Chad Thomas found innocent.
by Alphaville Herald on 20/08/04 at 10:56 am
A lot happened in the week I was offline, so again apologies for being slow to report all this. One of the bigger stories of the past week has to be the trial of Chad Thomas in the AVG election-fixing saga. Chad was found innocent, which is just as well IMHO — he was just a fall guy for the real guilty part: Mr-President. IMHO.
Judge Carmella’s summary of the trial follows. It’s a very good read, so I strongly recommend everyone check it out.
City of Alphaville V Chad Thomas
Results of the trial [judge Carmella's report]
The trial began short 2 jurors but both attorneys agreed that this was an acceptable jury. Mr. Pierce started the proceedings with an opening statement. Elegantly spoken Mr Pierce outlined the charges against Chad Thomas. Robert the man stepped to the podium next to defend his client. While Robert the man’s opening argument was short it was powerful, getting right to the point.
Mr. Pierce began presenting evidence, referencing to the transcripts that was posted to The Alphaville Herald and The Alphavlle Gazette. After 30 minutes of laying the groundwork for his case the defense attorney objected to the material. Robert the man stated that all the evidence was heresay. His claim was that since Jason Sim was unable to testify then most of this evidence could not be used. While I had to ruled in favor of the defense because Jason Sim was not present it was with great anquish. After a slight uprising from the jury panel we broke for a needed greening session.
The trial resumed with Mr. Pierce calling Chad Thomas to the stand. When questioned Mr Thomas admitted in a round about way that he did manipulate the voting through proxy. When asked what ‘proxy’ meant Mr. Thomas began a long drawn out process of explanation. The jury began to lose interest and get fidgety with each passing question that Mr. Pierce asked Mr. Thomas. The defendant’s answers remained lenghty. The courtroom proceeding were halted and a time frame of 5 minutes were given to the Plaintiff’s attorney, much to Mr. Pierce’s unhappiness.
Robert the man began his cross-examination with Mr. Thomas after another brief recess. But the surprise came in the case when Robert the man call Mr. Pierce to the stand. Eyebrows were raised as David approached the witness stand. Robert began with brief quick questions, such as “Did the rules say that there could only be one vote?” forcing Mr Pierce to answer “No” in response. After several more questions concerning the illegality of multiple voting Robert dismissed his opponent and began his powerful closing argument to the jury.
Mr. Pierce began his closer in a more somber state and closed with this statement, “All I know is that I tried to make this game have morals and ethics. That is all I ever wanted. I guess that is too much to ask. Good night.
A sigh of relief came from the juror’s box. The jury was informed there would not be a hung jury on this, a decision would be made tonight, and that majority would win. Only the 6 jurors that had arrived on time would be allowed to decide this case. Once sequestered the deliberations began. After five minutes it became clear how this jury would decide. They all but one that that since no rule was in existence at the time of the election he could not be found guilty of any illegal activity. The charges that Mr. Pierce and the City of Alphaville brought against Chad Thomas stated that he had illegally changed the outcome of the election and while he did change the outcome he did so legally. The lone juror finally conceded and one final vote was taken and recorded.
NOT GUILTY
As long as I was involved in this case I remained neutral. Potential jurors were selected at random with the final decision for each juror that was seated in the jury box made by both David Pierce and Robert the man. I was a little surprise by some of their selections but again, I remained neutral. I wanted the trial to be as unbiased as possible in order to put to rest the entire “Rigging / Extra Voting” saga. But one day after the decision was made and I see that this issue will never be laid to rest.
I also would like to clear the air concerning my involvement in AVG. I have never accepted any simoleans from any government or it’s agencies. I am a founder as well as a beta tester and have earned my money the hard way, thru a lot of skilling and building gnomes. I do not necessarily care for all of the things that have been done in the name of AVG but I do think that it was started with good intentions. And there are plenty of sims that are still in AVG with good intentions. If this government is to prosper in the future there will need to be changes. And changes are not always a bad thing. It can bring new life to an old entity.
Robert The Man
Aug 20th, 2004
I was out to prove my client innocent and that is what i did…
Cocoanut
Aug 20th, 2004
You absolutely kill me, Uri. You get a notion in your head and absolutely never will get rid of it, no matter what.
First you wanted an investigation and a trial. A lot of time has gone by since you wanted this, and a lot of information has come to the fore.
Now we have this trial.
And yet we still have your constant, continual, never-changing judgment that Mr. President is guilty of rigging the election.
Never MIND that there is no evidence of this. Never MIND that Chad Thomas and all the guys in question have stated repeatedly that Mr. President knew nothing of what they were doing.
So now we have had everybody and his dog coming forth with all the revelations they can possibly confess, plus a terrifically-run trial. (And Mr. President wasn’t even ON trial, because there is no evidence to try him on.)
Yet you persist, Father William, in standing on your head in your eternal convinction that somehow, some way, Mr. President has got to be, must be, just IS, a cheater. Because . . . you say so.
Now I am pretty sure my husband is not a serial killer. I would probably put that certainty at about 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999 probability.
I am also pretty sure Mr. President did not cheat. Had no intentions of cheating, never encouraged anyone to cheat, and wouldn’t even have enjoyed the election if it had involved cheating. I would probably put that certainty at about 95.00 percent, based ONLY on all the evidence, all the testimony, and all the blogging in the past few months, and what I heard at the trial. If I added to that my own friendship with and knowledge of Mr. President, I would raise that certainty to 99.00 percent.
Yet despite all this time, all these testimonies, all this evidence (or lack thereof), all the explanations of how web sites and IP’s and this and that work, and even the investigation and trial that you yourself called for so long ago, you remain convinced that the Mr. President just HAS to be dirty.
Why is that?
Is it because you are hopelessly wedded to your theory that not even a nice guy could possibly ever role-play political activities without being underhanded about it?
Is it because you just don’t THINK? You just blab on about your original theory about the “real guilty party” no matter what facts come to light? Or you’re stubborn? And nothing will ever sway you once you’ve made up your mind about something?
Or is it because you don’t really CARE about this any more, or the investigation and trial; that you blow it all off; and that you assume that no matter how many people have been involved in this – including people who actually do play TSO actively – your own first, early, intuitive, and flimsily-arrived-at verdict just HAS to be right?
What sort of arrogance does it take to cling to your original position in the face of everything people in Alpha have come to know?
Momumental arrogance. And a close-mindedness that is beyond belief. You were just grandstanding when you called for hard look into the election. You never really cared what the truth was about it. You just want to keep repeating: Mr. President is a cheater.
coco
Ian
Aug 20th, 2004
Cocoa, Marcus Forlourne, Mr-Presidents former VP, came forth and said that Mr-President was aware that this was going to happen.
Cocoanut
Aug 20th, 2004
When and where?
coco
Ian
Aug 20th, 2004
http://alphavillegazette.com/index.php?p=66
Cocoanut
Aug 20th, 2004
OK, I think I read this before, Ian, and I just went over it again:
In it, Marcus Forlourne says:
“I proposed having elections, which Mr-P did not want.
“I believe he rigged them, to keep himself in office.”
But although Marcus believes Mr. President rigged the elections, he has no proof of any such thing.
In fact, the only people who WOULD know – Chad Thomas and the other guy who were apparently in on voting too many times – have said Mr. P. wasn’t involved in it in any way. I’ve asked them myself! At meetings in Alphaville! They have assured me Mr. P. had nothing to do with it.
Then Marcus goes on to say:
“There was talk of some government workers rigging the elections.
Ian; with fans in the room?
Marcus Forlourne: Yes.
…
Ian; Mr-President was aware of the election rigging?
Marcus Forlourne: I believe so…
…Ian; Well you said that he was at the meetings
…
Marcus Forlourne: Yes.
Marcus Forlourne: He was idle I believe.
Marcus Forlourne: He could have been getting IMs, for he was busy in them.”
He is saying here that there was talk about rigging elections while Mr. President was present in the room, but Mr. President apparently wasn’t paying attention to whatever that talk consisted of. (And we don’t know what it consisted of.)
Then Marcus goes on to repeat:
“I believe he was involved.”
Then Marcus says he ran an investigation himself:
“I ran a private investigation.
“I spoke to him [Mr. P] about it, and he said that he was “troubled” by it.”
Marcus says his investigation found nothing:
“In the investigation, we found nothing.”
But Marcus still concludes:
“He rigged the election, he doesn’t do his job, and he is not good enough for Alphaville.”
OK, so what we have here is someone who THINKS Mr. President rigged the elections. But by his own admission, and despite his own closeness to the situation, he could find no proof of wrong-doing on the part of Mr. President.
Contrast this to the guys who actually did the rigging by voting dozens of times, and therefore should know. They have said that Mr. President didn’t know about it and was not involved in it in any way. They said they did it entirely separate from from Mr. President, and without his knowledge.
The entire issue is rendered moot anyway, by the verdict in the Chad Thomas trial. In it, it was brought out that there was no rule to break, in terms of how many times an individual could vote. There was also no rule, by the way, forbidding a nominee from getting friends and friends of her parents in Florida to vote, who had never even played the game.
I’m sure we would all agree that neither of those gambits was on the spirit of the election as most of us thought of it; but nonetheless, neither was against the rules. And neither such gambit, as far as any of us knows, was ever anticipated, masterminded, or even encouraged by Mr. President.
Even given this interesting interview you have provided, Ian, the preponderance of the evidence still indicates Mr. President never rigged the elections.
Anyone who, like Uri, still thinks Mr. President is somehow the “real guilty party” just doesn’t have any factual reason to think that.
coco
Ian
Aug 20th, 2004
Cocoa, first of all you just contridicted yourself. You first said, that Marcus’ words, can not be proof, but then you along to say, that since Chad says it, well gee he must be right.
Coco, I know when I go afk, I read up on Chat History, and I know for a fact Mr-President does. But, he hardly goes AFK, he is always there, he is just the silent type, he reads, believe me.
An investigation? Please, how can a virtual investigation be done? Please, do explain, coco
Ashley, quit the game Cocoa.
Cocoa, you have no factual reason to believe that Mr-President is not guilty.
Cocoanut
Aug 20th, 2004
To clarify:
Marcus said he BELIEVED Mr. President was involved, though he couldn’t prove it, despite having conducted an investigation of his own.
Chad Thomas and that other guy, who were actually the ones who voted so many times, said they KNEW that Mr. President had no knowledge of their scheme.
It is interesting to me that all parties involved seem to be telling the truth, every step of the way, throughout your interview with Marcus, and throughout all the testimony I have heard at various events in the game.
From their testimonies, and from my own following of the entire thing, as well as what I have learned about web sites and IP’s and so forth from it, in addition to my own questioning of people, including Mr. President, there is no evidence that Mr. President ever cheated.
There is, on the contrary, ample testimony from the other people involved that either (a) he did not cheat (this from the multiple-voters themselves) or (b) there is no evidence he cheated (this from Marcus, though Marcus still suspects something).
Looks pretty cut and dried to me.
coco
Ian
Aug 21st, 2004
Coco I am not arguing that Mr-President, cheated, I am saying that he had knowledge.
Marcus Forlourne, said Mr-President was in the same room, as they chatted. That is enough evidence for me, for someone to be aware.
Again coco, you fail to answer my question, explain how an online investigation, can actually be conducted? Thanks.
urizenus
Aug 21st, 2004
and I am arguing that he failed to nurture the proper democratic values (i.e. respect for democracy) in his underlings and thus is responsible for the events that took place. He is responisble for these events, Coco, even if he did not directly order them.
Cocoanut
Aug 21st, 2004
I don’t know how an online investigation could be conducted, Sir. I didn’t call for it – Uri did. And Marcus said he conducted one. I suppose it would be done mainly by asking around bunches. I guess I conducted my own online investigation myself, because I took an interest and asked around bunches, too.
I was hoping that was what you meant, Uri, since I could think of some sort of rationale for that kind of thinking, as opposed to insinuating that Mr. President, himself, cheated.
About that, I do think he tried to nurture the proper values, but it is almost impossible to be responsible for everything everybody else does. IRL, if we discover that an underling cheated in the government, we don’t automatically blame it on the top guy.
It’s especially hard to do in a game like this, where the truly best thing you can ever do is to be a good example. I think Mr. President was that. I think even his enemies respect himand like him, and that says a lot.
Mr. President was always inclusive of people, regardless of their past. He would not ban scammers automatically (and he put up with a whole lot more disruption and nonsense than I would, and I’m pretty patient).
He told me once he felt that a lot of the energy, particularly of younger players, needed somewhere to go, and he wanted to give it a chance to go to good things. He also believed, as I do, in giving people (especially young people) second or third or more chances. He didn’t write off anyone automatically because of their past or their reputation.
Of course, when you have that attitude, you are going to have around you, among the upright citizens, others who have stooped to underhanded things in the past and may do so again. It’s all part of the learning process for some young players.
I think, in the interest of being fair to Mr. President and all the good things he did and the good things he stood for, it would be nice to stop calling him such things as the “real guilty party,” and put this all to rest.
coco
Ian
Aug 21st, 2004
Cocoa, bottom line, in a virtual enviorment, in a virtual game, an online investigation is impossible to do. First of all, who do you question? And even if you do find out who, does that person have to tell the truth? I am sure that if someone was involved with it, they wouldn’t tell the truth, what would they have to gain? Hate against them. And, btw, Cocoa, thanks for the answer “I don’t know”, with “I did one my self”. If you don’t know, how did you do one yourself?
I somewhat agree with Urizenus on this case. I do not think that Mr-President, himself cheated, but he was aware, someone was doing it on his behalf.
Cocoa, in real life, the top guy is usually blamed, until somehow, they use the little guy as the scapegoat.
His enemies, do not respect him, I hate Mr-President, but like Arthur Baynes. There is a difference, believe me.
Great, he allowed kids to join his organization, lets give him the purple heart, and forgive him of all the election catastrophe, I mean come on, he is just such a good guy. [/sarcasm]
Cocoa, this will not go to rest. Thanks to Mr. Forlournes, honesty, that he was aware of the rigging, (with doing that, he did admit he took part) and mentioned that Mr-President was at the chat..
BTW, who is to say that Mr-President was away from the keyboard, but Mr-President himself. Again, he was assuming Mr-President was not there reading it.
Carmella
Aug 22nd, 2004
Excuse me while I interrupt.. But may I ask? What exactly does it matter one way or another? First of all, where did it state that “THERE WAS TO BE ONE VOTE PER CITISIM?” second, THE TRIAL WAS NOT ABOUT MR-P OR HIS KNOWLEDGE OF THE ALLEDGED MULTIPLE VOTING and third, WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE KNOW?
It is now time for the AVG to either stand up and rescue their image or step back and let someone else give it a try. Whether it be by ‘dissolution of AVG’ or new elections with rules in place and a change in the way the votes are recorded.
There are plenty of great people in AVG that can rebuild a successful government. But there has to be changes made.
It is up to us.
Carmella
Ian
Aug 22nd, 2004
I posted a response, somehow I probably didn’t hit Post, but I will sum it up for you:
Free speech
Urizenus
Aug 22nd, 2004
Judge Carmella says: “First of all, where did it state that “THERE WAS TO BE ONE VOTE PER CITISIM?”"
Carmella, one-person-one-vote is a basic principle of democracy all over the world, and is even reflected in the AVG effort to limit to one vote per IP address. That wasn’t a technical obstacle to be gamed, but a way of engineering democratic values into the election. If persons in the government can vote an unlimited number of times while “civilians” can only vote once it is not an election, but a joke. It subverts the very idea of what a democratic election is. I’m shocked that you can’t see this. But given your attitude and the fact that you presided over the trial, I’m not surprised that it turned out as it did.
Carmella
Aug 22nd, 2004
But ‘civilians’ were able to vote more than once, ‘civilians’ that do not live in Alhpaville or even TSO. We have to realize that this is a virtual world and things have to be different. If this was rl the case would not have been held at the Department of Justice, or presided over by the Attorney General. Don’t assume that all of rl rules can apply. Nor would we have 14 year old boys running AVG. But alas, we do.
Also I wanted to clear up the misconception that by my presence in the case the outcome would be a certain way. There was a jury pool of 20 randomly selected citisims. Both David Pierce and Robert the man selected the seated jurors. The jury listened and it was their decision to find Chad not guilty. Not mine.
Ian
Aug 22nd, 2004
Noone is questioning your ability to judge the case, or your opinion, but the principle of the matter. It is disgusting that it is “OKAY” for someone to have the ability to vote more than once. If we are talking about real life here, the Jury would be selected by the department of justice (which is the closest thing to the county court) not volunteers. Just suggesting to have volunteers, they probably have a secret agenda. But I guess if this is “OKAY”, why don’t we bring dead people in to vote, or perhaps convicts in prison.
Urizenus
Aug 22nd, 2004
I guess it comes down to the instructions that were given the jury, Carmella, and since there is no Supreme Court or Constitutional Court to appeal too, it was up to them to uphold basic legal and democratic principles and not be written-rule geeks. My thought would be that they should have been so instructed. So yes, the judge played a huge role in this case.
Cocoanut
Aug 22nd, 2004
Well, Uri, it’s also a part of our democratic principles that people from France don’t vote in our national elections.
Yet it perturbed you none when Ashley Richardson got friends and her parents got friends who don’t even play the game to participate in the election.
The fact is, there was no such rule that you could only vote once, any more than there was a rule that only people who played TSO could vote.
I think the jurors simply couldn’t convict a person who had broken no rule.
That the jurors were also made aware of Ashley’s own method to increase her votes by getting whoever she could to vote whether they played the game or not, which was also against no rule, probably made them even less likely to convict Chad Thomas.
It’s really hard to convict somebody for breaking a rule that just wasn’t there.
So now you figure the whole problem was the judge, and her instructions to the jury? I thought you’d decided that Mr. President was the real villain in this story? Now you are deciding the outcome of the trial is Carmella’s fault?
How about maybe – just maybe – the jurors were intelligent people who fully grasped the same sorts of democratic idealsyou think you alone understand, and judged Chad innocent anyway?
Due, quite probably, to the fact that he (astonishing but true) broke no law, in addition to the fact that Ashley enlisted the votes of non-TSO playing friends (also, astonishingly, not against any law.)
I personally, was surprised by the innocent verdict. After all, the guy confessed to doing the extra voting. But then, it was pointed out during the trial that there had been no rule against what Chad did, and it dawned on me that what he did really wasn’t any different from what Ashley did.
Too bad the whole world doesn’t see everything the way you do, Uri. If they did, you wouldn’t be having to run around parcelling out blame and naming various villains. Carmella did a great job. But then, you weren’t there, so how would you know?
coco
Ian
Aug 22nd, 2004
Two wrongs do not make a right…Cocoa
Ashley and Chad both did something morally wrong, that doesn’t mean it is against the law, does it? Just the fact that he did this, he should be punished. I think if Ashley won, she would be punished to. Just the fact that you, Cocoa, out of all people, believe that Mr-President should rightfully be where he is, and believe that Chad did nothing wrong, just blows my mind.
Carmella
Aug 22nd, 2004
In one of the comments you stated:
“Just suggesting to have volunteers, they probably have a secret agenda” and “My thought would be that they should have been so instructed”. Does this suggest that maybe you were one of the ones that had a ‘secret agenda’? But of course not, you weren’t there, or was you?
Ian
Aug 22nd, 2004
i wasnt there, but why would I need to be? I just could tell by the jurors, I mean come on.. one was Edinahornet, who left AVG, and probably doesnt even care what goes on with it, and probably wants to keep the crooks. And How do you not know that either one of the attorneys paid someone to be a juror. this is a virtual world, none of this stuff can go on with no question
Carmella
Aug 23rd, 2004
Yes…let’s look at the list of jurors.. One’s that both David and Robert the man chose. Yes, I was surprised by some of their selections but both David and Robert had to agree in order for a citisims to be placed in the jury box. There were more jurors to chose from. Edinahornet was not their only choice. He was the 5th jury to be seated.
I have to admit that in the beginning I was personally insulted by the constant references that I was somehow bias or bought.
But after reading the comments here I understand that no one, no jury, no judge, no attorney could stop the constant whining about the election.
Why not just have a new election, perhaps some of you that did not like the outcome of the last election could help out with it. Make sure that all rules be posted clearly, that all votes are counted correctly, and verify all incoming votes as legal. Gather new candidates as well as the president-elect and put it out there for re-election. And possibly put the past behind us.
Carmella
Ian
Aug 23rd, 2004
Carmella that idea sounds great! I agree!
But like I said, perhaps David or Robert paid some jurors off, who knows.
Carmella
Aug 23rd, 2004
You are right..David or Robert could have payed them off..Hope that David didn’t, cuz he got ripped off if he did.. And Robert?…
I think that the jury just found Robert’s questions more compelling.
So..does this mean that you are in charge of the new elections?
Carmella
Ian
Aug 23rd, 2004
ehhh, I would but i dont play tso anymore, however, i think that the avg is a lost cause anyways.
urizenus
Aug 23rd, 2004
Carmella, I think we’re getting distracted from the key point here, which is that your failure to understand that “one person one vote” is a basic priciple of democracy. Your statement that “First of all, where did it state that “THERE WAS TO BE ONE VOTE PER CITISIM?”" is not just nauseating, but shows that you did not understand your role in this trial and had no business presiding over it. I don’t care what the outcome or whatever else happens.
The point is this, that until we get off this dumb idea that the only valid principles in cyberspace are those that are enumerated with bullets and posted somewhere, we will never be able to form viable legal and political institutions. Why? Because legal and political institutions are not formed in vacuums by lists of rules, but must be integrated with a rich legal and constitutional tradition. If you have no knowledge of that tradition or no interest in preserving it then you have no business being a judge — even a virtual judge.
Carmella
Aug 24th, 2004
Urizenus? Does your name translate to #$@. Because you certainly are one. I am so glad that we have someone like you to inform us of the errors of our ways. Certainly someone who is as smart as you should be the leader, someone that can only see things one way and all those that disagree must be wrong.
urizenus
Aug 24th, 2004
Well Carmella, if you think that the idea of one person one vote is wrong then I guess we’ll just have to disagree. Or if you think that judges shouldn’t have to uphold such principles then we disagree again. And know what? I have no problem with disagreeing with you on those two points.
Cocoanut
Aug 24th, 2004
The people have spoken, Uri. You just don’t like it.
Moreover, you figure (as usual) that the people can’t possibly possess a modicum of intelligence. You figure Carmella could have and should have controlled the outcome of the trial.
Moreover, you sound mighty smug about your “one-person-one-vote” epiphany. But what about dragging in votes from non-citizens? Where was your righteousness when Ashley was getting all her non-playing friends to vote?
If you think the trial was a travesty of justice, then go dig up all the witnesses and jurors and berate them. Stop blaming the judge. The people have spoken, but your contempt for the people makes you incapable of accepting that.
coco
urizenus
Aug 24th, 2004
Look first of all, this doesnt have to do with intelligence — just a grasp of basic democratic principles. The stuff you are supposed to learn in grade school. Second, I don’t have a problem with the results of the trial. I think Chad was just a scapegoat anyway, for a government that did not respect or nurture democratic values in its employees. Third, I’m saying that Carmella’s attitudes about democratic principles disqualify her from being a judge.
Cocoanut
Aug 24th, 2004
Uri, what makes you think we have a democracy in TSO anyway?
Do you think it is there in some sort of hidden constitution?
Because it is a game, it is even more necessary to have rules clearly stated. When the rules are absent – and people are voting multiple times or dragging their grandmothers in to vote from the rest home – obviously a jury is going to have a hard time convicting anyone on the law.
If there is no law, you can’t convict someone on the law. Easy.
coco