[Conrad1103]

(2009.Jun.18 04:56 PM)Shadowjack Wrote:  Your honor, the defense counsels argument that no rules were broken is erroneous. The three rules have already been posted that the defendants have brooched.

The defense counsel also looks to cloud the issue by asking for the specific defendants to be named, which can already be found in the courts records.

In answer to the secondary counsels argument of "Crunchy not 7 Laws", the formal rebuttal is the "ignorance" law supported by the previous facts of how much monetary exchange would have to happen for a player to legitimately acquire that amount of credits. The "Not scamming without a Plan" is a faulty assertion whereby secondary defense counsel is attempting to use the defendants ignorance of the ramifications of their behavior to excuse said behavior. The comparison between "free" credits and legitmate donations is, as best, a weak distraction from the facts of the case.

---

Your Honor, Prosecution agrees with the 7 days for 7 Laws sentiment that is being brought forth by the community and so rests the Prosecution's case.

In order to prosecute anyone, the "Defendants" must be established. The Prosecutin will not state who the Defendants are...because he knows his case is flawed and will be dismissed.

Again, please identify the Defendants for the record.