Previous Threads:

• Trial Request
• Trial

Verdict

Regarding 200.01, Theft of Property

The accused pleaded not guilty. The plaintiff has made a vigorous argument on the merits of the idea that birch planks are not property, but the matter before this court is foremost the charge of 200.01, Theft. The plaintiff attempted to establish the following via arguments and evidence:

• The defendant did place birch planks on the sea floor, in a pattern of single blocks separated from each other.

• The defendant made a claim that these planks are his property, as defined in [CMA§IV.A, Definition of Property].

• The plaintiff argued that these planks are not property.

Regardless of the merits of the plaintiffs argument, I do not find clear and convincing evidence that theft has occurred.

In order to be completely clear about arriving at this decision, I will enumerate the potential offenses and comment upon each. Remember that the standard for proving this crime is Clear and Convincing Evidence. These are from the Mount Augusta Criminal Code 200.01, Theft of Property, part (1), Offenses:

a. Intentionally takes and carries away, transfers, conceals, or retains possession of property of another without the other's consent and with intent to deprive the owner of possession of such property.

Nothing has been taken. Only words have been exchanged. This offense did not occur.

b. Obtains property of another person by intentionally deceiving the person with a false representation which is known to be false, made with intent to defraud, and which does defraud the person to whom it is made. "False representation" includes a promise made with intent not to perform it if it is a part of a false and fraudulent scheme. This includes an abuse of the dereliction system.

Even if the court assumes that the defense's assertion that the planks are his property amounts to "obtaining" the dirt of the plaintiff, this offense requires intentional deception and false statements. I have no evidence that the defense does not believe their assertions regarding the property status of their planks is false, therefore there is no intentional deception. Furthermore, I would not assume these assertions amount to "taking" property in the first place. This offense did not occur.

c. The coercion by force, threat of force, fraud, payment or contracting by promise of payment or reimbursement any party with the goal of causing the above shall be prosecuted as the same

No coercion has taken place, no threats or fraud has taken place, at least not according to evidence presented. This offense did not occur.

d. Materially assisting anyone via donation of goods, materials, or other aid (snitch network access, etc.) with the goal of causing the above shall be prosecuted as the same

This similarly has not taken place according to the evidence presented. This offense did not occur.

I therefore find the defendant, SpaceVolcano, not guilty of the crime of 200.01, Theft.

Regarding the Property Status of the Birch Planks

Although this does not in any way affect the verdict, since the primary argument being made was whether the birch planks are property or not, I will comment upon the matter.

The plaintiff asked this court to entertain the notion that these single blocks are not property because they are only single blocks not attached to each other, and not part of some more meritorious structure.

If that were the case, we must ask the question: If a block is not a structure, how about a drop chest? Or a snitch? What about a furnace which is smelting iron, found alone in a field? These are single blocks, but I find it absurd to entertain the notion that any of these are not the property of those who placed them provided they do not conflict with existing ownership of property, per the constitution.

If the court did decide that a single birch plank was not property, how many are needed? Would stacks of 2 planks, arranged as those in this case were arranged on the sea floor, qualify? What about a grid of them? Why? What additional properties do these have that make them property, except that of the merit of the build itself? The court would be tasked with judging each build's status as property on its merit as a structure, which is incompatible with the powers afforded to the judges in the constitution.

The court will not decide on how small a structure is too small, or what developments have merit over which others. I will not set a precedent that a newfriend's tiny dirt hut is not property because an industrious player decided to flatten it to build a public XP factory. Property is not a function of the merits or size of the structure.

In the opinion of this court, a single block placed deliberately and with specific intent by a player is the property of that player, and is subject to the protections afforded to it as property under the law.

Sentencing

As the defendant, SpaceVolcano, was found not guilty, no sentence is awarded.

Reparations

As the defendant, SpaceVolcano, was found not guilty, no reparations are necessary or required.

Final Words

This trial has been quick and orderly, and I thank both parties for their respect to this court. While this decision is potentially useful for helping to resolve matters of property law, the actual charge in question appears to have been tangential to the main arguments provided by the plaintiff. I advise the plaintiff to familiarize themselves further with Augustan law and burdens of proof before pursuing criminal charges in the future. I advise both parties to strongly consider working out their differences outside of the courtroom should a dispute of this nature arise in the future.

Thank you, and Bless Augusta.