mead a dubious old document*

But, please note, that the Court, generally, does not like discussing the sentence before, when AND IF, the Defendant is found guilty.

Ok. Fine.

-Jam

[Mead]

Schedule and Procedural Matters

We, THE SUPREME PEOPLE'S COURT (Magistrate Octavian X and Magistrate Mead)

Having Recognized Jamski as representing himself are ready to proceed.

We have set the following schedule. Changes will be made by the Court only for good cause.

We expect the People's prosecutor to make an apperance and to be ready to file formal charges within by 2359 GMT, 8 Jan 2004


The Defense will have until 2359 GMT, 10 Jan 2004 GMT to enter pleas (Guilty or Not Guilty). If defense fails to enter a plea we will enter a plea of Not Guilty on its behalf. The Defense may enter mixed pleas; it may plead guilty to some charges, and not guilty to some.


Procedure of the Trial

Within 2 days of entry of pleas the Prosecution will begin with its case. The Prosecution may start with an opening statement followed by its case in chief.

The prosecution may present evidence by calling witnesses, presenting exhibits (such as posts).

Once the Prosecution rests its case, the Defense may present its case. It should be noted that the Defense is under no obligation to put on a case. It remains the Prosecution's burden to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Defendant is guilty.

That being said, the Defense may well decide to present its case opposing a conviction. It may present evidence by calling witnesses, presenting exhibits (such as posts).

Once the Defense rests the Prosecution may make closing arguments. Following the Prosecutions argument the Defense may make closing arguments.

Following the Defense closing argument, the Prosecution may make a short rebuttal to Defense's closing argument. If Prosecution makes a rebuttal then the Defense is entitled to a short surrebuttal (a response to the Prosecution's rebuttal).

In short, if the Prosecution chooses to make a rebuttal, the Defense is entitled to surrebuttal.


After the close of all arguments the Court will retire to deliberate on a decision.

IF the Court returns a finding of guilty on any or all of the charged offenses, then we will enter the sentencing phase. If the Defendant is acquitted of all charges the trial ends.

The Prosecution will be able to enter evidence, as before, presenting matters advocating a severe punishment.

Then, the Defense will be able to enter evidence, as before, presenting matters advocating a less severe punishment.

Then, as in the findings phase of the trial, Prosecution will argue followed by the Defense. Although both may make sentencing recommendations, and the Court may consider the recommendations, the Court is not bound by the Recommendations. The Court may impose a sentence more severe than the Prosecutions request or less severe than the Defense's request.

The Court will retire to deliberate the sentence.

After deliberations the Court will reconvene and announce the sentence.


THE PEOPLE'S SUPREME COURT

[Vander]

I announce that I have been appointed as magistrate to this case of the People's Court of the Human Hive.

[Voltaire]

The People lay the following charges, in no particular order, against one Citizen Jamski:

1. Instigating a public disturbance resulting in internal strife;
2. Seizing by force offices of PRAVDA, disseminating anti-government propaganda;
3. Countermanding the will of the government;
4. Leaking internal matters to other factions;
5. Working against the best interests of the People of the Human Hive;
6. Violating the spirit of the previous Constitution;
7. Instigating and engaging in anti-governmental activities resulting in obstruction to the work of the government;
8. Using threats against the government and the People of the Human Hive;
9. Disseminating unsubstantiated and unconfirmed alleged diplomatic communications hindering proper diplomatic functions of the foreign service branch of the administration; &
10. Treason against the state.

The People wish to stipulate that the aforementioned charged brought about against Citizen Jamski all amalgamate to treason, but given the nature of the charge of treason the People see it fit that each charge be considered independently on its own merits rather than to be categorized under one broad generalization of treason. The final charge of treason should be considered by the court as the amalgamation of the other activities Citizen Jamski has been charged with since some of the lesser charge independently do not constitute treason, others greater and more serious can, the People feel it if the court would consider both the independent actions of Citizen Jamski as well as his overall intent and the result of these independent actions.

-People’s Prosecutor

[Jamski]

1. Instigating a public disturbance resulting in internal strife;

Guilty, but who hasn't done this some time? Hardly treason.

2. Seizing by force offices of PRAVDA, disseminating anti-government propaganda;

Done in my name by "loyal fanatics" - not at my command.

3. Countermanding the will of the government;

There is no government at the moment.

4. Leaking internal matters to other factions;

This was news of importance for all of Planet. We have a right to free expression and outcry vs oppression!

5. Working against the best interests of the People of the Human Hive;

I charge the Chairman with the same offence. For myself - not guilty!

6. Violating the spirit of the previous Constitution;

Not guilty - I am breathing the spirit of the old const.

7. Instigating and engaging in anti-governmental activities resulting in obstruction to the work of the government;

Not guilty - no constitutional government.

8. Using threats against the government and the People of the Human Hive;

Name ONE - go on, just ONE Not guilty.

9. Disseminating unsubstantiated and unconfirmed alleged diplomatic communications hindering proper diplomatic functions of the foreign service branch of the administration; &

Not guilty.

10. Treason against the state.

Not guilty.

You don't have a case. Any real court would throw this out before the trial. But this is a "show trial"

-Jam

[Snowflake]

BEFORE THE SUPREME PEOPLE'S COURT
OF THE Human Hive
In the matter of The People v. Jamski
Case No. 2151-01

APPLICATION TO INTERVENE

COMES NOW Citizen HongHu applies to intervene herein and become a party hereto for all purposes in respect to the filing by the People's prosecutor on Jan 6, 2004. In support of this motion, Citizen HongHu respectfully shows the following:

1. Citizen HongHu is a lawful citizen of the Human Hive and the current Hive ambassador to the CyCons.

2. Citizen HongHu is vitally interested in this proceeding and its impact on the welfare of citizens in the Human Hive generally. As an active player of the Hive team and a member of the Hive diplomatic team, Citizen HongHu believes that she is in a special and unique position of representing an interest which will not and cannot be represented adequately by any other party in this case and which is direct and immediate and differs from that of the general public. Therefore, it will aid the Court and protect and advance the public interest that Citizen HongHu be permitted to intervene in this proceeding.

3. Citizen HongHu states that she is specially interested in the Court’s decisions regarding issues related to how much right an Hive citizen has in communicating with other teams. It is Citizen HongHu’s belief that it is a serious offense for a Hive team member to provide with other teams specific game related information without explicit knowlegement and agreement of the team.

4. Citizen HongHu would like to obtain the Court’s permission to question the witness and submit statement of position. It is the understanding of Citizen HongHu that this intervention will not disallow her to serve as a witness when called upon by the Court.

Respectfully submitted,
Comrade HongHu
Hive Ambassador to the CyCons
Dated: Jan 6, 2004

[Jamski]

Its fine by me.

-Jam

[Mead]

THE PEOPLE'S SUPREME COURT (Magistrate Octavian, Magistrate Mead, and Magistrate Vander),

Recognize that the People have filed a number of formal charges against the defendant.

Recognize that Citizen Hong Hu has applied to intervene.

Recognize that Vander has announced he has been appointed to the Court. (We will require, for the record, a formal announcement from the CCC confirming his appointment.)

We are now considering how to proceed in response to two issues:

ISSUE 1

There are a large number of new charges over and above the five initial charges. We had defined those initial charges and are now considering how we should define what the state must prove in order to seek convictions on the new charges.

We do note that we require the People to, when it files a formal charge to specify when and where the Defendant committed a certain offense. For example if the People were to charge the Defendant with two armed robberies we would expect as follows:

Charge 1; Armed Robbery

Specification 1;
That the defendant on or about MY 2151 robbed the First National Bank of Morgan with the use of a weapon; to wit an Impact Rover.

Specification 2;
That the defendant on or about MY 2151 robbed the Credit Malta National Bank of Morgan with the use of a weapon; to wit an Impact Rover.

This way the Defendant knows with sufficient detail what he is being charged with before he enters his pleas.

Charge 2; Automobile Theft

Specification 1;

And so on...


The Prosecution may consider limiting the number of charges (and specifications) to those charges it files to those that it considers most egregious, most likely to lead to a conviction, and requiring the least amount of work and time on the part of the Prosecution to prove (and Court to hear). A limited number of charges will NOT lead to a higher chance of a conviction, but a higher number of charges will take a lot more time to deal with. This does not mean that the People should not charge the Defendant with a crime that it truly feels must be prosecuted, only that the Prosecution not overburden the Court (or the Defense or the itself, the Prosecution).


We are considering whether to accept the Defendant's pleas as provident. Because the Prosecution did not specify when and where the alleged crimes occurred we are considering allowing the Defense to withdraw its pleas until the Prosecution alleges where and when the crimes occurred. Note; if we do allow the Defendant the opportunity to withdraw or amend his pleas, anything he has stated and states in the future, any admissions he makes in this Courtroom, will be noted by this Court. Additionally, any admission he makes in the Public Hive and ACDG forums may be admissible as evidence.


ISSUE 2

We have seen Citizen Hong Hu's Application to Intervene.

We are now considering it and will issue a decision on her application.


THE PEOPLE'S SUPREME COURT