====================================================================== CFJ 1131 The message sent to the Public Forum with headers which read in part: Message-Id:<3.0.1.32.19990406101136.009bcec- @proxy.pn.beam.com.au> Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1999 10:11:36 +1000 To: agora-busines-@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au From: janet998-@yahoo.com Subject: Maximize your website's traffic! was sent by Steve. ====================================================================== Called by: Steve First Judge: Murphy (defaulted) Second Judge: Morendil Judgement: TRUE Judge selection (2nd): Eligible: Morendil, Elysion, Crito, Beefurabi, Wes, Chuck Not eligible: Caller: Steve Barred: Chuck, Crito Had their turn: Oerjan, Blob, Murphy, Peekee, Vlad, Kolja A., elJefe, Michael Already served: - Defaulted: - By request: - On Hold: - ====================================================================== History: Called by Steve: Mon, 3 May 1999 20:31:43 +1000 Assigned to Murphy: Thu, 6 May 1999 15:24:16 +0200 Murphy defaulted: Fri, 21 May 1999 21:57:05 +0200 Reassigned to Morendil: as of this message Judged TRUE by Morendil: as of this message ===================================================================== Judges's Arguments: Judicial precedent, namely the Board of Appeals' decision on CFJ 1126, requires a Judgement of TRUE for consistency's sake. ===================================================================== Caller's Arguments: It is worth beginning with a reminder from R1575: In all other CFJs [than those alleging the violation of a Rule or the commission of a Crime], the Judgement shall be consistent with the preponderance of the evidence at hand. I believe that a massive preponderance of the evidence at hand shows that I was the sender of the message identified in the Statement. Firstly, there is the nature of the scam itself. No other Player was as passionate in their opposition to Summary Adoption, and no other Player was likely to try so hard to repeal it. Also, there is the mention of my name in the text of "An Object Lesson", and the simultaneous adoption Without Objection of my Proposal "A Separation of Powers". Secondly, there is my knowledge of the details of the scam. This includes my knowledge of the contents of the message, and my ability to explain in detail how it was sent. This constitutes extremely strong evidence that I sent the message. The above is sufficient, but there is more. The full headers of the message read (I've numbered them for convenience): 1 From janet998-@yahoo.com Fri Apr 16 01:50:10 1999 Return-Path: Delivered-To: listsaver-of-agora-busines-@findmail.com Received: (qmail 16895 invoked by uid 7770); 16 Apr 1999 08:50:08 -0000 5 Received: from gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au (131.170.42.16) by vault.egroups.com with SMTP; 16 Apr 1999 08:50:08 -0000 Received: (from majordom-@localhost) by gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au (8.8.5/8.8.5) id IAA31109 for agora-business-list; Fri, 16 Apr 1999 08:39:37 GMT 10 Received: from fw.serc.rmit.edu.au (fw-in.serc.rmit.edu.au [131.170.42.1]) by gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id AAA11038 for ; Fri 16 Apr 1999 00:15:08 GMT Received: (from mai-@localhost) 15 by fw.serc.rmit.edu.au (8.9.1/8.9.1) id KAA02250 for ; Fri 16 Apr 1999 10:19:58 +1000 (EST) Received: from dns1.beam.com.au(203.14.101.241) by fw.serc.rmit.edu.au via smap (V2.1) id xma002248; Fri 16 Apr 99 10:19:32 +1000 Received: from angusm (dns4.beam.com.au [203.14.101.195]) 20 by dns1.beam.com.au (8.9.0/8.9.0/Debian/GNU) with SMTP id KAA21757 for ; Fri 16 Apr 1999 10:25:53 +1000 Message-Id: 3.0.1.32.19990406101136.009bcec-@proxy.pn.beam.com.au X-Sender: angus-@proxy.pn.beam.com.au 25 X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.1 (32) Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1999 10:11:36 +1000 To: agora-busines-@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au From: janet998-@yahoo.com Subject: Maximize your website's traffic! 30 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-agora-busines-@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au Precedence: bulk Reply-To: agora-discussio-@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au The Judge may recall the explanation I gave of how the message was sent. I said that I had arranged for a friend of mine to keep a look out for spam messages which would meet the needs of the scam I planned, and to bounce (not forward) this message to the agora-business list, where I could deal with it as list-administrator. The full headers of the message corroborate this story. My friend's name is Angus Montgomery; he works as a programmer for a graphics and games company called Beam International. If you examine lines 17-23 of the headers, you will find there the traces of Angus' involvement in the execution of the scam. In short there can be no serious doubt that I sent the message identified in the Statement. ====================================================================== Evidence attached by the Caller: ======================================================================