Atlantic The Appeals Thread

Discussion in 'Canada Discussion Boards' started by Sar-Tamber-lac, Sep 2, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Sar-Tamber-lac Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    May 24, 2002
    star 5
    In the interest of my client, I would like to appeal the decision made by the Honorable Judge CrazyMike on this day, September 2, 2003, in response to the trial "The ACG vs. Atty"...

    In this decision, my client was found guilty of conspiracy to spam

    This was never a charge. My client has been charged for something he was not on trial for. I never received notification that the charge had been changed. For this reason, I would ask that the Honorable Judge grant my appeal, and make a decision based on the charge that brought my client to court...Was the thread "This thread is NOT spam..." spam or not?

    Thank you.
  2. CrazyMike JC Collecting Manager and RSA Canada

    Manager
    Member Since:
    Dec 4, 2000
    star 7
    Well since ATAT was found guilty and I did say in my closing remarks and I quote "it was my opinion that it was a carefully orchestrated attempt at further spam." that the thread was indeed spam.


  3. AT-ST_DRIVER Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Sep 1, 2001
    star 4
    Dude... spell my name right. :p
  4. Signor_Frog Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Sep 1, 2003
  5. Sar-Tamber-lac Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    May 24, 2002
    star 5
    LOL...I figured I'd be denied...just playing the typical attorney...

    Sorry, Adam, I tried...
  6. CrazyMike JC Collecting Manager and RSA Canada

    Manager
    Member Since:
    Dec 4, 2000
    star 7
  7. AT-ST_DRIVER Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Sep 1, 2001
    star 4
  8. THE_GREAT_SPANKSTA Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Jan 2, 2003
    star 2
    mike... not to keep flogging a dead horse... but my defence partner tammy has a point... the reason we went to court was to see if the thread was indeed spam... not conspiracy to spam... you may have SAID that "it was my opinion that it was a carefully orchestrated attempt at further spam."... but that doesnt necesarily mean that it WAS spam, that says that it was an attempt... or CONSPIRACY to spam... and if the charge was COMMITTING spam, why did you find him guilty of CONSPIRACY to spam... when DID the charge get changed... and why wasnt the defence notified... this is what you posted as your ruling (if i knew the mark ups, i would boldface conspiracy)...


    "***** Everyone rise *******

    It is the findings of this court that Adam, aka AT-ST Driver is Guilty of conspiracy to spam"

    conspiracy and committing are 2 different things... we went to trial for committing, and without any notification of change of charge , was convicted of conspiracy... how does that work?
  9. Sar-Tamber-lac Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    May 24, 2002
    star 5
    *applauds defense attorney Spanky, and laughs at his sig!*
  10. DarthBabe Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Mar 18, 2002
    star 7
    You guys are obsessed. :p All he has to do is write an essay.
  11. AT-ST_DRIVER Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Sep 1, 2001
    star 4
  12. Daughter_of_Yubyub Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 8, 2002
    star 6
    It's possible for a person to be found guilty of what they actually did instead. :p

    YubYub and TG- Protecting fangirls from hormonally gifted fanboys since 2002
  13. THE_GREAT_SPANKSTA Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Jan 2, 2003
    star 2
    my defence team WAS trying to get the lesser charge of conspiracy... so, in a sense, it is a victory for the defence, because he was convicted on what we brought up, rather than the charge he was charged with... that isnt the point... the point is that it would have been nice to KNOW that the charge was being changed, instead of the defence continuing to push the idea of conspiracy over committing... so we can work on defending the matter related to a conspiracy charge... all we (the defence) are saying is that, we went into this trial under the COMMITTING charge and werent notified that the charge was changed... i dont think that we would be so (for a lack of better words) upset at the ruling had mike said that he was not guilty of committing spam, but however was guilty of conspiracy... but he didnt... he just said that he was guilty of conspiracy... leading my defence team and i to believe that the charge was changed, and us not knowing about it.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.