Myroria v. Delfos

[Gulliver]

If Gallipoli-China specifically requested this information from Delfos then this was legal, as G-C as a Justice of the Court has the power to request such information if they feel it is necessary for a case. And probable, as the Gov trial was indeed underway when this PM was sent.

It would be ideal if G-C were present to ask for a confirmation of this, but he is not available. Can Delfos present any direct evidence that G-C specifically requested this?

[Xyrael]

The perceived request was made via MSN. I have asked Delfos to check his MSN chat logs.

~

The following is the MSN log of the coversation with the Justice, Gallipoli China, where G-C

lex - merry xmas
Gallipoli - same.
lex - thanks
lex - are you going to jury Gov's case?
Gallipoli - Yeah; we're going to deliberate and we hope to be done by the 27th
lex - hmmm
lex - I've been investigating
Gallipoli - DON'T TELL ME HERE. This is an off-the-record area. Say it in the trial thread, or in a PM to one or the other Councils.
lex - huh
lex - I can tell you here
lex - and PM everything in the forums if you want
lex - because I don't know how relevant it is
Gallipoli - I'd really prefer you don't tell me anything here.
Gallipoli - Trial-related, that is.
lex - well I can still say something...right?
Gallipoli - sure...

lex - seems the problem is that either the Defense or the Prosecution doesn't quesiton each other's testifiers
lex - and specially in one of the side, there's things still covered
lex - and btw, it does discriminat
lex - *discriminate
lex - what can Justice do about discrimination?
Gallipoli - That's why we prefer IRC trials: you can do that.
lex - yes
lex - still they could try to question them outside the forum to the case
lex - it's a good thing to be undercover in a channel where Govindia and any other defense isn't present
lex - wnat me to PM you everything?
Gallipoli - Sure.

Delfos took this to mean he was allowed to PM the evidence to Gallipoli-China. In addition, Delfos says the conclusion was sent to the other Councils, as G-C said. TGR received this message, and shortly after Osafune. (Sadly, these messages don't have the original recipients quoted when you forward them like e-mails do) This message was forwarded to my message inbox from Delfos as per my request for use in the case, and is quoted:

The conclusion read as follows:

There's a group of people that bound themselves with "loyalty". This group will defend their collective interests, and most if not all of the prosecution is part of this group, and it calls testifiers in base of "loyalty". Some if not all testifiers have agreed with the prosecution about matters that shouldn't be exposed for some reason. Still, the court of taijitu should find out this issues that are being kept secret from the Defense, otherwise this may seem an arranged trial.

Warning: Please do not reveal the source or use any of the content without asking 1st, since it may compromise this and the upcoming investigations.
Be careful to who you share this sensible information.

The conclusion to G-C read slightly longer (summarizing the proof), and was the only one with proof attached. If the court wishes I can post this extended conclusion. It was also sent a day before the conclusions were delivered to Osafune and TGR. Delfos states this conclusion was delivered to Allama in some form as well, but says his outbox does not show which format was sent. Delfos delivered these conclusions a full 36 hours after the initial proof was delivered to G-C.

edit: I request that, should a verdict be decided upon, it be delivered while my client and I are present on the forum, or with sufficient time to view the verdict. For now, I need sleep.

edit: included further, clearer MSN logs

[Gulliver]

Well, at this point it seems clear to me that the defendant did indeed have the permission of a member of the Court to issue those logs to them, which is perfectly legal. Nevertheless before making my final verdict I would like to offer the prosecution a chance to respond.

[The G Rebellion]

This is an aside - as I know I am not actually involved in this case - but on the issue of Limi reading the PMs - when you sign up for this forum, you sign an agreement which I suggest you people read...

I quote a small passage...

Finally, we'd like to note some things about what we (the admins) can and cannot see, for full disclosure:

1. We cannot see your password. Not will not, cannot.
2. While we do not intend to do so, it is possible for us to look at Private Messages.
3. As noted above, we see your IP addresses. If they are proxies, we get annoyed.
4. This forum has a feature that can make polls not anoymous.

When you signed up, you did so agreeing that we could look at Private Messages if necessary.

[Xyrael]

  Alright, I was just remarking on the use of the ability for court cases without court permission. IRL evidence uncovered through illegal searches is almost always barred. However, I'm not pushing the issue any further.

Now... to wait for prosecution to post...

[Myroria]

Whether the logs were allowed by Gallipoli-China or not does not matter. The Constitution states that the Supreme Court shall take logs if there is probable cause [that a crime is being committed]. No where in the relevant section does it say that the Supreme Court can take logs without permission for use as evidence. Gallipoli-China is just as much at fault for accepting the evidence, but he is not on the forum to file a case against.

The logs were not taken by Gallipoli-China as probable cause. They were sent, and accepted, as evidence for a non-existant conspiracy. It's not against the law to be an asshole, and that hardly qualifies as harassment against Govindia.

The defense's bulk argument states that Delfos was unaware that the law forbade him from sending the logs - being unaware does not make one immune. In addition, the Defense states that Delfos was doing what one would do in the real world - logging telephone conversations, for example, is illegal without a warrant, at least in the United States.

The defense claims that Delfos did what was morally right - there's a difference between what's morally right and what's legally right. And, to be honest, with no probable cause, sending those logs was indeed a violation of the Constitution. Not intending to break the law is nor a good reason - one can be charged for manslaughter, though you did not mean to kill someone. One can be charged for shoplifting, if, and excuse the stretch, an elderly man forgets he forgot to pay for something and walks out of the store with it.

[Xyrael]

CONCLUSION

There's a group of people that bound themselves with "loyalty". This group will defend their collective interests, and most if not all of the prosecution is part of this group, and it calls testifiers in base of "loyalty". Some if not all testifiers have agreed with the prosecution about matters that shouldn't be exposed for some reason. This is yet a prime conclusion on the comments generated by the trial, and with some more time I will be able to see how deep and wide is this group.
I've already started to question some citizens that may be involved in this case. Still, the court of taijitu should find out this issues that are eing kept secret from the Defense, otherwise this may seem an arranged trial.
If you delay this enough time without pressing too much this "group" for answers, they may reveal some more of their strategy used for this secrets, or the secrets themselves. Give me your opinion and call for what I should try to know before the trial ends.


Warning: Please do not reveal the source or use any of the content without asking 1st, since it may compromise this and the upcoming investigations.
Be careful to who you share this information, I certainly suspect, if you're not yourself part of this 'mafia', some other Justice members might be part of it.

From the talented: Criminal Investigation Laboratory of Taijitu

The part in bold was added specifically for G-C. It refers to this 'cult' as specifically the testifiers and prosecution, and goes no further than this. Delfos' belief fixated on the notion that, on all levels, an inescapable prejudice was bent on banning Gov, whether based on fact or not, and that these individuals would twist the truth to their end to acheive their goals. This corruption of fact to suit personal agenda would have violated Article 2 Section 8, if I am not mistaken.

Delfos expressed concerns that the Justice's themselves may have been biased against Gov as well, as he asked G-C himself if G-C was involved in this crusade to ban Gov.

6. The harassment of any person shall be forbidden.

12. Conspiracy to commit or aid in any of the crimes stated herein shall be forbidden.

Delfos believed that there were conspirators at work attempting to harass (via banning) Govindia. G-C at least believed the manner in which the trial was being conducted was suspect. Probable cause.

Furthermore, signing onto AIM with a chat log recorder and moving into a chat room and saving those logs automatically isn't illegal and doesn't require permission from all within the said chat room. Also, undercover agents posing as children to apprehend pedophiles last year resulted in the single largest pedophile porn ring bust in Los Angeles history, with around 300 seperate individuals being recorded and leading to the arrest of several dozen.

I am not saying the recorded subjects are equivalent to pedophiles, but Delfos did not go out of his way to hack your MSN account and record conversations you had while he was not present. So no, that doesn't equate to wire tapping your land-line phone conversations (although cellular phone calls, within the United States, are not protected by privacy laws as well as land lines, that's a different subject).

[Gulliver]

Xyrael is correct: Delfos and anyone is perfectly free to collect logs of any conversations in which they've been involved. Besides, that is not the issue here.

Unless either side has anything more to say I believe I will take some time to deliberate a decision.

[Myroria]

I am finished.

[Gulliver]

I have reached a decision.

Firstly, Delfos beyond a doubt did send out IRC logs in which Myroria was involved without his permission. Delfos himself has through his legal counsel confessed this. This is indeed in most circumstances under the Legal Code. However, the Legal Code does provide an exception. Private materials such as IRC logs can be distributed without the permission of those involved to Justices if requested by those Justices as part of a trial on reasonable basis.

When these logs were sent out by Delfos there was indeed a trial going on, that concerning Govindia. As the MSN conversations presented show Gallipoli-China did indeed effectively request these logs. As Gallipoli-China was a Justice in this case it is my opinion that this does constitute a warrant issued on probable cause to obtain information which might aid him as a Justice in deciding a case. The cause in this case being the worry that the trial being conducted might have been in some compromised and subsequently unfair.

As it turns out the evidence that was requested was rather poor and proved nothing what so ever but nonetheless that does not change the fact that its distribution to a Justice of the Court was warranted by that Justice in the pursuit of ruling on a case. Thus I find myself compelled to rule in favor of Delfos.