Transcript of Titulia v. Tom Norton 10GC00015 (July 19, 2010)
by MC Daddy D
Jul 19 2010, 7:47 PM
MCDaddyD: Oyez! Oyez! This Court is now in session. The Honorable Chief Justice Colonel presiding.
Jul 19 2010, 7:47 PM
Colonel: Thank you. Please be seated.
Jul 19 2010, 7:48 PM
Colonel: I see we lack a Defendant, Mr. CLerk. Has he received proper service?
Jul 19 2010, 7:48 PM
MCDaddyD: Yes, your honor.
Jul 19 2010, 7:48 PM
Colonel: Thank you. This is the matter of Titulia v. Norton III.
Jul 19 2010, 7:48 PM
Colonel: Mr. Attorney General, are you ready to proceed?
Jul 19 2010, 7:49 PM
BillMoney: Yes, your honor
Jul 19 2010, 7:49 PM
Colonel: Pray do.
Jul 19 2010, 7:49 PM
BillMoney: Your honor,
The government intends to show that on or about March 26, 2010 the Defendant Tom Norton received property he knew to be stolen, and then willfully, and with malicious intent, distributed the stolen property to the public at large.
Jul 19 2010, 7:49 PM
BillMoney: The stolen property the Defendant received was transcripts of the private and confidential records and deliberations of The East Titulia Company. He received the stolen property from Lea Carmody, who already has been convicted of the theft of the transcripts and of trafficking the stolen property to Mr. Norton in T v. Lea Carmody 10GC00016, and therefore the property has already been established as being stolen.
Jul 19 2010, 7:50 PM
BillMoney: At the point that Ms. Carmody passed the stolen transcripts to the Defendant on or about March 26, the Defendant was guilty of receiving stolen property. That is established by his own public statement in which he credited Ms. Carmody with providing the transcripts to him. This statement was included in the brief the government filed with the court, as well as a link to the statement, your honor. It was also entered into evidence in the aforementioned related court case, T v. Lea Carmody 10GC00016.
Jul 19 2010, 7:50 PM
Colonel: One moment, Mr. Money
Jul 19 2010, 7:50 PM
BillMoney: So, Mr. Norton received stolen property, and that is established. But I call the court’s attention to what happened next, what the Defendant did with the stolen property he received, to illustrate that he willfully trafficked the stolen transcripts with malicious intent.
Jul 19 2010, 7:50 PM
BillMoney: yes, your honor
Jul 19 2010, 7:50 PM
Colonel: Is receiving stolen property a crime in and of itself?
Jul 19 2010, 7:51 PM
BillMoney: In common law, it would be.
Jul 19 2010, 7:51 PM
BillMoney: And now in established Titulian law,
Jul 19 2010, 7:51 PM
Colonel: Yes, if he knew it was stolen, it is a crime. Do we know that he knew it was stolen?
Jul 19 2010, 7:51 PM
BillMoney: as per the aforementioned T v. Lea Carmody
Jul 19 2010, 7:52 PM
BillMoney: Well, you honor if I may continue
Jul 19 2010, 7:52 PM
BillMoney: I hope to cover that point
Jul 19 2010, 7:52 PM
Colonel: Surely, if the answer to the question is therein
Jul 19 2010, 7:53 PM
BillMoney: If I may, your honor,
Jul 19 2010, 7:53 PM
Colonel: Please do.
Jul 19 2010, 7:53 PM
BillMoney: I first want to establish for the purposes of this case,
Jul 19 2010, 7:53 PM
BillMoney: that the property the Defendant received was stolen.
Jul 19 2010, 7:53 PM
Colonel: Good enough.
Jul 19 2010, 7:54 PM
BillMoney: We know that the property was stolen per the aforementioned case.
Jul 19 2010, 7:54 PM
Colonel: Yes.
Jul 19 2010, 7:55 PM
BillMoney: And we know, per his public statement
Jul 19 2010, 7:55 PM
BillMoney: that he received the stolen property
Jul 19 2010, 7:55 PM
Colonel: Yes
Jul 19 2010, 7:55 PM
BillMoney: his statement which was published in the The Titulia Post
Jul 19 2010, 7:56 PM
BillMoney: So, Mr. Norton received stolen property, and that is established. But I call the court’s attention to what happened next, what the Defendant did with the stolen property he received, to illustrate that he willfully trafficked the stolen transcripts with malicious intent.
Jul 19 2010, 7:56 PM
BillMoney: On that same day, the Defendant published multiple days worth of stolen private/confidential deliberations of the East Titulia Company in his Titulia blog, and his blog was then published in The Titulia Post.
Jul 19 2010, 7:56 PM
BillMoney: By publishing the stolen transcripts, the Defendant disrupted momentum of The East Titulia Company and robbed the company of one of a business’ most precious commodities: control over the announcement and promotion of its launch.
Jul 19 2010, 7:57 PM
BillMoney: On top of that, the Defendant accused the company of treason in his blog. Now, your honor, The East Titulia Company is a legally founded Titulia company, a company which had just spent more than T$40,000 on real estate in Titulia City.
Jul 19 2010, 7:57 PM
BillMoney: But the Defendant deals in disruption and destruction, your honor. Not to mention stolen property.
Jul 19 2010, 7:57 PM
BillMoney: He gloated in his blog.
Jul 19 2010, 7:58 PM
BillMoney: Which the court may read here:
Jul 19 2010, 7:58 PM
BillMoney: http://www.titulia.com/post/?page=article,id=1773
Jul 19 2010, 7:59 PM
BillMoney: I ask the court to please note that in the blog post, the Defendant claims to have multiple copies of the stolen transcripts stashed on multiple servers.
Jul 19 2010, 8:00 PM
Colonel: I see that, but my question remains.
Jul 19 2010, 8:00 PM
Colonel: You have proven the actus reus of the reception of stolen materials.
Jul 19 2010, 8:01 PM
Colonel: I ask for proof of the mens rea of the crime.
Jul 19 2010, 8:01 PM
BillMoney: well, he published the transcripts with intent to harm
Jul 19 2010, 8:02 PM
Colonel: I understand. That is a different crime
Jul 19 2010, 8:02 PM
Colonel: I am talking about the crime of receipt of stolen goods.
Jul 19 2010, 8:02 PM
Colonel: Allow me to explain
Jul 19 2010, 8:02 PM
BillMoney: I uunderstand your honor
Jul 19 2010, 8:03 PM
Colonel: Very well. Is there proof of the mens rea?
Jul 19 2010, 8:03 PM
BillMoney: If I may submit this:
Jul 19 2010, 8:03 PM
BillMoney: It is public knowledge at this point
Jul 19 2010, 8:03 PM
BillMoney: that the property was stolen
Jul 19 2010, 8:04 PM
Colonel: Okay, I accept that.
Jul 19 2010, 8:04 PM
BillMoney: the Defendant offers no defense
Jul 19 2010, 8:05 PM
BillMoney: As I stated your honor, if the court will review the Defendants comments
Jul 19 2010, 8:05 PM
Colonel: Mr. Money, I am asking you which comment specifically proves that he knew he was receiving stolen goods.
Jul 19 2010, 8:06 PM
BillMoney: It seems clear he new he had obtained the transcripts against the will of The East Titulia Company.
Jul 19 2010, 8:06 PM
BillMoney: One moment your honor.
Jul 19 2010, 8:06 PM
Colonel: The Court is not concerned with appearances. It is concerned with the fact.
Jul 19 2010, 8:07 PM
BillMoney: I will retrieve the comments
Jul 19 2010, 8:08 PM
Colonel: Thank you. You have all the time you need, Sir.
Jul 19 2010, 8:08 PM
BillMoney: Thank you for your patience, your honor
Jul 19 2010, 8:09 PM
BillMoney: at the beginning of the post
Jul 19 2010, 8:09 PM
BillMoney: which provided the link to
Jul 19 2010, 8:09 PM
BillMoney: I provvided
Jul 19 2010, 8:09 PM
Colonel: Please quote it into the record.
Jul 19 2010, 8:09 PM
BillMoney: the Defendant state the following:
Jul 19 2010, 8:09 PM
BillMoney: states:
Jul 19 2010, 8:09 PM
BillMoney: Note: Times are in AEST. No point in deleting it - it's precached on 13 different backend servers with original DNS authentication ;-o)
Jul 19 2010, 8:10 PM
BillMoney: This is in the preface to the post
Jul 19 2010, 8:11 PM
BillMoney: in which the Defendant published the East Titulia Company's private and confidential records
Jul 19 2010, 8:11 PM
BillMoney: The very fact that the Defendant would state
Jul 19 2010, 8:12 PM
BillMoney: that he had copies of the transcripts
Jul 19 2010, 8:12 PM
BillMoney: proved he know the company did not want him to have them.
Jul 19 2010, 8:12 PM
BillMoney: knew
Jul 19 2010, 8:13 PM
BillMoney: It is a matter of public record
Jul 19 2010, 8:13 PM
BillMoney: that the Defendant hated the owner of The East Titulia Company and his allies.
Jul 19 2010, 8:13 PM
GerryBrady: Mr Chief Justice the link above is very long could the court please have a moment to read it
Jul 19 2010, 8:13 PM
Colonel: Of course, Mr. Justice Brady.
Jul 19 2010, 8:16 PM
GerryBrady: Mr AG is there any specific statement made by the defendant which indicates he was aware of the nature of how the goods were obtained?
Jul 19 2010, 8:16 PM
BillMoney: Yes, Mr. Justice, one moment
Jul 19 2010, 8:17 PM
GerryBrady: No problem.
Jul 19 2010, 8:19 PM
BillMoney: to begin with,
Jul 19 2010, 8:20 PM
BillMoney: the Defendant made the following statement:
Jul 19 2010, 8:23 PM
BillMoney: forgive me, I seem to be having some technical issues
Jul 19 2010, 8:23 PM
Colonel: The Court is at your disposal, Mr. Attorney General.
Jul 19 2010, 8:23 PM
BillMoney: I pasted a comment and it did not appear
Jul 19 2010, 8:24 PM
BillMoney: Second .. this site was available in the public domain via Google search and no access keys were used to gain entry. It was click .. and poof.
Jul 19 2010, 8:24 PM
BillMoney: so he knew how the site was accessed
Jul 19 2010, 8:25 PM
BillMoney: He credited
Jul 19 2010, 8:25 PM
BillMoney: Ms. Carmody with having gotten a "tip-off"
Jul 19 2010, 8:25 PM
BillMoney: which indicates he knew it was something he was not supposed to have
Jul 19 2010, 8:26 PM
Colonel: How so? Please lay out the line of reasoning for the Court.
Jul 19 2010, 8:26 PM
BillMoney: Thank you, your honor
Jul 19 2010, 8:27 PM
BillMoney: The line of reasoning is as follows
Jul 19 2010, 8:27 PM
BillMoney: he knew how the transcripts were obtained
Jul 19 2010, 8:27 PM
BillMoney: he gloated he had 13 copies
Jul 19 2010, 8:28 PM
BillMoney: he knew Ms. Carmody had gotten a "tip-off"
Jul 19 2010, 8:28 PM
BillMoney: he knew Ms. Carmody entered through an unlocked door at the East Titulia Company
Jul 19 2010, 8:29 PM
BillMoney: and left with copies/links to confidential and private business records
Jul 19 2010, 8:29 PM
BillMoney: he knew he was not supposed to have the copies of the stolen transcripts
Jul 19 2010, 8:29 PM
BillMoney: by virtue of the fact he gloated about it
Jul 19 2010, 8:30 PM
BillMoney: and that he had 13 copies
Jul 19 2010, 8:30 PM
BillMoney: no one would gloat they had 13 copies of something they are supposed to have
Jul 19 2010, 8:30 PM
BillMoney: and state there is no reason to delete the records
Jul 19 2010, 8:30 PM
Colonel: Well
Jul 19 2010, 8:31 PM
BillMoney: As if a legal business would want to delete its own records.
Jul 19 2010, 8:31 PM
Colonel: The Court understands the state's case on this charge. Perhaps the state should move on to the next charge.
Jul 19 2010, 8:31 PM
BillMoney: May I restate the charges for the record, your honor
Jul 19 2010, 8:32 PM
Colonel: Please do.
Jul 19 2010, 8:32 PM
BillMoney: The first charge is reception of stolen goods
Jul 19 2010, 8:32 PM
BillMoney: that they were stolen is not in question
Jul 19 2010, 8:33 PM
BillMoney: his knowledge they were stolenn
Jul 19 2010, 8:33 PM
BillMoney: is proven by his stashing of 13 copies on separate servers
Jul 19 2010, 8:34 PM
BillMoney: he knew he had something he was not supposed to have
Jul 19 2010, 8:34 PM
BillMoney: the second charge is trafficking in stolen goods
Jul 19 2010, 8:34 PM
BillMoney: that is established clearly by his actions of publishing the transcripts
Jul 19 2010, 8:35 PM
BillMoney: he knew the owner of the East Titulia Company did not want him to have those transcripts.
Jul 19 2010, 8:35 PM
BillMoney: His gloating about the copies he had stashed
Jul 19 2010, 8:35 PM
BillMoney: proves he knew they were stolen
Jul 19 2010, 8:36 PM
BillMoney: and he was joyous about it
Jul 19 2010, 8:36 PM
Colonel: If someone has something someone else does not want that person to have, does that mean he knows the materials were stolen?
Jul 19 2010, 8:36 PM
BillMoney: because the owner of the company was his sworn enemy
Jul 19 2010, 8:36 PM
BillMoney: not in all cases
Jul 19 2010, 8:36 PM
BillMoney: but when the publication of the private and confidential records
Jul 19 2010, 8:37 PM
BillMoney: is done solely to discredit the company
Jul 19 2010, 8:37 PM
Colonel: What distinguishes this case from finding a treasure trove?
Jul 19 2010, 8:37 PM
BillMoney: what distinguishes it
Jul 19 2010, 8:38 PM
BillMoney: is the treasure trove
Jul 19 2010, 8:38 PM
BillMoney: to continue your honor's metaphor
Jul 19 2010, 8:38 PM
BillMoney: the treasure trove was in someone's private building
Jul 19 2010, 8:38 PM
BillMoney: and it is established it was stolen
Jul 19 2010, 8:39 PM
BillMoney: and the Defendant acknowledged he knew how the transcripts were obtained
Jul 19 2010, 8:39 PM
Colonel: Mr. Money, here is my problem. When know Ms. Carmody knew she was a thief because she admitted her guilt. That does not necessitate that the recipient was aware of the theft.
Jul 19 2010, 8:39 PM
Colonel: He simply states that he knows that the owner of the East Titulia Company will not like it.
Jul 19 2010, 8:40 PM
BillMoney: Well, your honor,
Jul 19 2010, 8:40 PM
BillMoney: if a person knows that the transcripts
Jul 19 2010, 8:40 PM
BillMoney: were taken from a building
Jul 19 2010, 8:41 PM
BillMoney: via an unlocked door
Jul 19 2010, 8:41 PM
BillMoney: he knows these are private and confidential records
Jul 19 2010, 8:41 PM
BillMoney: these transcriptsw
Jul 19 2010, 8:42 PM
BillMoney: he intends to inflict damage to the company by publication of the transcripts
Jul 19 2010, 8:42 PM
Colonel: Now, this is a separate charge, yes?
Jul 19 2010, 8:42 PM
BillMoney: which he knows were obtained against the company's will
Jul 19 2010, 8:42 PM
BillMoney: we are still addressing the trafficking charge
Jul 19 2010, 8:44 PM
BillMoney: the third charge is a violation of the Terms and Conditions of the site
Jul 19 2010, 8:44 PM
BillMoney: he purposely disrupted the company's plans
Jul 19 2010, 8:44 PM
GerryBrady: What you are arguing is that the defendants knowledge of Mrs Carmodys actions and how records were obtained on her behalf indicates he knew that the actions of Mrs Carmody could possibly be illegal and thus his actions in the meantime were done without care of the legalities either way?
Jul 19 2010, 8:45 PM
BillMoney: precisely, Justice Brady
Jul 19 2010, 8:45 PM
Colonel: So, Mr. Norton was negligent?
Jul 19 2010, 8:46 PM
BillMoney: No, much more than negligent
Jul 19 2010, 8:46 PM
BillMoney: he was willfully malicious
Jul 19 2010, 8:46 PM
BillMoney: in his trafficking of the stolen property
Jul 19 2010, 8:46 PM
GerryBrady: But do we have kowledge he willfully broke the law or was he the unwitting victim of a criminal and her wares?
Jul 19 2010, 8:47 PM
BillMoney: Well, the Defendant is not here to answer for himself, and I contend his actions prove he knew
Jul 19 2010, 8:47 PM
BillMoney: the transcripts were stolen
Jul 19 2010, 8:47 PM
GerryBrady: Understood Mr AG
Jul 19 2010, 8:48 PM
GerryBrady: IT is unfortunate he has not seen fit to provide a defence so cross examination could attest to his state of mind and prior knowledge
Jul 19 2010, 8:48 PM
Colonel: He has a right not to bear witness against himself.
Jul 19 2010, 8:49 PM
GerryBrady: Understood Mr Chief Justice.
Jul 19 2010, 8:49 PM
Colonel: If I may clarify where we are in the proceedings,
Jul 19 2010, 8:50 PM
Colonel: The Court has heard charges regarding receipt of stolen property and trafficking in stolen property.
Jul 19 2010, 8:50 PM
Colonel: Mr. Money, please proceed to your third charge.
Jul 19 2010, 8:50 PM
BillMoney: By his actions, Defendant Tom Norton violated the section of the Titulia Terms and Conditions which specifically forbids any activity potentially resulting in the disruption of the user experience.
By publishing the stolen records, Defendant Tom Norton disrupted the business plans of a legally founded Titulia company, denying The East Titulia Company the right to announce and launch their business plans strategically for the greatest impact.
Jul 19 2010, 8:52 PM
Colonel: So, the precedent the state would have this Court set would say that anytime someone ruins someone else's business on purpose, that person is a felon?
Jul 19 2010, 8:52 PM
BillMoney: no,
Jul 19 2010, 8:53 PM
Colonel: What would the precedent be?
Jul 19 2010, 8:53 PM
BillMoney: but anytime someone attempts to ruin someone's business
Jul 19 2010, 8:53 PM
BillMoney: using stolen private and confi dential informaton
Jul 19 2010, 8:54 PM
BillMoney: willfully and with malicious intent
Jul 19 2010, 8:55 PM
BillMoney: stashed copies of those records against the will of the company's owner
Jul 19 2010, 8:55 PM
BillMoney: forgive me, things have slowed down again
Jul 19 2010, 8:56 PM
BillMoney: that crosses a line in the state's opinion.
Jul 19 2010, 8:56 PM
BillMoney: a line we cannot allow to be crossed
Jul 19 2010, 8:57 PM
GerryBrady: So the breach of terms and conditions is the malicious use of private information with the intent to harm others?
Jul 19 2010, 8:58 PM
BillMoney: yes, the statute that seems most appropriate is the disruption of the user experience
Jul 19 2010, 8:58 PM
BillMoney: but there is the issue of accessing private information
Jul 19 2010, 8:58 PM
BillMoney: the owner was not intending to share
Jul 19 2010, 8:58 PM
BillMoney: the state has not specifically asked for that charge
Jul 19 2010, 8:58 PM
biggs: Mr. Attorney General, if I may...
Jul 19 2010, 8:59 PM
BillMoney: of course, Justice Biggs
Jul 19 2010, 8:59 PM
biggs: Can you show that (1) there was intent to "ruin" the company's business and (2) that early publication of the company's plans materially damaged the company's business?
Jul 19 2010, 9:00 PM
BillMoney: intent to harm is established by the blog post published in The Titulia Post
Jul 19 2010, 9:01 PM
BillMoney: I would need to call a witness
Jul 19 2010, 9:02 PM
BillMoney: to confirm the company was material damaged
Jul 19 2010, 9:02 PM
BillMoney: and that would be the company owner
Jul 19 2010, 9:02 PM
Colonel: A moment please gentlemen.
Jul 19 2010, 9:03 PM
Colonel: Mr. Clerk, please send the transcript to Justice Biggs.
Jul 19 2010, 9:03 PM
MCDaddyD: yes sir
Jul 19 2010, 9:03 PM
Colonel: We will recess for 10 minutes to provide the Justice time to review what has happened.
Jul 19 2010, 9:03 PM
Colonel: Further, it will provide prosecution time to find the prosecution's witness.
Jul 19 2010, 9:04 PM
Colonel: We will recommence at 22:14EDT.
Jul 19 2010, 9:04 PM
BillMoney: the witness is present your honor
Jul 19 2010, 9:04 PM
Colonel: Excellent, Mr. Attorney General.
Jul 19 2010, 9:05 PM
Colonel: You may call him after the recess.
Jul 19 2010, 9:08 PM
Colonel: I shall be in chambers. I will return presently.
Jul 19 2010, 9:14 PM
Colonel: I call this trial into order.
Jul 19 2010, 9:14 PM
Colonel: Mr. Attorney General,
Jul 19 2010, 9:14 PM
Colonel: you have a witness?
Jul 19 2010, 9:14 PM
BillMoney: yes, your honor
Jul 19 2010, 9:14 PM
Colonel: Name him.
Jul 19 2010, 9:14 PM
BillMoney: MC Daddy D
Jul 19 2010, 9:14 PM
Colonel: MC Daddy D, come forward.
Jul 19 2010, 9:15 PM
Colonel: Before you testify,
Jul 19 2010, 9:15 PM
MCDaddyD: yes, sir
Jul 19 2010, 9:15 PM
Colonel: Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Jul 19 2010, 9:15 PM
MCDaddyD: I do
Jul 19 2010, 9:15 PM
Colonel: Proceed, Mr. Money.
Jul 19 2010, 9:15 PM
BillMoney: thank you, your honor
Jul 19 2010, 9:16 PM
BillMoney: returning to Justice Biggs' question
Jul 19 2010, 9:16 PM
BillMoney: as to whether early publication of the company's plans materially damaged the company's business?
Jul 19 2010, 9:17 PM
BillMoney: I would like to ask the witness about this
Jul 19 2010, 9:17 PM
Colonel: He is your witness, Sir.
Jul 19 2010, 9:17 PM
BillMoney: Mr. Daddy D, do you feel the early publication of the company's plans materially damaged the company's business?
Jul 19 2010, 9:18 PM
MCDaddyD: yes, sir.
Jul 19 2010, 9:18 PM
BillMoney: In what way? Can you tell the court, please?
Jul 19 2010, 9:18 PM
MCDaddyD: Well, two things
Jul 19 2010, 9:18 PM
MCDaddyD: first,
Jul 19 2010, 9:19 PM
MCDaddyD: the obvious thing that's already been pointed out,
Jul 19 2010, 9:19 PM
MCDaddyD: that we didn't get to launch our business with a planned promotion
Jul 19 2010, 9:19 PM
MCDaddyD: to get the most bang for our buck
Jul 19 2010, 9:20 PM
MCDaddyD: but way worse than that
Jul 19 2010, 9:20 PM
MCDaddyD: was the other thing
Jul 19 2010, 9:20 PM
MCDaddyD: which was the hit to the company's momentum
Jul 19 2010, 9:21 PM
BillMoney: What do you mean, can you be more specific?
Jul 19 2010, 9:21 PM
MCDaddyD: The company is into real estate developent
Jul 19 2010, 9:21 PM
MCDaddyD: a lot of planning was being done
Jul 19 2010, 9:21 PM
MCDaddyD: momentum was building
Jul 19 2010, 9:22 PM
MCDaddyD: we own 100 properties
Jul 19 2010, 9:22 PM
MCDaddyD: in Titulia City
Jul 19 2010, 9:22 PM
MCDaddyD: then
Jul 19 2010, 9:22 PM
MCDaddyD: Lea stole our private records
Jul 19 2010, 9:22 PM
MCDaddyD: and norton published them
Jul 19 2010, 9:23 PM
MCDaddyD: and things haven't been the same since
Jul 19 2010, 9:23 PM
BillMoney: How so?
Jul 19 2010, 9:23 PM
MCDaddyD: The company hasn't gotten back on track
Jul 19 2010, 9:23 PM
MCDaddyD: it still exists
Jul 19 2010, 9:24 PM
MCDaddyD: and plans are being made
Jul 19 2010, 9:24 PM
MCDaddyD: but we lost our big mo'
Jul 19 2010, 9:24 PM
MCDaddyD: we were put on the defensive
Jul 19 2010, 9:24 PM
MCDaddyD: by the publication of our records
Jul 19 2010, 9:25 PM
BillMoney: And how has that materially affected you?
Jul 19 2010, 9:25 PM
MCDaddyD: Well, it has severely slowed the rate of return on the investment of more than T$40,000
Jul 19 2010, 9:26 PM
MCDaddyD: the company expected to have businesses up and running on the properties by now
Jul 19 2010, 9:26 PM
BillMoney: Can you put a tollar figure on lost revenue?
Jul 19 2010, 9:27 PM
MCDaddyD: Nothing scientific. It would have to be tens of thousands of tollars
Jul 19 2010, 9:27 PM
BillMoney: No further questions, your honor.
Jul 19 2010, 9:27 PM
Colonel: The Court thanks you for your testimony, MCDaddyD. You may step down.
Jul 19 2010, 9:28 PM
Colonel: Has the prosecution anything further?
Jul 19 2010, 9:28 PM
BillMoney: Well, nothing beyond the motion for judgement
Jul 19 2010, 9:29 PM
Colonel: Are there any other questions, brother Justices?
Jul 19 2010, 9:30 PM
biggs: None from me, Mr. Chief Justice
Jul 19 2010, 9:30 PM
Colonel: Justice Brady?
Jul 19 2010, 9:31 PM
Colonel: He must be suffering some technical difficulty
Jul 19 2010, 9:31 PM
GerryBrady: none from me
Jul 19 2010, 9:31 PM
GerryBrady: Wait one
Jul 19 2010, 9:31 PM
Colonel: What is your prayer for relief, Mr. Attorney General?
Jul 19 2010, 9:31 PM
GerryBrady: Mr AG
Jul 19 2010, 9:31 PM
BillMoney: yes, Justice Brady?
Jul 19 2010, 9:31 PM
GerryBrady: Excuse me Im having technical difficulties.
Jul 19 2010, 9:31 PM
GerryBrady: What evidence does the state have the the defendant knew the information was private and confidential?!
Jul 19 2010, 9:32 PM
BillMoney: the evidence present earlier that he has 13 copies stashed on separate servers
Jul 19 2010, 9:32 PM
BillMoney: presented earlier
Jul 19 2010, 9:33 PM
BillMoney: there would be no need to stash 13 copies of something he could expect to have access to.
Jul 19 2010, 9:34 PM
GerryBrady: Can the prosecution accurately assume to know the extent of the defendants knowledge based on this statement?
Jul 19 2010, 9:34 PM
BillMoney: the 13 copies merely confirms what is common knowledge
Jul 19 2010, 9:34 PM
GerryBrady: Thankyou Mr AG. No more questions Mr Chief Justice.
Jul 19 2010, 9:35 PM
BillMoney: the defendant hates the owner of The East Titulia Company
Jul 19 2010, 9:35 PM
Colonel: The prosecution's prayer, please.
Jul 19 2010, 9:36 PM
BillMoney: Whereas Defendant Tom Norton is a repeat offender; the government moves for the following judgment:
Jul 19 2010, 9:36 PM
BillMoney: That the Defendant Tom Norton be found guilty of receiving stolen property, trafficking in stolen property, and violating the section of the Titulia Terms and Conditions which specifically forbids any activity potentially resulting in the disruption of the user experience;
Jul 19 2010, 9:36 PM
BillMoney: And furthermore, that for these offenses, the Defendant be banned from Titulia for a period four weeks.
Jul 19 2010, 9:37 PM
BillMoney: of four weeks
Jul 19 2010, 9:37 PM
Colonel: Very well
Jul 19 2010, 9:37 PM
BillMoney: thank you, our honor
Jul 19 2010, 9:37 PM
Colonel: The COurt sees no one in the Courtroom for the Defense.
Jul 19 2010, 9:38 PM
Colonel: Do you agree Justice Biggs?
Jul 19 2010, 9:38 PM
biggs: I agree. I see no one here for the defense.
Jul 19 2010, 9:38 PM
Colonel: Justice Brady?
Jul 19 2010, 9:39 PM
GerryBrady: Agreed.
Jul 19 2010, 9:39 PM
Colonel: I call this session to recess. The Justices will deliberate and render a verdict presently.
Jul 19 2010, 9:46 PM
Colonel: I call this trial back to order.
Jul 19 2010, 9:47 PM
Colonel: On the first count of the indictment, the Court finds Mr. Norton: Not Guilty.
Jul 19 2010, 9:47 PM
Colonel: On the second count of the indictment, the Court finds Mr. Norton: Not Guilty.
Jul 19 2010, 9:47 PM
Colonel: On the third count of the indictment, the Court finds Mr. Norton: Not Guilty.
Jul 19 2010, 9:48 PM
Colonel: The Court stands adjourned.