Pursuant the findings of Mr. Matthews below, the matter is resolved to the Court's satisfaction.  The Court thanks Mr. Matthews for his service and discharges him of his duties.

Colonel
Chief Justice

REPORT OF INVESTIGATION BY THE SPECIAL PROSECUTOR
Section 3(c) Department of Justice Act 2009


TO: Hon Colonel CJ
COPY: Clerk of the Court

REPORT IN CASE # 10GC00001

REFERENCE:

James Inglis, Bastet Apollo and Eleanor Rigby

SPECIAL PROSECUTOR:

James Joseph Matthews
(Appointed by the General Court of Titulia)


Pursuant to the order of the General Court of Titulia and empowered by the Department of Justice Act, I have been given the charge of Special Prosecutor on behalf of the Government of Titulia in the following matter.


TERMS OF REFERENCE OF THE INVESTIGATION:

That JAMES INGLIS, BASTET APOLLO and ELEANOR RIGBY (the 'Parties') may separately or collectively be MULTIPLE ACCOUNTS for use in the Republic of Titulia.


NATURE OF PRIVILEGE AND STANDING OF SPECIAL PROSECUTOR:

I, James Joseph Matthews, am a registered legal practitioner in the Republic of Titulia. I have been appointed as Special Prosecutor by the General Court of Titulia.


PROCEDURE:

The President of the Republic of Titulia, Mr. Gregory Hock, has asked that the General Court of Titulia investigate and make all reasonable enquiries to determine if the allegations made by the Government are true.


CONDUCT OF INVESTIGATION:

I issued ONE subpoena to each of the subjects of this case. The subpoena was as follows:

Name of citizen:
Email address used to register with titulia.com:
Geographical location:

(For example: Sydney, Australia or Manchester, England etc).

If it is the desire of 'the Parties' in this matter, you may also include any information you feel pertinent to this investigation *.


NOTES:

In the one day that has passed, I have sworn an affidavit to the Court that service has been confirm from Titulia mail records (Attached 'Exhibit A' which has been previously submitted to the Court). The Clerk has informed me that an application for extension of time to comply has been received from Mr. Inglis on behalf of himself and Bastet Apollo.

To date, not one of the parties to the subpoena have given evidence.


LINE OF ENQUIRY WITH THE ADMINISTRATOR:

I have also been communicating with Admin and examined them on a number of questions. I first tender 'Exhibit B' which is one communication from the Admin.


AdminTo: James Matthews  ;  Subject: Re: Investigation into Multiple AccountsDate: Jan 08, 2010 - 20:34Message text:

We have no evidence to support that these citizens are coming from the same computer.Admin

-----------------------------------------------------


SUBMISSION TO THE COURT (FINDING OF COLLECTIVE USE OF MULTIPLE ACCOUNTS):

Based on Admin's response, I am legally satisfied that the accounts of James Inglis, Bastet Apollo and Eleanor Rigby do not originate from the same computer. If the Court might so indulge, that does not necessarily prove that the subjects have not procured the use of other computers or devices for the purpose of manipulating the game.

However, I cannot bring a case against them on the strict parameters of 'one machine, one account' as defined. On that basis, I submit there is no case to answer on that particular point of the investigation.


SUBMISSION TO THE COURT (FINDING OF USE OF OTHER MULTIPLE ACCOUNTS):

The focus of my role as Special Prosecutor in this case is to also investigate the subjects singularly within my terms of reference pertaining to whether or not they have multiple accounts at all. On this point of reference, the case takes a turn of interest.


I tender 'Exhibit C' to the Court, which are an exchange of numerous communications with Admin.

To: Admin  ;  Subject: Re: Investigation into Multiple AccountsDate: Jan 08, 2010 - 23:44Message text:

*Note: No reply received to this message at the time of filing the report. Due to the tender of other evidence in this exchange, it is not required as the establishment of potential culpability has been met re: Subject(s) 'X'.

Dear Admin,

So, please let me understand this as I'm not familiar with previous action you have taken. Are you saying that one of these accounts may have used a secondary account and the voting rights of that secondary account has already been seen to?

I am trying to work within the legal parameters of your situation and I do sympathise. At this point, what I'm trying to do is find reasonable grounds to argue that a case exists without asking you something that is unreasonable as well as upholds the credibility of my conduct in this case.

I cannot speak to the General Court's decision as that is beyond my charge. But the President has asked the Court to discover whether multiple accounts have been used and named the subjects of this investigation in the line of enquiry.

To finalise this chain of evidence, I ask you one final question:

Would I be wrong in submitting to the Court that one of the subjects of this investigation has previously used a secondary account?



-----------------------------------------------------

The real issue is this: Even if we have reasonable proof that more than one citizens used the same computer at one time, this still does not prove that they are the same real person. It raises a legitimate suspicion, and upon this suspicion we automatically prohibit such groups of citizens to participate the same vote or election.Other than this, we do not see what we could do. As a matter of fact, once voting fraud is eliminated, we do not see what harm is really done by such occurrences.As to you suggestion, saying ""there may be grounds for further inquiry" amounts to saying yes, so we are still at the original legal question.-----------------------------------------------------
Dear Admin,

As a legal practitioner, I offer you an option that would both assist the investigation and not place you in a position where jurisdictional laws could be violated.

If you indicate to me that "there may be grounds for further inquiry", I will submit to the Court that upon contact with you there are such grounds and that privacy reasons prohibit further investigation on a civilian basis.

As such, I would further move that the Court should halt their investigation and it should be referred to the Admin.

As indicated, could there be grounds for further inquiry?

Sincerely,
James Matthews
Special Prosecutor
Case #10GC00001

-----------------------------------------------------

We still need to find out whether or not it would be a real world violation of privacy laws to disclose such information to third parties such as yourself. We are afraid it would be, but still investigating. Admin


-----------------------------------------------------


SUMMARY OF INVESTIGATION:


It is of my reasonable belief that in one or potentially any of the subject's scenarios there may be a case to answer. However, as we now transcend from the fantasy 'game' laws into the real life statute of privacy, I submit to the Court that as civilians the Government does not have the standing or qualification to investigate further.

Ergo, I submit my recommendation to the Court that the investigation into James Inglis, Bastet Apollo and Eleanor Rigby is temporarily deferred on the grounds of reaching the limit to our game jurisdiction and the matter be referred to Admin for further action. When Admin has completed their own investigation into the matter, now without the predicament of breaching the statute of privacy, the Court should be able to hear the matter sua sponte on the finding of Admin.

I remain of service to the Court in this matter and officially tender the report of my findings. If it is the Government's desire for me to prosecute the case, so shall it be.


FINDINGS OF INVESTIGATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE COURT:


1. There is no case to answer that James Inglis, Bastet Apollo and Eleanor Rigby are multiple accounts of the same computer or device.

2. There is a case to answer in the matter of 'X' of the subjects to this investigation to have used other accounts.

3. Recommendation for Finding #2 to be referred to Admin due to protection of the statute of privacy.

4. While Admin may argue that the violation has been discovered, it is my recommendation that the Admin be allowed to investigate to discover as an investigatory body as to prevent breach of real world law.

5. Court to hear case in Titulia's civil jurisdiction based on Admin's findings.


Those are my official findings in this matter. Good evening, Mr. Justice.


James J. Matthews
Special Prosecutor
Case # 10GC00001
 


Comments


Comments are closed.