OFFICE OF THE
Attorney General
RIDGEWAY DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
17 September, 2023
R E L E A S E N O. 4 5
TO: LARGETITANIC2
SUBJECT: PARDON OF SENATOR DAVIDDEVVIL2
Mr. Titanic, shame on you.
I have today received a document proclaiming a full, unconditional pardon for Mr. daviddevvil2’s
recent criminal conviction for six counts of Solicitation to Commit a Crime. I do indeed hope that
someone has stolen your letterhead, otherwise I can take this document as nothing other than a
flagrant insult to the very foundations of our legal system and our democratic principles.
This pardon is a complete affront to the prosecutors, court staff, judges, and grand jurors who
spent weeks preparing and trying this case in a fair and unbiased court of law. It is an affront to
the principles that this state was founded upon. It is an affront to the notion of democracy itself.
Your actions are nothing but disgraceful, both for the office you occupy, and for the legal
community of this state that you say is important. You have made it very clear that a two-tier
justice system exists in this state, and that consequences exist only for the well-connected.
To such an end, you gave Mr. daviddevvil2 this pardon because “[you] do not wish for these
crimes to remain on the Senator’s permanent record or hinder his future endeavors within our
community.” You granted this pardon not because of the Senator’s good behavior, remorse for his
actions, or apologies to his victims. You granted it simply because he is your friend, not even six
hours after he was sentenced.
If you intend to claim otherwise, I ask you, where is Mr. BluePercival’s pardon? Less than two
weeks ago, he was convicted of the exact same thing as Mr. daviddevvil2, yet he stands without a
pardon and in a prisoner’s jumpsuit. What of Mr. Percival’s “future endeavors”?
Numerous voices in our community have declared that our legal system is now lifeless and
devoid of integrity. Regrettably, I must concur wholeheartedly after witnessing your recent
decision. What purpose is there in pursuing monumental prosecutions when the outcome appears
predetermined? My only recourse is to apologize on your behalf to my dedicated prosecutors,
abolish the Office of Government Affairs, and yearn for a time when our state's justice system
was just that. For it is no longer.
At the mercy of the People.
TECHIEY
ATTORNEY GENERAL
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF RIDGEWAY
No. 2083
BETWEEN:
State of Ridgeway
Plaintiff
and
Daviddevvil2
Accused
SENTENCING ORDER
The accused, Daviddevvil2, pleaded guilty to 6 counts of solicitation to commit a
crime. The joint recommendation was a sentence of a term of imprisonment for 10
minutes for each of the 6 counts. The recommendation is accepted. The sentences for
counts 1, 2, and 3, each charged for a different transaction, are to be served
consecutively. The sentences for counts 4, 5, and 6, each charged for the same
transaction, are to be served concurrently.
Dated at the City of Palmer, in the State of Ridgeway on September 17, 2023.
“koala4Iife”
Judge koala4Iife
Government Annex
1100 Lakeside Dr #202
Palmer, Ridgeway 80013
September 17, 2023
To: Techiey
Attorney General
From: largeTitanic2
Governor
Mr. Attorney General,
During the days preceding the Firestone War, Senator daviddevvil2 solicited citizens of Ridgeway to
murder Firestonian citizens who happened to be playing Ridgeway. He did so in-game, and in the
Ridgeway discord server. Your department rightfully initiated an investigation into Senator daviddevvil2
for this behavior, and the result of the Justice Department’s hard work has resulted in Senator
daviddevvil2’s sentencing for the crimes he admits to committing.
Such crimes, while committed during the passion of war, remain inexcusable. Senator daviddevvil2 has
been sentenced and has served the time he was ordered to serve by the Superior Court.
Nonetheless, I do not wish for these crimes to remain on the Senator’s permanent record or hinder his
future endeavors within our community. I wish to respect the Justice Department’s tireless effort to ensure
that no one is above the law, and that regardless of one’s position, one must answer for his crimes. I
therefore issue a full and unconditional pardon to daviddevvil2.
Sincerely,
largeTitanic2
Governor
Hon. Techiey
Sept. 17, 2023
Page 2
cc: Aerium, Chief of Staff to the Governor
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF RIDGEWAY
CITATION: State of Ridgeway v. BluePercivel,
RSC-CM-2077
DATE OF JUDGEMENT:
2023-09-07
BETWEEN:
State of Ridgeway
Plaintiff
and
BluePercivel
Accused
REASONS FOR JUDGEMENT
OF THE
HONOURABLE JUDGE KOALA4IIFE
I. Overview of facts
[1] On July 25, 2023, the accused BluePercivel sent several messages on a public
Discord server. Among other messages, the accused sent a photo resembling a poster
with the text “WANTED DEAD DAVIDDEVVIL2 $250 PER KILL” followed by the
words “I BluePercivel, am offering a $250 bounty for every kill on Senator
DavidDevvil2. To claim your $250, DM BluePercivel with a video clip of the killing.”
It is unclear whether DavidDevvil2 saw the accused’s messages.
II. The law of evidence
[2] All the evidence presented at trial concerned photos and messages on Discord.
Indeed, the offence charged is alleged to have occurred on Discord. Although the
questions of admissibility of evidence from social media platforms have been
extensively argued and, in my view, answered and settled in past cases, it is once again
at issue in the case at bar. It is my hope that my reasons will clarify the rules governing
admissibility of social media evidence.
[3] Social media evidence refers to photos, videos, messages, and usage patterns
on social media. Social media evidence falls under a form of electronic document and
must be authenticated. In plain words, a person seeking to admit an electronic document
has the burden of proving that the evidence is that which it is purported to be. The bar
is no lower and no higher than that.
[4] In this case, as in past cases, there has been a misunderstanding that a since-
repealed provision of the Rules of Evidence requires social media evidence to be a
recorded video and, in addition to showing the content of the evidence, show a client
reload and the unique identifier of each user. I will not dwell on this rule other than to
point out that this apparently confusing provision merely governs how social media
evidence may be self-authenticated and does not prohibit the person seeking to admit
the evidence from using conventional means of authentication.1 It strikes me as odd
1 State of Ridgeway v. InfinityTurtleXD, [2022] 1 Rid. _, 2022 RSC 385
that the accused is arguing for prohibiting the conventional means of authentication to
be used to authenticate social media evidence. If anything, self-authentication is a
shortcut and prohibiting the self-authentication of social media evidence is to the
accused’s direct benefit in ensuring the integrity of social media evidence.
[5] To say that all social media evidence must be self-authenticating by applying
the procedure set out above, as the accused would argue, would be to set the bar too
high for merely admitting evidence. This argument presupposes that there is nothing to
follow after a piece of evidence is admitted. This argument would lend itself some
credibility if judges had to suddenly forgo the weighing of evidence against contrary
evidence and the assessment of the credibility of evidence. Obviously, judges do not
end their assessment and evaluation of evidence the moment it lands on their bench.
[6] To the extent that the best evidence rule is concerned, courts generally consider
the best evidence rule to be satisfied in respect of an electronic document if the evidence
appears unaltered and the integrity does not appear to be altered. Once the evidence is
authenticated, an evidentiary presumption applies such that the evidence is assumed to
be unaltered and integral in the absence of the contrary. Unaltered and integral has been
interpreted to mean that the content of the evidence remains intact; it does not
necessarily require the inclusion or exclusion of certain features in the evidence to
satisfy the rule. Having said that, a general evidentiary argument against the admission
of the evidence such as that surrounding the balance of probative value and prejudicial
effect is not necessarily excluded, either. No such argument was raised at trial.
[7] The social media evidence tendered in this case is admissible.
III. Evaluating the evidence
[8] Having said all that relating to admissibility, I do not place equal or significant
weight on all of its contents.
[9] A witness testified at trial that he believed the poster also contained the avatar
or portrait of DavidDevvil2. I find that hardly credible because anyone can change their
avatar essentially instantly, there are infinite number of combinations of avatars, and
users can make said changes essentially without restriction. If the government is to use
portraits or avatars, then point-in-time identification is necessary. Such identification
with respect to DavidDevvil2’s avatar was not established in this case.
[10] On the other hand, I am satisfied that the government has proved the necessary
element of identity by properly tendering social media evidence that is a point-in-time
identification with respect to the accused. On this point, the accused argued that the
social media evidence was not admissible because the photo did not include system or
taskbar time and that the accused cannot be identified for certain. While these assertions
are valid merely as observations, they do not support the conclusions the accused
reached. First, there is no question that a certain fact cannot be proved for certain. It is
a rudimentary argument because the law does not require facts to be proved for certain.
Second, the myth, however originated, that electronic documents when used as
evidence must contain the taskbar time to be admitted is a myth; no such requirement
exists in any federal or provincial statutory provisions and certainly not at common
law. Unsurprisingly, when the accused was asked to cite a provision to support their
argument, their response is one of familiar ignorance. Third, the accused might as well
have petitioned for the witness stand to be disassembled in every courtroom as they
have disregarded the capacity of a witness to fill in facts that a photo cannot account
for. If the court were to accept the accused’s arguments, a criminal trial would be no
different from traffic court reviewing a red light camera ticket. I believe that is not a
desirable result.
[11] To set in stone precise rules for authenticating social media evidence such as
the mandatory use of taskbar and system time to prove when a social media post is
made is not only an unnecessarily high bar, but it also creates a danger for courts to
have a false sense of credibility for evidence which is not necessarily credible. It is no
surprise that anything electronic risks being manipulated or altered; one of the many
possible alterations is changing the time and date settings. Courts must therefore remain
vigilant and recognise the potential unreliability of electronic evidence. It is a
dangerous suggestion that courts should blindly rely on a system time and forgo the
testimony of witnesses to determine when a post was made.
[12] I would note that a different set of requirements apply when dealing with
evidence involving computing systems and metadata of electronic records; those
requirements do not apply in this case.
IV. The law of counselling
[13] The actus reus for counselling is the deliberate encouragement or active
inducement of the commission of a criminal offence. The mens rea consists of nothing
less than an accompanying intent or conscious disregard of the substantial and
unjustified risk inherent in the counselling: that is, it must be shown that the accused
either intended that the offence counselled be committed, or knowingly counselled the
commission of the offence while aware of the unjustified risk that
the offence counselled was in fact likely to be committed as a result of the accused’s
conduct.
[14] I find that the accused’s messages on social media is an active inducement for
a person to commit a homicide which would be murder, particularly since the accused
offered a benefit of consideration to persuade another to commit the offence counselled.
[15] I find that the accused did intend to induce the recipients of his message to
commit a homicide which would be murder and that the accused understood that such
a homicide would be murder. The accused’s threat to DavidDevvil2 immediately after
posting the inducement demonstrates intent.
V. Affirmative defences
[16] The accused asserted that the statutory limitations to prosecute count 1 as
charged in the Information had expired.
[17] As with any affirmative defence, the reverse onus applies. The accused has not
met this standard.
VI. Conclusion
[18] Applying the law, I find the accused, BluePercivel, guilty of count 1,
solicitation to commit a crime.
Dated at the City of Palmer, in the State of Ridgeway on September 7, 2023.
“koala4Iife”
Judge koala4Iife
Counsel for the plaintiff State of Ridgeway: andysofun, Ridgeway.
Counsel for the accused BluePercivel: OperatorTaxi, Ridgeway.
