Jury deliberation Transcript

From CyberOne Wiki
Revision as of 15:56, 22 January 2007 by WikiSysop (talk | contribs) (added line breaks)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

[18:23] Rebecca Berkman: avatars of the jury, please retire to Austin Hall to deliberate. Rejoin us when you have reached a verdict.

[18:23] Daisyblue Hefferman: tp please to deliberation site?

[18:23] Evie Mikazuki is Online

[18:23] Cordelia Moy: THanks.

[18:25] Cordelia Moy: Hi, everyone.

[18:25] Cordelia Moy: Shall we sit?

[18:25] Nate Grigges: still waiting on DaisyBlue and Teresa

[18:25] Nate Grigges: hello

[18:25] Nate Grigges: err, Teresa

[18:25] There is no suitable surface to sit on, try another spot.

[18:25] Daisyblue Hefferman: sorry got booted.

[18:25] Nate Grigges: hello DaisyBlue

[18:25] The Sojourner is Online

[18:26] Daisyblue Hefferman: ll i swatching lol

[18:26] Chinadoll Lulu: she is relogging

[18:26] Cordelia Moy: Not a problem.

[18:26] Cordelia Moy: Is everyone clear about what we need to decide?

[18:26] Chinadoll Lulu: here T

[18:26] Teresa Cinquetti: yes thank you

[18:26] Daisyblue Hefferman: do we need a foreperson?

[18:26] Nate Grigges nods to Chinadoll.

[18:26] Chinadoll Lulu: we do

[18:26] Nate Grigges: Cordelia is it.

[18:26] No room to sit here, try another spot.

[18:26] Daisyblue Hefferman: ok

[18:26] Chinadoll Lulu: go ahead cor

[18:27] Chinadoll Lulu: and she link dead

[18:27] Chinadoll Lulu: oops she is here


[18:27] Cordelia Moy: Okay Well, first of all, does anyone want to offer any thoughts before we take up the question?

[18:27] Nate Grigges: did Rebecca leave?

[18:28] Cordelia Moy: Soory Yuu.

[18:28] Yuu Nakamichi: no problem..

[18:28] Daisyblue Hefferman: no, let's vote on 1 first

[18:28] Chinadoll Lulu: mmhmmm

[18:28] Teresa Cinquetti: yes becca left

[18:28] Nate Grigges: is there no discussion on #1?

[18:28] Cordelia Moy: Tetero, Chuch, NAte . . . any thoughts?

[18:28] Chinadoll Lulu: 1. those who agree, say aye...

[18:28] Daisyblue Hefferman: aye

[18:28] Nate Grigges: I think the question of ownership bears discussion

[18:28] Chuck Commons: aye

[18:28] Chinadoll Lulu: aye

[18:28] Alan Lederberg: would someone repeat the question?

[18:29] Nate Grigges: first: Prior to the exploit, was he the owner of the property that he had purchased?

[18:29] Cordelia Moy: Yes. Go ahead Nate. Please rep

[18:29] Teresa Cinquetti: yes please I think I missed the questions

[18:29] Nate Grigges: that was the first question

[18:29] Chinadoll Lulu: [18:21] Eon Berkman: first: Prior to the exploit, was he the owner of the property that he had purchased? [18:21] Eon Berkman: if a majority answers in the affirmative then consider the second question: [18:21] Eon Berkman: Was his exploit improper, such that Linden was justified in taking his property? [18:22] Chip Midnight is Online [18:22] Eon Berkman: then consider the third: [18:22] Eon Berkman: If Linden Labs was justified in 2 was it justified for taking the property acquired prior to the exploit?\

[18:23] Stella Naumova is Online

[18:29] Cordelia Moy: Thanks. Nate, would you like to start discussion?

[18:30] Nate Grigges: I am somewhat on the fence about number one. Yes, I think members have the rights to their Intellectual Property here, and Yes, Rosedale seems to have stated that ownership here means ownership completely. But is it reasonable to think there might be some limitations on that ownership?

[18:31] Nate Grigges: I mean, if SL were to be bankrupt and destroyed tomorrow

[18:31] Lapin Paris is Offline

[18:31] Nate Grigges: could I send them a letter and ask for my "house" on a disk?

[18:31] Cordelia Moy: I kind of wondered about that as well, Nate. But from a different angle.

[18:31] Daisyblue Hefferman: but we should get our money back

[18:31] Yuu Nakamichi: I think that the notion of property in sl is a fallacy - it is a concept that facilitates exchange in-world but it has no bearing on the fact that the lab owns the asset servers

[18:32] Chinadoll Lulu: pardon me, Nate, the question was if he is the owner of the property that he had purhcased, not about limitations.... so would it be fair to say that he is the owner of the property that he had purhcased with limitations then?

[18:32] Nate Grigges: I think that would be reasonable Chinadoll

[18:32] Tetero Lesse: My feeling is that in RL there are parallel limitations on ownership. After you die, you can't own something, for ex.

[18:32] Cordelia Moy: If our friend Bragg is kicked out of 2nd life, what would he do with the propoerty. It's meaningless outside of SL, right?

[18:32] Yuu Nakamichi: / so I would say that he was the owner only for the in-wrold purposes

[18:33] Cordelia Moy: Yuu I think I would afree.

[18:33] Alan Lederberg: did he purchase any of his property with US$?

[18:33] Cordelia Moy: agree

[18:33] Daisyblue Hefferman: I own property here. I consider myself the owner of that property until such time as i abandon or sell it

[18:33] Nate Grigges: isn't the question whether Mark Bragg owned the property though?

[18:34] Chinadoll Lulu: purchase any with ot without US$ is not really the issue here... sorry to say

[18:34] Chinadoll Lulu: it can be purchase with japanese yen

[18:34] Chuck Commons: I would tend to agree with Yuu's point, though I would imagine that there are parallels to ownership in RL for facillitating exchange.

[18:34] Chinadoll Lulu: or Hong kong dollar

[18:34] Chinadoll Lulu: or a candy

[18:34] Daisyblue Hefferman: no, all leagal tender

[18:35] Tetero Lesse: It was Linden Labs that promoted the idea of property, rather than fee for use.

[18:35] Alan Lederberg: well, its seems it gets to the issue of owning it in SL or RL

[18:35] Cordelia Moy: Yes, Tetero? Meaning what?

[18:35] Chinadoll Lulu: ok guys, ooc, we have a tiem limiatation here

[18:35] Chinadoll Lulu: can we stick to question 1

[18:35] Chuck Commons: I see the limitations, but would still think of this as a "yea". Both sides agree to it as does vast majority of SL users.

[18:35] Chinadoll Lulu: please?

[18:36] Cordelia Moy: Chinadoll, thanks. I'd like to hear the rest of the discussion.

[18:36] Cordelia Moy: It will only take a minute or two.

[18:36] Nate Grigges: alright, I think I've made my decision, everyone else prepared to vote?

[18:36] Daisyblue Hefferman: yes

[18:36] Tetero Lesse: Well, on that basis I'd say Bragg was justified in thinking he owned property in SL and I would agree with that construct based on LL's pronouncemtns

[18:36] Cordelia Moy: Everyone ready to vote please say "yes"

[18:36] Daisyblue Hefferman: yes

[18:36] Nate Grigges: yes

[18:36] Tetero Lesse: yes

[18:36] Cordelia Moy: yes

[18:36] Yuu Nakamichi: yes

[18:37] Alan Lederberg: yes

[18:37] Lapin Paris is Online

[18:37] Cordelia Moy: chuch?

[18:37] Teresa Cinquetti: yes

[18:37] Chuck Commons: yeah

[18:37] Cordelia Moy: Okay. Did Bragg own property prior to the exploit?

[18:37] Daisyblue Hefferman: yes

[18:37] Teresa Cinquetti: yes

[18:37] Alan Lederberg: yes

[18:37] Chuck Commons: yes

[18:37] Tetero Lesse: yes

[18:37] Yuu Nakamichi: no

[18:37] Nate Grigges: yes

[18:38] Cordelia Moy: yes

[18:38] Chinadoll Lulu: yes

[18:38] Cordelia Moy: Okay so majority vote on 1 is yes, in favor of the plaintiff.

[18:38] Cordelia Moy: Question 2 --Chinadoll, can you call up the text again?

[18:38] JJ Drinkwater is Offline

[18:39] Nate Grigges: Was his exploit improper, such that Linden was justified in taking his property?

[18:39] Nate Grigges: (that was #2)

[18:39] Cordelia Moy: Thanks. Thoughts?

[18:39] Daisyblue Hefferman: i don't think LL proved it was improper

[18:39] Nate Grigges: I think it was clearly improper, although I think LL did a horrific job of protecting their system

[18:39] Daisyblue Hefferman: they said he knew it was wrong, but didn't prove it

[18:40] Chinadoll Lulu: [18:21] Eon Berkman: first: Prior to the exploit, was he the owner of the property that he had purchased? [18:21] Eon Berkman: if a majority answers in the affirmative then consider the second question: [18:21] Eon Berkman: Was his exploit improper, such that Linden was justified in taking his property? [18:22] Chip Midnight is Online [18:22] Eon Berkman: then consider the third: [18:22] Eon Berkman: If Linden Labs was justified in 2 was it justified for taking the property acquired prior to the exploit?

[18:40] Teresa Cinquetti: I agree with Nate

[18:40] Cordelia Moy: I think it was improper, too.

[18:40] Cordelia Moy: Thanks, China.

[18:40] Yuu Nakamichi: / I agree. Bragg behaved like a black hat (hacker)

[18:40] Yuu Nakamichi: / by finding and exploiting a flaw

[18:40] Nate Grigges: You are right that they didn't really do much to prove it Daisy

[18:40] Daisyblue Hefferman: I am an expert google or anything searcher. If i came upon such an auction, hell, yes, I'd bid

[18:40] Chinadoll Lulu: does not matter how bad the security is/was, stealing is stealing

[18:40] Yuu Nakamichi: / instead of a white hat

[18:40] Tetero Lesse: I think 2 is really about whether LL was justified in taking property illegally gained.

[18:40] Nate Grigges: I am surprised you say that, as a property owner, Daisy

[18:41] Tetero Lesse: Question 3 is about taking property legally purchased.

[18:41] Nate Grigges: that's #3 Tetero

[18:41] Daisyblue Hefferman: nowhere did the page say it was wrong, and it accepted the bid

[18:41] Chuck Commons: I'm on the line. It didn't seem clear that exploiting google was really stealing.

[18:41] Cordelia Moy: So is the problem that despite our feelings, we don't have evidence he was deliberate in the exploitatio?

[18:41] Daisyblue Hefferman: no, chuck, it didn't

[18:41] Lorelei Junot is Online

[18:41] Chinadoll Lulu: knowing that you can beat the system with an unfair advantage is an exploit

[18:41] Cordelia Moy: I wish that had been more fully discussed.

[18:41] Chinadoll Lulu: it does not matter if you are the first one who discover it

[18:41] Daisyblue Hefferman: did he know it was?

[18:42] Cordelia Moy: I agree, China. But did he know he was?

[18:42] Nate Grigges: I don't think the google method was hacking, but I think Bragg realized he would be bidding with no competition

[18:42] Daisyblue Hefferman: no one proved he did

[18:42] Yuu Nakamichi: / I think it is hard to make a distinction between googlin gna dhacking when it comes to url spoffing

[18:42] Yuu Nakamichi: *spoofing*

[18:42] Chuck Commons: If I figured this out, I would have assumed it was a decently known secret.

[18:42] Teresa Cinquetti: I personally think that it was wrong and he may or may not have known it was wrong. LL was not diligent in protecting the system

[18:42] Daisyblue Hefferman: googling is not hacking

[18:42] Chinadoll Lulu: that is monopoly

[18:42] Chinadoll Lulu: he clearly know that he can gain the land with a low price when everyone else could not beat against him

[18:42] Chinadoll Lulu: creating a bid that only you can bid on it

[18:42] Chinadoll Lulu: that is purely greedy

[18:42] Chinadoll Lulu: and selfish

[18:42] Daisyblue Hefferman: we don't know that

[18:42] Cordelia Moy: Teresa, I suspect he knew, but I didn't see the evidence he knew. That's the rubl

[18:43] Daisyblue Hefferman: it was not proven, his intent or knowledge

[18:43] Cordelia Moy: rub!

[18:43] Nate Grigges: if it was a known issue, nobody would participate in the regular auctions

[18:43] Teresa Cinquetti: I agree Cordelia

[18:43] Yuu Nakamichi: I agree, Cordelia, unforotunaely it si not clear

[18:43] Cordelia Moy: Teteroo, Alan, Chuck?

[18:43] Chuck Commons: I'm not saying what he did was good. Just that it wasn't clearly a illegal exploit

[18:43] Cordelia Moy: This is where the law binds us, I think.

[18:43] Daisyblue Hefferman: so we can give our opinion based on the evidence given only

[18:44] Nate Grigges: I think you can give your opinion based on any knowledge you have

[18:44] Daisyblue Hefferman: well i don't have knowledge he id it maliciously

[18:44] Tetero Lesse: In this trial, I think Bragg said or intimated that he knew it was wrong - regardless of what the real Bragg thought.

[18:44] Cordelia Moy: Can you remind us where?

[18:44] Nate Grigges: the trial is intended to bring out any relevant info, but in this case it seems to have left some out

[18:45] Tetero Lesse: Can we get the court steno to read back the transcript?

[18:45] Cordelia Moy: It would be great to have evidence for what we feel.

[18:45] Daisyblue Hefferman: i kept waiting for the lawyers to ask the right questions

[18:45] Yuu Nakamichi: I am lookigng at the trasncript now

[18:45] Teresa Cinquetti: my opinion is that LL was not justified in taking anything. They had the right to suspend his account but not take his holdings since it was not against any Tos that was proven out in the court

[18:45] Cordelia Moy: Thanks, Yuu (and everyone). I'll look too

[18:45] Nate Grigges: me too Daisy

[18:45] Chuck Commons: Of course if the property is gained via an undocumented activity, I suppose it can fairly be taken away in a similar way.

[18:45] Daisyblue Hefferman: i agreee Theresa

[18:45] Lorelei Junot is Offline

[18:46] Teresa Cinquetti: morally wrong yes technically wrong no

[18:46] Chinadoll Lulu: true, i am sure that he violate the TOS, but it was NOT proven out in the court, the defendent did a horrible job

[18:46] Nate Grigges: do you think he should have kept the land he got through the exploit, Teresa?

[18:46] Tetero Lesse: Theresa, is there a difference between suspending his account and taking his holdings?

[18:46] Teresa Cinquetti: fromt he lessons that Eon taought the purpose of the court is to provide not what is fair but what the society can tolerate and believe is just

[18:46] Cordelia Moy: I thought the defendant was excellent. Oh well.

[18:47] Chinadoll Lulu: holding = property that can be convert to RL cash

[18:47] Chinadoll Lulu: suspending his account = no access to the system

[18:47] Daisyblue Hefferman: he should at least been allowed to seel his prior holdings

[18:47] Daisyblue Hefferman: sell

[18:47] Teresa Cinquetti: yes

[18:47] Yuu Nakamichi: I think the plaintiff did not admit to exploitative behaviour but it is quite strongly implied

[18:47] Tetero Lesse: Can it be converted to cash even if someone's acct is suspended? Can you participate in an auction w/ a suspended acct?

[18:47] Yuu Nakamichi: a day passed and nothing happende, then on may 2 i received a message...

[18:47] Daisyblue Hefferman: and no one asked him!!!!

[18:48] Chinadoll Lulu: selling is not via an auction, but asking LL to convert the Linden into real dollar

[18:48] Teresa Cinquetti: even is it was exploitive, which it was, it is still not succinctly a hack per se

[18:48] Yuu Nakamichi: from the lindens end quote

[18:48] Cordelia Moy: So the "nothing happened" suggests that he knew he was circumventing, Yuu?

[18:48] Daisyblue Hefferman: not a hack

[18:48] Yuu Nakamichi: I think it could

[18:48] Daisyblue Hefferman: linden's error making the auction available

[18:48] Chinadoll Lulu: exploit or hack, it is an unfair advantage

[18:49] Chinadoll Lulu: does not matter how he did it

[18:49] Teresa Cinquetti: Walmart is an unfair advantage

[18:49] Daisyblue Hefferman: shouldn't be held responsible for Linden's miistake

[18:49] Chinadoll Lulu: but he did something that will harm the rest of the resident of SL

[18:49] Cordelia Moy: Okay. guys, I'm getting IMs from Becca that we finish by 7 pm.

[18:49] Teresa Cinquetti: we can't take walMart to court

[18:49] Chuck Commons: I'm ready to vote on #2 but imagine we'll have a big discusion on #3

[18:49] Chinadoll Lulu: that is different

[18:49] Chinadoll Lulu: walmart still has to obey the monopoly law

[18:49] Chinadoll Lulu: in this case

[18:49] Daisyblue Hefferman: no, it hurt ll's pocketbook aout a few measly dollars

[18:49] Tetero Lesse also ready to vote

[18:49] Cordelia Moy: Well, based on Yuu's transcript search, I could vote.

[18:50] Evie Mikazuki is Offline

[18:50] Daisyblue Hefferman: 1 L$- .oo3688 USD

[18:50] Chinadoll Lulu: that guy set up a bid prior to the legal time and be the only bidder

[18:50] Cordelia Moy: Okay, then. All those who believe Bragg did exploit, say yes.

[18:50] Chinadoll Lulu: i do no tknow.

[18:50] Nate Grigges: I am ready to vote

[18:50] Chuck Commons: Yo

[18:50] Chuck Commons: Yes

[18:50] Yuu Nakamichi: I am ready as well.

[18:50] Tetero Lesse: yes

[18:50] Alan Lederberg: yes

[18:50] Nate Grigges: wow Daisy, lindens are cheaper than I thought

[18:50] Chinadoll Lulu: yes

[18:50] Teresa Cinquetti: are we coting now?

[18:50] Nate Grigges: yes Cordelia

[18:50] Daisyblue Hefferman: no

[18:50] Cordelia Moy: Yes.

[18:51] Daisyblue Hefferman: yup

[18:51] Chinadoll Lulu: 1000 linden is $4 USD

[18:51] Cordelia Moy: Yes, Teresa.

[18:51] Teresa Cinquetti: Eon Berkman: Was his exploit improper, such that Linden was justified in taking his property?

[18:51] Yuu Nakamichi: yes

[18:51] Teresa Cinquetti: are we ready

[18:51] Daisyblue Hefferman: no

[18:51] Cordelia Moy: Is that 3 Teresa?

[18:51] Daisyblue Hefferman: ready

[18:51] Chinadoll Lulu: that is 2

[18:51] Cordelia Moy: sorry.

[18:51] Chinadoll Lulu: [18:21] Eon Berkman: first: Prior to the exploit, was he the owner of the property that he had purchased? [18:21] Eon Berkman: if a majority answers in the affirmative then consider the second question: [18:21] Eon Berkman: Was his exploit improper, such that Linden was justified in taking his property? [18:22] Chip Midnight is Online [18:22] Eon Berkman: then consider the third: [18:22] Eon Berkman: If Linden Labs was justified in 2 was it justified for taking the property acquired prior to the exploit?

[18:51] Nate Grigges: wait, I thought that last was are we ready to vote, no what is our vote

[18:52] Chinadoll Lulu: If Linden Labs was justified in 2 was it justified for taking the property acquired prior to the exploit?

[18:52] Teresa Cinquetti: thats why I asked Nate

[18:52] Cordelia Moy: Hold on@

[18:52] Cordelia Moy: Okay. On the count of three, vote. One, two,

[18:52] Nate Grigges nods to Teresa.

[18:52] Cordelia Moy: three now

[18:52] Daisyblue Hefferman: did we vote on #2?

[18:52] Tetero Lesse: on q2 or q3?

[18:52] Chinadoll Lulu: aye

[18:52] Yuu Nakamichi: yes

[18:52] Teresa Cinquetti: Eon Berkman: Was his exploit improper, such that Linden was justified in taking his property?

[18:52] Nate Grigges: #2 I vote yes, it was improper

[18:52] Teresa Cinquetti: no

[18:52] Daisyblue Hefferman: no

[18:52] Yuu Nakamichi: #2 yes it was improper

[18:53] Chinadoll Lulu: yes it was improper

[18:53] Cordelia Moy: QUestion 2. I vote yes

[18:53] Tetero Lesse: on 2 I vote yes

[18:53] Chuck Commons: my Vote: yes, it was improper, Linden justified in taking this property

[18:53] Cordelia Moy: Okay. So majority on question 2.

[18:53] Usu Ventura is Online

[18:53] Nate Grigges: that's 2 separate questions Chuck

[18:53] Cordelia Moy: yes on 1, yes on 2.

[18:53] Cordelia Moy: NOw 3.

[18:53] Daisyblue Hefferman: 2 is really 2 questions

[18:53] Chinadoll Lulu: If Linden Labs was justified in 2 was it justified for taking the property acquired prior to the exploit?

[18:53] Nate Grigges: I think we only got 8 total votes on #2

[18:53] Alan Lederberg: i agree daiselyblue

[18:53] Cordelia Moy: I know, Daisy. We're being rushed by Becca.

[18:53] Chinadoll Lulu: nae: it is majority

[18:54] Chinadoll Lulu: nate: so it does not matter

[18:54] Nate Grigges: Alan, what was your vote on #2

[18:54] Teresa Cinquetti: lets vote again with just a yes or no please on number 2 with no other caht

[18:54] Cordelia Moy: Thoughts on 3?

[18:54] Chuck Commons: 2: Yes

[18:54] Alan Lederberg: it was a vaguely worded questions I think

[18:54] Chinadoll Lulu: Q2 YEs

[18:54] Teresa Cinquetti: 2 No

[18:54] Daisyblue Hefferman: 2. no

[18:54] Alan Lederberg: 2 yes

[18:54] Cordelia Moy: OKAY EVERYONE.

[18:54] Cordelia Moy: 2 YES

[18:54] Tetero Lesse: 2 yes

[18:54] Yuu Nakamichi: 2 yes

[18:55] Yuu Nakamichi: now to q3

[18:55] Teresa Cinquetti: Eon Berkman: If Linden Labs was justified in 2 was it justified for taking the property acquired prior to the exploit?

[18:55] Cordelia Moy: 3: thoughts?

[18:55] Nate Grigges: I guess this asks whether LL can punish residents of SL

[18:56] Chuck Commons: That seemed like a substanially harder point to prove and I wasn't convinced that it was made.

[18:56] Nate Grigges: in RL I think the answer would be yes, but in SL, I think it's harder to argue

[18:56] Nate Grigges: I am leaning towards no

[18:56] Lapin Paris is Offline

[18:56] Daisyblue Hefferman: no, and we'd have to impeach the tos, not our job

[18:56] Cordelia Moy: Chuck, I agree. What does TOS say?

[18:56] Chuck Commons: Would an in-life parallel be "insider trading"

[18:56] Chinadoll Lulu: if LL put in TOS on that issue, and their lawyer said it is, then they certainly have the right, right?

[18:57] Daisyblue Hefferman: we should have all been given a copy of tos

[18:57] Teresa Cinquetti: if its like drugs then they can take the entire properties used to commit hte crime

[18:57] Nate Grigges: or at least the lawyers should have quoted the relevant parts to us

[18:57] Teresa Cinquetti: lol we did we said yes I accept ::smiles :: sorry

[18:57] Cordelia Moy: Daisy, I agree. I think we should have had exhibits.

[18:57] Daisyblue Hefferman: I think it's an arbitrary dictatorship

[18:57] Alan Lederberg: its hard to see that LL could confiscate several thousand dollars of real (US) money)

[18:57] Lapin Paris is Online

[18:57] Yuu Nakamichi: I think the TOS is extremely worded and allows the lab almost everything

[18:57] Cordelia Moy: We have to come back guys.

[18:57] Tetero Lesse: I have a feeling they didn't use the TOS because it would not have helped their case. The LL lawyers that is.

[18:57] Chinadoll Lulu: also the copy of the TOS is in digital form

[18:58] Chinadoll Lulu: it is in your PC as you installed the game

[18:58] Daisyblue Hefferman: sitting back on their tos, they can do whatever they want

[18:58] Chinadoll Lulu: program

[18:58] Cordelia Moy: Shall we say we didn't get to the third?

[18:58] Teresa Cinquetti: lets vote fast

[18:58] Daisyblue Hefferman: they make the rules, they enforce em

[18:58] Teresa Cinquetti: Eon Berkman: If Linden Labs was justified in 2 was it justified for taking the property acquired prior to the exploit?

[18:58] Daisyblue Hefferman: 3. no

[18:58] Teresa Cinquetti: 3 yes

[18:58] Chinadoll Lulu: 3. yes

[18:58] Alan Lederberg: 3 no

[18:58] Chuck Commons: no

[18:58] Nate Grigges: 3 no

[18:58] Tetero Lesse: 3 no

[18:58] Yuu Nakamichi: 3 no

[18:58] Cordelia Moy: yes

[18:58] Nate Grigges: cordelia?

[18:59] Cordelia Moy: So the amjority is for no (3)

[18:59] Daisyblue Hefferman: hot damn. good work guys!!!!!!!

[18:59] Teresa Cinquetti: heh Daisy

[19:00] Eon Berkman: order in the court

[19:00] Rebecca Berkman: wow, i'm nervous!

[19:00] Eon Berkman: the jury is returning

[19:00] Eon Berkman: jury fore-avatar

[19:00] Eon Berkman: has the jury reached its verdicts

[19:00] Cordelia Moy: Yes your honor

[19:00] Teresa Cinquetti sits up on the edge of her seat

[19:01] Cordelia Moy: Yes we have, your honor.

[19:01] Chinadoll Lulu smacks T's behind

[19:01] Eon Berkman: would you please deliver the verdict

[19:01] Lapin Paris is Offline

[19:01] Teresa Cinquetti winces

[19:01] MyNameIs Burton: the suspense

[19:01] Cordelia Moy: Yes,. On the first question, did Bragg own property, wer concludede yes.

[19:02] Cordelia Moy: Majority, not unanimity.

[19:02] Rebecca Berkman bites fingernails

[19:02] Eon Berkman: thank you

[19:02] Eon Berkman: proceed

[19:02] Cordelia Moy: On the 2nd question, which w as . . . (sorry )

[19:03] Teresa Cinquetti: Eon Berkman: if a majority answers in the affirmative then consider the second question: [18:21] Eon Berkman: Was his exploit improper, such that Linden was justified in taking his property?

[19:03] Eon Berkman: thank you. proceed.

[19:04] Cordelia Moy: And as to the third, was Linden justiied in takin gthe property beofre

[19:04] Cordelia Moy: the exploit (acuqired), we voted no.

[19:04] Cordelia Moy: we voted yes: that the exploit was impropoer

[19:05] Cordelia Moy: That was the toughest.

[19:05] Chinadoll Lulu: (ooc 6 to 3 vote)

[19:05] Cordelia Moy: That's it.

[19:05] Eon Berkman: avatars of the jury, has your fore-avatar accurately stated your verdict

[19:06] Chinadoll Lulu: aye

[19:06] Tetero Lesse: Yes

[19:06] Alan Lederberg: yes

[19:06] Teresa Cinquetti smiles and nods yes

[19:06] Yuu Nakamichi: yes, your honor

[19:06] Daisyblue Hefferman: Yes, Your Honor. Judge Eon, great wig bty.

[19:06] Chuck Commons: Yes, your honor.

[19:06] Rebecca Berkman: Yvette Kumsung = wig maker

[19:06] Eon Berkman: thank you for your service.