The Flat Earth Society

The Flat Earth Society => Announcements => Topic started by: Lord Wilmore on January 17, 2010, 12:30:43 PM

Title: Off-Site Harrassment
Post by: Lord Wilmore on January 17, 2010, 12:30:43 PM
Hey guys, I just want to make you aware that one of our members (Ichi) has been the subject of serious harrassment outside this forum, and that as a consequence charges have been made. The person involved made death threats, knew Ichi was a FE'er, and where Ichi lived. He went by various AIM screenames, usually some is some variation or form of bpartyboy, partyboy, bpartyboy18 etc.


We're just making an announcement about this in case a) Ichi isn't the only one, and b) this happens again. Remember, if someone is seriously and persistently harrassing you online, they are breaking the law, and you should contact the authorities.


If anyone else thinks they've been having trouble from the same person, let us know so we can contact Ichi. It may not be an isolated incident.
Title: Re: Off-Site Harrassment
Post by: Saddam Hussein on January 17, 2010, 12:36:05 PM
Wow.  If charges were filed, do we know who the person was?  In real life, I mean, beyond his screen name?
Title: Re: Off-Site Harrassment
Post by: Lord Wilmore on January 17, 2010, 12:44:24 PM
I don't know who he is, beyond the rough description Ichi received from the police, which I feel is neither necessary nor appropriate to post here. However, I will say that he is apparently facing felony charges due to the crime crossing state lines, though Ichi believes that he will probably plead guilty to a misdemeanor.
Title: Re: Off-Site Harrassment
Post by: Areweonfiya on January 17, 2010, 01:09:51 PM
Why?
Title: Re: Off-Site Harrassment
Post by: SupahLovah on January 17, 2010, 02:11:37 PM
Because people are idiots?
Title: Re: Off-Site Harrassment
Post by: clovis2 on January 17, 2010, 02:37:50 PM
Thank you for this information.Most Flat Earthers are harrassed in some form or other but actual threats are a step beyond the normal verbal abuse.
Title: Re: Off-Site Harrassment
Post by: Crustinator on January 17, 2010, 03:10:18 PM
Hey guys, I just want to make you aware that one of our members (Ichi) has been the subject of serious harrassment outside this forum, and that as a consequence charges have been made.

It's curious how we've had electronic harassment, then verbal harassment, then harassment face to face, then the agressor identified and captured, then charges brought, then the level of crime established, and finally the establishment of a likely pleading of the presumed aggressor.

All within two hours! Phew!

Still you've just laid out accusations at several AOL screen names. Not only is that possible libel against innocent victims it could seriously jeapodise any forthcoming trial.

I hope it all works out OK. *hugs*
Title: Re: Off-Site Harrassment
Post by: Lord Wilmore on January 17, 2010, 03:20:15 PM
It's curious how we've had electronic harassment, then verbal harassment, then harassment face to face, then the agressor identified and captured, then charges brought, then the level of crime established, and finally the establishment of a likely pleading of the presumed aggressor.

All within two hours! Phew!


What?  ???
Title: Re: Off-Site Harrassment
Post by: Wendy on January 17, 2010, 03:21:01 PM
Still you've just laid out accusations at several AOL screen names. Not only is that possible libel against innocent victims it could seriously jeapodise any forthcoming trial.

Wilmore has done no such thing. He has simply mentioned a pattern in the several screennames of the person who perpetrated the harassment. How could that jeopardise and trials?
Title: Re: Off-Site Harrassment
Post by: Crustinator on January 17, 2010, 03:42:00 PM
Wilmore has done no such thing. He has simply mentioned a pattern in the several screennames of the person who perpetrated the harassment. How could that jeopardise and trials?

lrn2juryprejudice lrn2witnessprejudice

Dear God this is such fail. If there really was about to be a case you'd know as an Admin to keep your mouth shut about it or face some kind of contempt of court charge. In fact whatever council Ichi has appointed (and I'll assume he has, since so much else has happened) would know to tell Ichi to keep his mouth shut.

Still. Hope it all works out. *hugs*
Title: Re: Off-Site Harrassment
Post by: Mrs. Peach on January 17, 2010, 03:48:32 PM
Mentioning screen names could only be considered as contempt if there were some sort of gag order in place.  And then it would be iffy.
Title: Re: Off-Site Harrassment
Post by: Crustinator on January 17, 2010, 03:58:58 PM
Not really. It could easily jeopardise the trial as anyone could now claim to have been a victim of the accused.

It's the internet equivalent of announcing that David Sprigs of 43 Elsmere Road has been getting his cock out at bus stations, so if anyone else thinks they've seen him do it, let us know.

Seriously Wilmore, delete the thread and we can pretend the whole thing didn't happen.
Title: Re: Off-Site Harrassment
Post by: Nomad on January 17, 2010, 04:06:33 PM
I actually kind of agree with Crusty that it could possibly bring up some dishonest folks making false accusations.  However, thanks for the heads up Willy.
Title: Re: Off-Site Harrassment
Post by: Areweonfiya on January 17, 2010, 04:18:54 PM
Any idea as to why he was being harassed?
Title: Re: Off-Site Harrassment
Post by: Benjamin Franklin on January 17, 2010, 04:30:42 PM
Any idea as to why he was being harassed?
It was probably a troll, from what I figure.

Also, Crusty is a terrible troll.
Title: Re: Off-Site Harrassment
Post by: Saddam Hussein on January 17, 2010, 05:04:40 PM
Seeing how none of us are going to be in the jury or anything, I don't think that this is unfair prejudice.
Title: Re: Off-Site Harrassment
Post by: Lord Wilmore on January 17, 2010, 05:14:51 PM
Wilmore has done no such thing. He has simply mentioned a pattern in the several screennames of the person who perpetrated the harassment. How could that jeopardise and trials?

lrn2juryprejudice lrn2witnessprejudice

Dear God this is such fail. If there really was about to be a case you'd know as an Admin to keep your mouth shut about it or face some kind of contempt of court charge. In fact whatever council Ichi has appointed (and I'll assume he has, since so much else has happened) would know to tell Ichi to keep his mouth shut.

Still. Hope it all works out. *hugs*


1) Ichi specifically asked me to warn the other members, and relay the information given here, which is the only reason I'm posting it, and probably the only reason he gave me the info. I'm not his mother or his lawyer, so it's his business what information he wants to give out.


2) Given that I don't live in the United States, I seriously doubt I'm going to face a contempt of court charge over a case of this nature.


But thanks for your advice Ally; we'll bear it in mind. ::)
Title: Re: Off-Site Harrassment
Post by: theonlydann on January 18, 2010, 04:07:28 AM
This turn of events does not please me.

Not at all.

Title: Re: Off-Site Harrassment
Post by: Crustinator on January 18, 2010, 10:58:24 AM
Seeing how none of us are going to be in the jury or anything, I don't think that this is unfair prejudice.

It's not about whether you are on the jury. It's about whether any jury could have their opinion prejudiced by what they read here. Naming someone here, by way of their AOL screenname, identifies them as a perpetrator before it's been proven that they committed a crime.

If such a case were to come to trial it would be fairly likely that various members of the site would need to be interviewed, for example to establish Ichi character online, the kind of information he gave out, how the accused did, or might have, got hold of his personal details.

Defence lawyers particularly would be interested in finding another member of the site in order to pin such accusations on.

1) Ichi specifically asked me to warn the other members, and relay the information given here, which is the only reason I'm posting it, and probably the only reason he gave me the info. I'm not his mother or his lawyer, so it's his business what information he wants to give out.But thanks for your advice Ally; we'll bear it in mind. ::)

It was you who gave out the information, not Ichi. I'm not sure why he couldn't make the post warning people himself, but regardless, it's you who would face any legal questioning.

2) Given that I don't live in the United States, I seriously doubt I'm going to face a contempt of court charge over a case of this nature.

But thanks for your advice Ally; we'll bear it in mind. ::)

lrn2extradition. You're not above US law. If they ask for you they can take you.

You might be rolling your eyes, but I don't think you realise how serious the allegations are that you're bringing. This is the kind of thing that, if it were true, would make national news. On a slow day with a court announcement and some lurid details it would make top story.

The majority of Ichi's posts are in CN. He rarely causes rifts with any members new or old and most of his posts are light hearted and fun. Doesn't seem like a viable target for harassment. Maybe someone found out Ichi is the werewolf...

Until you can link to a news article detailing the arrest and court appearance we should chalk this one up as a cool story bro.

Title: Re: Off-Site Harrassment
Post by: Benjamin Franklin on January 18, 2010, 11:03:01 AM
Crusty is in full bad-troll mode now. You can tell by the walls of text, fake authority, and bullshit he's spewing.
Title: Re: Off-Site Harrassment
Post by: Crustinator on January 18, 2010, 11:06:51 AM
Crusty is in full bad-troll mode now. You can tell by the walls of text, fake authority, and bullshit he's spewing.

Umm. No.

I paragraphed my reply nicely. I'm not claiming any authority (or giving any legal advice). If you want to correct me on anything then do so.

TBH the whole thread is an embarrassment to TFES.  :-\
Title: Re: Off-Site Harrassment
Post by: Benjamin Franklin on January 18, 2010, 11:12:19 AM
Crusty is in full bad-troll mode now. You can tell by the walls of text, fake authority, and bullshit he's spewing.

Umm. No.

I paragraphed my reply nicely. I'm not claiming any authority (or giving any legal advice). If you want to correct me on anything then do so.

TBH the whole thread is an embarrassment to TFES.  :-\
See children, this is a bad troll. He is trolling badly.
Title: Re: Off-Site Harrassment
Post by: Space Cowgirl on January 18, 2010, 11:51:29 AM
Yeah, I can tell because I can't be bothered to read his posts.

Title: Re: Off-Site Harrassment
Post by: Lord Wilmore on January 18, 2010, 12:31:50 PM
lrn2extradition. You're not above US law. If they ask for you they can take you.


Seriously, lol. With this remark, you confirm that you are talking out of your ass. Now, having demonstrated that, I want you to stop derailing this thread with your free legal advice. Start another topic about it in the Lounge if you must, but keep it out of here.
Title: Re: Off-Site Harrassment
Post by: Its a Sphere on January 18, 2010, 12:42:10 PM

lrn2extradition. You're not above US law. If they ask for you they can take you.

You might be rolling your eyes, but I don't think you realise how serious the allegations are that you're bringing. This is the kind of thing that, if it were true, would make national news. On a slow day with a court announcement and some lurid details it would make top story.

Evidently the Perry Mason/Matlock/Murder She Wrote marathon you watched with Mamaw and Papaw should have come with a disclaimer regarding how the show won't make you a legal expert.
Title: Re: Off-Site Harrassment
Post by: Crustinator on January 18, 2010, 02:16:14 PM
Seriously, lol. With this remark, you confirm that you are talking out of your ass. Now, having demonstrated that, I want you to stop derailing this thread with your free legal advice. Start another topic about it in the Lounge if you must, but keep it out of here.

It's not derailing, it's simple fact.

If you annoy the US courts enough they can get hold of you. You seemed to be ignorant of that fact. Jeopardising a US Court case is pretty significant. How much effort they go to in order to bring you to justice is up to them. You've named an individual as the perpetrator of a crime before a court has identified that individual as the perpetrator. That's some heavy jeopardy you're laying out. Still you seem pretty sure of yourself.


*hugs* Hope it all works out. Stay safe. *hugs*
Title: Re: Off-Site Harrassment
Post by: Saddam Hussein on January 18, 2010, 02:56:55 PM
Better watch yourself, Wilmore.  You're going to get extradited for making a post on the Internet!

I'm not giving legal advice.

No shit.
Title: Re: Off-Site Harrassment
Post by: Raiku on January 26, 2010, 04:43:17 AM
First off, Crusty isn't a troll.

And

lrn2extradition. You're not above US law. If they ask for you they can take you.


Seriously, lol. With this remark, you confirm that you are talking out of your ass. Now, having demonstrated that, I want you to stop derailing this thread with your free legal advice. Start another topic about it in the Lounge if you must, but keep it out of here.
Wilmore, I thought you were a moderator...  Setting a good example, eh?

Anyways, poor Ichi...   :(
Title: Re: Off-Site Harrassment
Post by: frostee on January 26, 2010, 05:02:23 AM
I have no problem with you Raiku, but whats with all your... suggesting and concerning?
Title: Re: Off-Site Harrassment
Post by: John Davis on January 26, 2010, 06:04:35 AM
Seriously, lol. With this remark, you confirm that you are talking out of your ass. Now, having demonstrated that, I want you to stop derailing this thread with your free legal advice. Start another topic about it in the Lounge if you must, but keep it out of here.

It's not derailing, it's simple fact.

If you annoy the US courts enough they can get hold of you. You seemed to be ignorant of that fact. Jeopardising a US Court case is pretty significant. How much effort they go to in order to bring you to justice is up to them. You've named an individual as the perpetrator of a crime before a court has identified that individual as the perpetrator. That's some heavy jeopardy you're laying out. Still you seem pretty sure of yourself.


*hugs* Hope it all works out. Stay safe. *hugs*
This thread is a warning concerning the safety of our members.  If you continue this crap you will be banned.
Title: Re: Off-Site Harrassment
Post by: Crustinator on January 26, 2010, 07:04:40 AM
This thread is a warning concerning the safety of our members.  If you continue this crap you will be banned.

It's also a thread alleging that the identification, pursuit, capture, arrest and pleading of a supposed perpetrator has been made.

Wilmore identified the alleged perpetrator before police and legal activity could take place, thus (potentially) invalidating any possible prosecution. If the the named party is in fact some deranged would-be slayer of FEers then Wilmore put the lives of many others on this board at risk.

Of course the whole thing could just be a sad cry for attention. Who knows? ;)
Title: Re: Off-Site Harrassment
Post by: Colonel Gaydafi on January 26, 2010, 07:15:41 AM
Crusty baby, its rather silly to talk about situation you know nothing about, it makes you look a little stupid.
Title: Re: Off-Site Harrassment
Post by: Crustinator on January 26, 2010, 07:31:52 AM
Crusty baby, its rather silly to talk about situation you know nothing about, it makes you look a little stupid.

But I do know the situation. It's the one presented by Wilmore.

I've searched for any related news articles, which certainly would have been run when the alleged perp was arrested. Yet nothing... :'( Maybe you can highlight where I'm going wrong.
Title: Re: Off-Site Harrassment
Post by: Colonel Gaydafi on January 26, 2010, 07:34:43 AM
Crusty baby, its rather silly to talk about situation you know nothing about, it makes you look a little stupid.

But I do know the situation. It's the one presented by Wilmore.

I've searched for any related news articles, which certainly would have been run when the alleged perp was arrested. Yet nothing... :'( Maybe you can highlight where I'm going wrong.

And that does not contain all the information, only what was asked to be announced. So when you do not have the information, it is wiser to not spout shit m'dear.
Title: Re: Off-Site Harrassment
Post by: Crustinator on January 26, 2010, 07:37:18 AM
And that does not contain all the information, only what was asked to be announced.

That's all the information we need.
Title: Re: Off-Site Harrassment
Post by: Colonel Gaydafi on January 26, 2010, 07:45:06 AM
And that does not contain all the information, only what was asked to be announced.

That's all the information we need.

Indeed that is all you need. You would however need more if you wanted to pretend you know anything about the legal complexities of it.
Title: Re: Off-Site Harrassment
Post by: Saddam Hussein on January 26, 2010, 08:03:00 AM
It's also a thread alleging that the identification, pursuit, capture, arrest and pleading of a supposed perpetrator has been made.

Wilmore identified the alleged perpetrator before police and legal activity could take place, thus (potentially) invalidating any possible prosecution. If the the named party is in fact some deranged would-be slayer of FEers then Wilmore put the lives of many others on this board at risk.

Of course the whole thing could just be a sad cry for attention. Who knows? ;)

You just said that he's already been arrested and charged, so Wilmore didn't identify him before "police and legal activity took place".  And it would take more than some guy writing on the Internet to invalidate a prosecution.

But I do know the situation. It's the one presented by Wilmore.

I've searched for any related news articles, which certainly would have been run when the alleged perp was arrested. Yet nothing... :'( Maybe you can highlight where I'm going wrong.

Maybe you're wrong to assume that there's an article about this on the Internet to begin with.
Title: Re: Off-Site Harrassment
Post by: Crustinator on January 26, 2010, 08:10:42 AM
You would however need more if you wanted to pretend you know anything about the legal complexities of it.

Nope. There are no "legal complexities".

But if there's anything I've posted which you feel is incorrect, feel free to correct me. (perhaps in another thread, since John Davis wants to reserve this one for alerting FEers to the real and imminent danger to their very lives)

You just said that he's already been arrested and charged, so Wilmore didn't identify him before "police and legal activity took place".  And it would take more than some guy writing on the Internet to invalidate a prosecution.

It would seem so wouldn't it? Yet it's gone unreported... strange...

However, all that remains is evidence and witness gathering. That's where the danger lies. As I already said.

Maybe you're wrong to assume that there's an article about this on the Internet to begin with.

Perhaps. But given that local papers scour the courts daily for fresh news, it is kind of amazing that no one has run with what is potentially a national if not world wide story. Oh well. Feel free to take this to a new thread.
Title: Re: Off-Site Harrassment
Post by: Colonel Gaydafi on January 26, 2010, 08:17:36 AM
You would however need more if you wanted to pretend you know anything about the legal complexities of it.

Nope. There are no "legal complexities".


You're the one that seems to think there are legal complexities judging by your posts here  :-\
Title: Re: Off-Site Harrassment
Post by: Crustinator on January 26, 2010, 08:19:33 AM
You're the one that seems to think there are legal complexities judging by your posts here  :-\

Not really. If there's anything I've posted which you think is incorrect, feel free to correct me. Perhaps in another thread, since John Davis wants to reserve this one for alerting FEers to the real and imminent danger to their very lives.
Title: Re: Off-Site Harrassment
Post by: Lord Wilmore on January 26, 2010, 11:48:53 AM
Crusty, I asked you to stop posting about this. I was even nice and deleted the next couple of posts you made about it in the hope you'd get the message. You're not really giving me any options, so all I can say is that I hope you enjoy your time off.
Title: Re: Off-Site Harrassment
Post by: Saddam Hussein on January 26, 2010, 01:53:44 PM
Crusty, I asked you to stop posting about this. I was even nice and deleted the next couple of posts you made about it in the hope you'd get the message. You're not really giving me any options, so all I can say is that I hope you enjoy your time off.

Lol.

As a brief update, I'd just like to inform everyone that yes, Ichi is still alive, and in good humor.  Hopefully, he'll be back soon.
Title: Re: Off-Site Harrassment
Post by: LiceFarm on January 27, 2010, 04:48:59 AM
Hey guys, I just want to make you aware that one of our members (Ichi) has been the subject of serious harrassment outside this forum, and that as a consequence charges have been made. The person involved made death threats, knew Ichi was a FE'er, and where Ichi lived. He went by various AIM screenames, usually some is some variation or form of bpartyboy, partyboy, bpartyboy18 etc.


We're just making an announcement about this in case a) Ichi isn't the only one, and b) this happens again. Remember, if someone is seriously and persistently harrassing you online, they are breaking the law, and you should contact the authorities.


If anyone else thinks they've been having trouble from the same person, let us know so we can contact Ichi. It may not be an isolated incident.

I'm not sure if this is a cry for help or a cry for attention.
Title: Re: Off-Site Harrassment
Post by: Saddam Hussein on January 27, 2010, 09:01:00 AM
Hey guys, I just want to make you aware that one of our members (Ichi) has been the subject of serious harrassment outside this forum, and that as a consequence charges have been made. The person involved made death threats, knew Ichi was a FE'er, and where Ichi lived. He went by various AIM screenames, usually some is some variation or form of bpartyboy, partyboy, bpartyboy18 etc.


We're just making an announcement about this in case a) Ichi isn't the only one, and b) this happens again. Remember, if someone is seriously and persistently harrassing you online, they are breaking the law, and you should contact the authorities.


If anyone else thinks they've been having trouble from the same person, let us know so we can contact Ichi. It may not be an isolated incident.

I'm not sure if this is a cry for help or a cry for attention.

It's neither.  Also, are you Crusty's alt?
Title: Re: Off-Site Harrassment
Post by: theonlydann on January 27, 2010, 09:28:13 AM
Based on his re-emergence right after Crustys ban, and his disappearance after crusty started osting heavily again... and the same quality of posts... id say ban him for fun
Title: Re: Off-Site Harrassment
Post by: Sentient Fridge on January 27, 2010, 02:46:42 PM
Crusty, I asked you to stop posting about this. I was even nice and deleted the next couple of posts you made about it in the hope you'd get the message. You're not really giving me any options, so all I can say is that I hope you enjoy your time off.

Lol.

As a brief update, I'd just like to inform everyone that yes, Ichi is still alive, and in good humor.  Hopefully, he'll be back soon.


Hopefully. I miss Ichi.
Title: Re: Off-Site Harrassment
Post by: Lord Wilmore on January 28, 2010, 03:13:47 PM
I have just deleted a bunch of posts. Be warned, any more off-topic posting in this thread will result in a ban.
Title: Re: Off-Site Harrassment
Post by: 17 November on March 20, 2010, 11:28:35 PM
Thank you for this information.  Most Flat Earthers are harrassed in some form or other but actual threats are a step beyond the normal verbal abuse.

Well put. 

In the event that Ichimaru sees this, is there anything any of us might do to assist?
Title: Re: Off-Site Harrassment
Post by: Crustinator on March 21, 2010, 04:41:15 PM
In the event that Ichimaru sees this, is there anything any of us might do to assist?

Ichi has been back since the horrific event. He has remained strong, brave and upbeat, refusing to let this vicious harassment get in the way of his enjoyment of life, and has made several brave posts in Complete Nonsense. Hang in there soldier.
Title: Re: Off-Site Harrassment
Post by: Saddam Hussein on March 21, 2010, 05:32:30 PM
(http://i517.photobucket.com/albums/u337/Harley89_2008/Everyone_is_wrong.png)

Please, Crusty, just stop posting in this thread.
Title: Re: Off-Site Harrassment
Post by: Crustinator on March 21, 2010, 05:41:13 PM
Please, Crusty, just stop posting in this thread.

Is there some kind of point you're trying to make regarding Ichi's brutal ordeal?

If you want to post cartoons I suggest you go to Random Musings.
Title: Re: Off-Site Harrassment
Post by: Saddam Hussein on March 21, 2010, 06:04:52 PM
Please, Crusty, just stop posting in this thread.

Is there some kind of point you're trying to make regarding Ichi's brutal ordeal?

If you want to post cartoons I suggest you go to Random Musings.

You are the worst, most unsubtle troll in the history of this forum.  Your attempts at "satirizing" us are no more effective than you pretending to be an expert in criminal law.  In every single thread that you post in, all you do is find another way to say "You are wrong", regardless of the subject matter.  Given that you've already been banned, what, four or five times by now, and you clearly haven't learned from your mistakes, I don't understand why you haven't gotten a permaban by now.  Not to mention the fact that you regularly evade your bans with "LiceFarm", who is very, very obviously your alt, and I actually found the proxy that you use to post here.  I think I speak for most people in this forum when I say, "Go to hell".
Title: Re: Off-Site Harrassment
Post by: Crustinator on March 21, 2010, 06:22:30 PM
This thread isn't the place for this kind of ranting. Please take it somewhere else.
Title: Re: Off-Site Harrassment
Post by: Ichimaru Gin :] on March 21, 2010, 08:05:22 PM
Go to hell
Yes please do Crusty. You'll have plenty of lawyer friends down there to hopefully improve your sad understanding of the law.
Title: Re: Off-Site Harrassment
Post by: John Davis on March 22, 2010, 01:18:45 AM
This thread isn't the place for this kind of ranting. Please take it somewhere else.
Don't memberate, ban - stay on topic.  Also, habitual rule breaking, failing, and trouble making.

See you in another 30.

Everyone else, stay on topic.  Thats a warning.
Title: Re: Off-Site Harrassment
Post by: Catchpa on April 12, 2010, 09:51:25 AM
Actually, he did have a point about jury prejudice.

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=9705
Quote
Skilling’s lawyers have asked the US Supreme Court to consider whether in cases when “a presumption of jury prejudice arises because of the widespread community impact of the defendant’s alleged conduct and massive, inflammatory pretrial publicity, the government may rebut the presumption of prejudice, and, if so, whether the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that no juror was actually prejudiced.”

I interpret that as the people in the area would suffer from a big prejudice, due to the pretrial publicity(In this case, Wilmore's announcement), would not be allowed to be a jury because of the possibility of prejudice. Granted, this specific case is much bigger, but laws are laws.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3805/is_199806/ai_n8796025/
Quote
Instead, trial courts should investigate jurors exposed to extraneous influences to determine whether there has been prejudicial impact.1768 Extraneous influences include not only juror contact with other people,1769 but also juror contact with evidence1770 and other extrinsic materials.

Quote
Juror exposure to extraneous material generally creates a presumption of prejudice that the government bears a heavy burden to rebut.1774 This presumption may be overcome by a showing that the extrinsic material is merely cumulative,1775 that overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt rendered exposure to the information harmless,1776 or that the allegedly prejudicial materials to which the juror was exposed are not extrinsic evidence at all.1777 The presumption of prejudice does not apply when the defendant alleges partiality based on a juror's relationship with the government.

Quote
Pretrial and Trial Publicity. Publicity, either before or during trial, can prejudice jurors and violate a defendant's right to an impartial jury.1796 If jurors might have been exposed to prejudicial publicity, the court should make an inquiry to determine the existence of actual exposure.1797 To establish juror partiality, the defendant must show that publicity either actually prejudiced an individual juror1798 or so pervaded the proceedings that it raised a presumption of inherent prejudice.

Quote
The trial judge may not completely close the proceedings to the public unless there is a "substantial probability" that publicity will prejudice the defendant's right to fair trial and reasonable alternatives to closure cannot adequately protect that right.1806 Other steps that a trial judge may take to protect the fairness of the trial include: limiting the number of reporters in the courtroom and regulating their conduct;1807 insulating witnesses from exposure to the media;1808 controlling the release of information by police officers, witnesses, and counsel;1809 proscribing extrajudicial statements by any lawyer, party, witness, or court official;1810 and warning the media of the impropriety of publishing material not introduced at trial.1811 If none of the remedies is effective in preserving the defendant's right to fair trial, and prejudicial publicity continues during the trial, the judge may order a new trial.

Above is another article with relevant quotes, though it's 34 pages long(Shit load of court examples it seems). This definately proves Crusty's point of possible prejudice can cause problems in court.

Just giving actual sources, instead of all this ignorance going around.

I wasn't able to find anything relevant about extradition of witnesses, which Crusty said the US court could demand, although wikipedia has an article on extradition refering to suspected or convicted criminals. It's safe to say Wilmore is neither.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extradition
"The consensus in international law is that a state does not have any obligation to surrender an alleged criminal to a foreign state as one principle of sovereignty  is that every state has legal authority over the people within its borders."

Considering wikipedia got its sources right, then Crusty was wrong - Wilmore is above US law.
Title: Re: Off-Site Harrassment
Post by: Saddam Hussein on April 12, 2010, 10:05:48 AM
I think that from the moment Crusty started suggesting that the United States would extradite a citizen of Ireland for talking about a court case, it became clear that he didn't have a fucking clue what he was talking about.  The only way that a post like this would influence a jury is if they saw it.  So the jury selection process would simply weed out anyone who goes to this site.  That's assuming this case ever did go to trial, and I believe that the person in question already plead guilty.
Title: Re: Off-Site Harrassment
Post by: Catchpa on April 12, 2010, 10:10:04 AM
I think that from the moment Crusty started suggesting that the United States would extradite a citizen of Ireland for talking about a court case, it became clear that he didn't have a fucking clue what he was talking about.  The only way that a post like this would influence a jury is if they saw it.  So the jury selection process would simply weed out anyone who goes to this site.  That's assuming this case ever did go to trial, and I believe that the person in question already plead guilty.

Regardless if he had a clue or not, I just provided source that showed prejudice can cause problems for court. It would be up to the court to decide if the leaked information had any relevance.

I believe that during their investigation on the crime, they obviously looked at the victims community, where the suspect based his treats.
Title: Re: Off-Site Harrassment
Post by: Saddam Hussein on April 12, 2010, 10:26:04 AM
I think that from the moment Crusty started suggesting that the United States would extradite a citizen of Ireland for talking about a court case, it became clear that he didn't have a fucking clue what he was talking about.  The only way that a post like this would influence a jury is if they saw it.  So the jury selection process would simply weed out anyone who goes to this site.  That's assuming this case ever did go to trial, and I believe that the person in question already plead guilty.

Regardless if he had a clue or not, I just provided source that showed prejudice can cause problems for court. It would be up to the court to decide if the leaked information had any relevance.

I believe that during their investigation on the crime, they obviously looked at the victims community, where the suspect based his treats.

Oh, yeah, jury prejudice definitely can be a problem.  It's just that, as you've already discovered, the issue is complex and far from black-and-white.  There might have been more of a problem if, say, his name, description, or other personal information had been published, but a screen name is hardly mistrial worthy, especially seeing how Wilmore's intent was simply to warn us.  In any case, like you said, he's free to go baw to a judge, but I highly doubt they'd think it was a valid complaint.
Title: Re: Off-Site Harrassment
Post by: Catchpa on April 12, 2010, 10:30:27 AM
I think that from the moment Crusty started suggesting that the United States would extradite a citizen of Ireland for talking about a court case, it became clear that he didn't have a fucking clue what he was talking about.  The only way that a post like this would influence a jury is if they saw it.  So the jury selection process would simply weed out anyone who goes to this site.  That's assuming this case ever did go to trial, and I believe that the person in question already plead guilty.

Regardless if he had a clue or not, I just provided source that showed prejudice can cause problems for court. It would be up to the court to decide if the leaked information had any relevance.

I believe that during their investigation on the crime, they obviously looked at the victims community, where the suspect based his treats.

Oh, yeah, jury prejudice definitely can be a problem.  It's just that, as you've already discovered, the issue is complex and far from black-and-white.  There might have been more of a problem if, say, his name, description, or other personal information had been published, but a screen name is hardly mistrial worthy, especially seeing how Wilmore's intent was simply to warn us.  In any case, like you said, he's free to go baw to a judge, but I highly doubt they'd think it was a valid complaint.

Better safe than sorry.

His intentions are irrelevant, because the information is the same regardless.
Title: Re: Off-Site Harrassment
Post by: markjo on April 12, 2010, 10:40:38 AM
His intentions are irrelevant, because the information is the same regardless.

In a court of law, intentions can be quite relevant.  Intent can be the difference between self defense and first degree murder, even though the result was the same.
Title: Re: Off-Site Harrassment
Post by: Space Cowgirl on April 12, 2010, 10:50:14 AM
Anyone who frequents this website would most likely be disqualified from serving on the jury in the first place.
Title: Re: Off-Site Harrassment
Post by: Catchpa on April 12, 2010, 10:54:15 AM
His intentions are irrelevant, because the information is the same regardless.

In a court of law, intentions can be quite relevant.  Intent can be the difference between self defense and first degree murder, even though the result was the same.

I know, but not in this scenario.

Whatever Wilmore's intent is, the information provided is still the same. This information could give a jury prejudice.
Title: Re: Off-Site Harrassment
Post by: Mrs. Peach on April 12, 2010, 10:57:20 AM
There was NO prejudicial information given by Wilmore.  None.  Zero.  Zippo.  Nada.  Ingen.

Was there a poor attempt by the Crusty person and other like-mined people to make it appear as such?  Yes.

And Space Cowgirl is right, the first question they ask a juror, "Do you know personally anyone connected to any party in this case?"  Answer "yes' and the prospective juror is excused.   Elementary.

What else is new?
Title: Re: Off-Site Harrassment
Post by: Catchpa on April 12, 2010, 11:06:10 AM
There was NO prejudicial information given by Wilmore.  None.  Zero.  Zippo.  Nada.  Ingen.

Was there a poor attempt by the Crusty person and other like-mined people to make it appear as such?  Yes.

And Space Cowgirl is right, the first question they ask a juror, "Do you know personally anyone connected to any party in this case?"  Answer "yes' and the prospective juror is excused.   Elementary.

What else is new?

The information was given before a trial. How is that not prejudicial? (Assuming it means prejudge according to my translator)
Title: Re: Off-Site Harrassment
Post by: Mrs. Peach on April 12, 2010, 11:14:57 AM
Do you think being told a person's screen name/alias is somehow prejudicial?  How so?

Do you think being told the charges a person might or might not be facing is somehow prejudicial?  How so?

Good Lord!  A court docket lists all that information well before trial on a PUBLIC bulletin board.  Oh noes!!!  Nobody can ever get a fair trial!!!

Title: Re: Off-Site Harrassment
Post by: Catchpa on April 12, 2010, 11:26:34 AM
Do you think being told a person's screen name/alias is somehow prejudicial?  How so?

Do you think being told the charges a person might or might not be facing is somehow prejudicial?  How so?

Good Lord!  A court docket lists all that information well before trial on a PUBLIC bulletin board.  Oh noes!!!  Nobody can ever get a fair trial!!!

I'd appreciate if you keep yourself civil, like I've kept myself civil by presenting sources in a respectful manner.

It's prejudicial because the information was given before a judge, and it was said beforehand that the suspect in question who used the given screen names, did in fact make those threats.

This can easily go between a lot of grey lines, and if you live in Denmark you'd also have information about a recent case, where a suspect was portrayed by the media as being practically guilty(before proven otherwise). This was a great example of the many grey lines in the law.
Title: Re: Off-Site Harrassment
Post by: Lord Wilmore on April 12, 2010, 11:41:24 AM
To my knowledge, Ichi received advice regarding his online activity from the police at the time, which is why he stayed away for a couple of months. Ichi asked me to post this information, and I did so in exactly the manner he requested. I'm not saying those two sentences are connected, but even if they aren't, I am neither Ichi's lawyer nor his mother. I did as he requested, and any negative consequences were ultimately his concern.
Title: Re: Off-Site Harrassment
Post by: frozen_berries on April 13, 2010, 09:34:40 AM
Wow Ichi, just man up and deal with it.
Are you seriously scared of the internet now?
Title: Re: Off-Site Harrassment
Post by: Space Cowgirl on April 13, 2010, 01:05:06 PM
Wow frozen_berries, just man up and lurk moar.
Title: Re: Off-Site Harrassment
Post by: frozen_berries on April 13, 2010, 02:02:03 PM
Wow frozen_berries, just man up and lurk moar.


yes sir
Title: Re: Off-Site Harrassment
Post by: TheSphericalist on April 24, 2010, 10:33:44 PM
Wow, shame on that guy.  I can't believe that a joke caused such a problem.  Although, I'm not sure who's more responsible, the one who didn't realize that this is a joke or the one that continued on with the joke until death threats were made.

Either way, it's completely irresponsible.
Title: Re: Off-Site Harrassment
Post by: theonlydann on August 13, 2010, 06:06:51 AM
Such a nice work indeed.
Title: Re: Off-Site Harrassment
Post by: Parsifal on August 13, 2010, 08:06:00 AM
Everyone else, stay on topic.  Thats a warning.

Prove it.
Title: Re: Off-Site Harrassment
Post by: John Davis on August 13, 2010, 08:47:32 AM
Everyone else, stay on topic.  Thats a warning.

Prove it.
?
Title: Re: Off-Site Harrassment
Post by: Crustinator on August 13, 2010, 12:15:53 PM
Any word on the progress of this exciting case? The police probably put their best detectives on it we can be sure of that for certain.
Title: Re: Off-Site Harrassment
Post by: Saddam Hussein on August 13, 2010, 12:58:55 PM
Any word on the progress of this exciting case? The police probably put their best detectives on it we can be sure of that for certain.

They did, Brother Crusty.  It wasn't an easy case to crack, as the culprit was a ruthless criminal mastermind who enjoyed steering the police in a deadly psychological struggle of cat-and-mouse.  Eventually, though, one world-weary detective (hopefully played by Al Pacino or Morgan Freeman), shattered by the recent death of his partner, overcame his inner demons and found the strength to solve this case.  The world is safe once more.
Title: Re: Off-Site Harrassment
Post by: Parsifal on August 13, 2010, 01:25:03 PM
Everyone else, stay on topic.  Thats a warning.

Prove it.
?

Prove that it is a warning.
Title: Re: Off-Site Harrassment
Post by: Horatio on August 13, 2010, 09:00:14 PM
Any word on the progress of this exciting case? The police probably put their best detectives on it we can be sure of that for certain.

If the police are intelligent, they probably joined in on the harassment.
Title: Re: Off-Site Harrassment
Post by: Saddam Hussein on August 13, 2010, 09:10:15 PM
Any word on the progress of this exciting case? The police probably put their best detectives on it we can be sure of that for certain.

If the police are intelligent, they probably joined in on the harassment.

Harassing someone is a sign of intelligence?
Title: Re: Off-Site Harrassment
Post by: Crustinator on August 14, 2010, 05:11:46 AM
Any word on the progress of this exciting case? The police probably put their best detectives on it we can be sure of that for certain.

They did, Brother Crusty.  It wasn't an easy case to crack, as the culprit was a ruthless criminal mastermind who enjoyed steering the police in a deadly psychological struggle of cat-and-mouse.  Eventually, though, one world-weary detective (hopefully played by Al Pacino or Morgan Freeman), shattered by the recent death of his partner, overcame his inner demons and found the strength to solve this case.  The world is safe once more.

This is good. news Brother Hussain. As you are all aware I am a shit hot lawyer also who also has amazing sex with hot wimmins but I have interesting underlying character flaws that mean I usually date a new one every week apart from that one who has my babies. Therefore I would like to offer my services to the criminal involved as part of his defence team.
Title: Re: Off-Site Harrassment
Post by: Mrs. Peach on August 14, 2010, 10:26:14 AM
Any word on the progress of this exciting case? The police probably put their best detectives on it we can be sure of that for certain.

They did, Brother Crusty.  It wasn't an easy case to crack, as the culprit was a ruthless criminal mastermind who enjoyed steering the police in a deadly psychological struggle of cat-and-mouse.  Eventually, though, one world-weary detective (hopefully played by Al Pacino or Morgan Freeman), shattered by the recent death of his partner, overcame his inner demons and found the strength to solve this case.  The world is safe once more.

This is good. news Brother Hussain. As you are all aware I am a shit hot lawyer also who also has amazing sex with hot wimmins but I have interesting underlying character flaws that mean I usually date a new one every week apart from that one who has my babies. Therefore I would like to offer my services to the criminal involved as part of his defence team.

Your attempt to steal the magnificent Saddam's thunder by imitation was rated a five/'D' by our panel of judges.  Better luck next time.
Title: Re: Off-Site Harrassment
Post by: Crustinator on August 14, 2010, 01:27:57 PM
Any word on the progress of this exciting case? The police probably put their best detectives on it we can be sure of that for certain.

They did, Brother Crusty.  It wasn't an easy case to crack, as the culprit was a ruthless criminal mastermind who enjoyed steering the police in a deadly psychological struggle of cat-and-mouse.  Eventually, though, one world-weary detective (hopefully played by Al Pacino or Morgan Freeman), shattered by the recent death of his partner, overcame his inner demons and found the strength to solve this case.  The world is safe once more.

This is good. news Brother Hussain. As you are all aware I am a shit hot lawyer also who also has amazing sex with hot wimmins but I have interesting underlying character flaws that mean I usually date a new one every week apart from that one who has my babies. Therefore I would like to offer my services to the criminal involved as part of his defence team.

Your attempt to steal the magnificent Saddam's thunder by imitation was rated a five/'D' by our panel of judges.  Better luck next time.

lurk moar