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]

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

[Jamski]

I stil plea not guilty to everything they throw at me.

-Jam

[Mead]

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

Commend Comrade Hong Hu on her civic mindedness.

We note however, this is not a civil lawsuit between two citizens; this is a criminal trial where the people are prosecuting the alleged crimes of a citizen. If you seek to act as the People's Prosecutor or as a Special Assistant People's Prosecutor, and the CCC appoints you to conduct or assist the CCC in the prosecution of the case, we will permit you to present evidence and call witnesses. It is within the CCC's discretion to appoint you as a Special Assistant Prosecutor to present the aspects of the case that you seek to have presented.

We Rule,

That if you are to make an appearance in this case you must be acting in an official capacity, not as a private citizen. Your Application to Intervene as a private citizen, dated Jan 6, 2004 is denied.

There are only two parties in this case we are judging; the People and Comrade Jamski; we do not want a private prosecution.

If you do not seek to obtain the appointment as a member of the Prosecution (or if the CCC decides not to appoint you) you may still, at the end of the findings phase, as well at the end of the sentencing phase (if there is a conviction on any of the charges) file a friend of the court brief. As you are well aware, in those briefs you should only argue facts that have been admitted into evidence. If, for whatever reason, you are not a member of the Prosecution, the Court may, but is not required to, in the interests of justice consider your briefs.

THE PEOPLE'S SUPREME COURT

[Jamski]

Can HongHu be called as a witness by the prosecution perhaps?

-Jam

[Snowflake]

Comrade HongHu respectfully accept the Court's ruling and states that she will not appeal. Comrade HongHu also states that she does not seek to act as the People's Prosecutor or as a Special Assistant People's Prosecutor since her interest is different from the prosecution. She will be glad to give testimonies when called upon by the court, not necessarily for the prosecution side.

[Jamski]

I could like to call Comrade HongHu as a witness for the defense.

-Jam

[Voltaire]

The People’s Procurator begs the pardon of the court for miscommunications between our two agencies. The charges upon which Comrade Jamksi was arrested are not the same charges with which the People’s Procurator has deemed fit he be held accountable for. At the time of the arrest we lacked sufficient evidence and information on the activities of Citizen Jamski, but in the interests of the People we had his arrested on what evidence we had. The new charges brought about against Citizen Jamski reflect the new evidence and information obtained by the People’s Procurator.

-People’s Procurator

[Mead]

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

Recognize Hong Hu's decision not to make an appearance. As we noted before, Hong Hu is free to submit friend of the court brief(s) at the end of the findings phase, and if there is a finding of guilty on any of the charges, sentencing phase of this trial.

Recognize that Voltaire, whom we will hereafter also be referred to as to as the Prosecutor in this Courtroom, as it appears he will be conducting the Prosecution personally, has chosen to proceed with the ten charges he filed on 06-01-2004 04:16.

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.

Recognize that the Defendant initially entered mixed pleas on 06-01-2004 08:30, however on 07-01-2004 03:30 entered

I stil [sic] plea not guilty to everything they throw at me.

-Jam

a plea of Not Guilty to all the charged offenses.

We allow the Defendant to amend his pleas to Not Guilty.

We Rule,

that we will allow the Prosecution to move forward on the prosecution of the charged offenses. We note, that this Court is uncertain whether all the alleged offenses alleged constitute crimes punishable by law. We will allow the Prosecution to not only prove that the Defendant did what is alleged above, but also if the Defendant did do what he is charged with, that such conduct is a crime. We observe that several of the Charges appear, at first glance, more likely to be criminal behavior, if proven, than others. This means that we may find that several of the offenses that the Defendant is alleged to committed are not crimes. We will permit evidence and argument by both the Prosecution and Defense.

THE DEFENDANT IS NOW ARRAIGNED.

THIS TRIAL IS COMMENCED.

JEOPARDY HAS NOW ATTACHED.

The Prosecution will post its Opening Statement no later than 2359 GMT 11 Jan 2004.

Both the Prosecution and Defense will post their expected witness list, notifying both the Court and opposing consul of the witnesses it intends to call, no later than 13 GMT Jan 2004. The lists should not be overly broad. Leave to add witnesses after the deadline will be granted only with good cause shown. No party will take any action to hinder access (for interviews/depositions) to another parties witness. The Court, of course in the interests of justice, at any and all times, retains the ability to subpoena and call forth any witnesses it feels are required to testify.

The Defense will post its Opening Statement, after the Prosecution posts its opening statement, no later than 2359 GMT 12 Jan 2004.

No later than 2359 GMT 15 Jan 2004 the Prosecution will begin its case.
The prosecution will make it exhibits using Arabic numerals as Prosecution 1, Prosecution 2, and so on. The Defense will mark its exhibits as Defense 1, Defense 2 and so on.

The Prosecution may submit exhibits for admission into evidence and may call witnesses.

Unfortunately, this Court believes that this courtroom does not have the capabilities of Real Life Chat, such as MSN. Not all the members of the court have access to MSN. If any of the parties has knowledge of how real time testimony can be accomplished, the Court would welcome being informed.

Without this capability, the party calling the witness will Post their questions for direct exam. The witness will then answer. If the opposing consul objects to a question thy may post an objection. Note, that if the objection is not made before the witness answers, the objection may be moot. (This may allow somewhat real time testimony). Cross exam will follow in the same manner.

This will require the Court (at least one of the Judges), the witness, and the parties being on line, on Apolyton, at the same time. The Court will work with the parties in scheduling testimony.

Once the Prosecution is finished. It will be the Defense's turn.

Once the Defense is done we will allow closing arguments by both sides and Comrade Hong Hu.

Then the Court will deliberate and return with our findings or guilt or innocence on the charged offenses.

If there are any findings of guilt on any of the charged offenses we will enter the sentencing phase.

If we need a sentencing phase, it will proceed in much the same format as the findings phase, and the Court will give further instruction at that time.

THE PEOPLE'S SUPREME COURT

[Jamski]

Objection - prosecutor is also the plaintiff

-Jam

[Snowflake]

we will allow closing arguments by both sides and Comrade Hong Hu.

/me appreciates the Court's kind considerations.

[Mead]

Originally posted by Jamski
Objection - prosecutor is also the plaintiff

-Jam

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

Overrule the Defendant's Objection.

The Prosecutor is representing the State in this trial. The Prosecutor is not a plantiff.


THE PEOPLE'S SUPREME COURT

[Vander]

Plaintiff is for civil matters, not criminal.

[Jamski]

I know. I don't think I did anything criminal. This is Voltaire vs Jamski not the State vs Jamski.

*mass uproar and confusion*

-Jam

[Voltaire]

In the case of the objection of the defendant the People’s Procurator does see merit. As such it would be best if Chairman Voltaire were not to act as prosecutor for the case, we humbly request that the court allow the prosecution time to find a suitable replacement.

[Vander]

Originally posted by Jamski
I know. I don't think I did anything criminal. This is Voltaire vs Jamski not the State vs Jamski.

*mass uproar and confusion*

-Jam

It does not matter if you think that you have not done anything wrong. The state is charging you with the crimes aforementioned. Therefore, this is a criminal case, State v. Jamski. It does not matter who brought the charges up. What matters is that the state has taken the case and is charging you as a criminal.

[Jamski]

Damm.

Ok, carry on.

-Jam