You're inferring that, so you have no proof. The only proof is that he is in possession of an AC, which effectively criminalizes possessing an AC.
Presuming the spell was cast on the AC to determine this, there's no way for anyone to know this actually happened, as the spell in True Lineages, or the spell above does not need to penetrate, which would mean that there would have to be a witness to the spell casting, and/or a Quaesitorial investigation that can discover the spell traces that the spell was cast soon afterwards.
Again, you're criminalizing possession of an AC, which is not a crime. You might suspect that he's up to no good by possessing an AC, but there is no proof or even harm until he has used it for nefarious and/or illegal purposes.
Too small to prosecute? It's arguably impossible to prosecute, because there is no crime. I realize we're not using US jurisprudence here, but a reasonable standard is that the use of the AC has to be witnessed and it has to violate the Code. Casting the InCo spell or the other variant is not a violation of the code, because it is not spying upon his person (the caster doesn't see anything about the person's whereabouts or current companions) nor is it peering into his affairs. Even calling this a misdemeanor is a stretch, because until it is used to break the Code, he has not broken the Code by possessing it. And what's more, unless he's witnessed casting the spell by one of his sodales, no one's going to know he has an AC to someone else in his possession, until he uses it.
Lets put it this way. If you were a magus in a covenant, and you witnessed this person collecting hairs in the dining hall, and they were questioned and basically said "yes I'm collecting arcane connections, I'm using a harmless divination to see who they connect to, what are you going to do about it?" Would you really shrug your shoulders and go "well, no, I don' see a violation here?"
We are talking medieval law, the kind that burned nice old ladies because there was an illness on the town they imagined was caused by witchcraft. Yes the order is more enlightened, but so enlightened they don't mind people collecting what could be potential weapons against an individual before declaring a wizard's war because there may be a technicality involved? I don't think so.
But maybe my hypothetical person bringing charges is technically jumping the gun, it has been brought forth as an arguable violation, what says the tribunal?
Personal opinion- he is ordered to surrender the ACs for any magi of the order he has collected and ordered to pay restitution of one rook of vis to each magus at the covenant.
It's not a divination of the person. It's a divination of the thing, and that is not a violation of the code.
No, we talking about Lex Hermetica, the Code of Hermes, and what he's done is not a violation of his Oath. And I've seen little chatter to suspect that this is a crime within the Peripheral Code of any Tribunal, including the Grand Tribunal. No magus wants to criminalize possessing an AC, they are too useful, and an AC that would normally be used to ReCo teleport to a spot outside of an amicus's covenant now becomes illegal because it could be used to scry upon the deliveries made to other magi of the covenant. Until the AC is used for a purpose in violation of the Code, it is not illegal to possess it.
Tribunals, according to Houses of Hermes: True Lineages do not determine matters of fact, that is the scope of the Presiding Quaesitor. The fact is that he has an AC. The fact is he divined that it belongs to someone else, but the basic Hermetic Magic Theory says that spells that determine this do not actually give information about the surroundings or present circumstances of the target of the AC. There is no crime. At best the Presiding Quaesitor could send a friendly note to the target of the AC informing him that another magus is in possession of an AC, but this never makes it to a Tribunal gather to vote on sanctions/guilt because the findings of fact don't support a trial.
Where the blazes do you find those procedural descriptions in the rules, or is this another case of you feel it must be this way so surely it's in the rules somewhere?
Any mage can bring a case against another, there are no procedural grounds to dismiss on, the trial proceeds.
Please, who is being hostile now? And, just a correction, I said I forget rules all the time. It's not necessarily true that I presume the rules are something that they are not, but I have done that a time or two, as well. Almost anyone who plays Ars Magica does both thinking rules exist or forgetting rules exist.
There is a rather lengthy section in the Guernicus section on Tribunals and trials.
I had a rather testy and hostile response penned, but decided to skip it. I am not hostile to you. I am hostile to one specific idea you presented in another thread, and this specific issue you bring up here, because it fails to meet any sort of legal harm being done. Possessing an AC is not, in and of itself, a crime. Using an AC in a way that violates the Code is a crime. Any Presiding Quaesitor should see that and dismiss the case where the only legal fact is that Magus A is in possession of an AC to Magus B.
They did not come seeking a finding of facts in my above proposal, they came filing what is probably a very weak case with implications that frighten them.
Allegedly scrying, by use of the arcane connections he is collecting. Certainly he is using them to scry whom they belong to, and the spell is cast upon the magus the AC connects to. That is, after all, he point of the tribunal, to determine what you assert, whether or not this is considered a punishable crime...
While the rules haven't defined scrying, you are describing scrying on a thing (the AC) and comparing it to scrying on a person. So, the facts would have to show that he scried upon the person, somehow. That would be the legal harm.
The canonical spell (which I reiterate I do not like) does not do that, and it specifically states that it doesn't affect the target of the AC at all. The CrIm spell that Mark Shirley proposed in the other thread, while it may need to penetrate, doesn't actually scry upon the magus, it doesn't show what the target of the AC sees, the spell shows the face of the target of the AC. If I were to cast a spell that shows me what the magus sees, hear what the magus hears, sure that's scrying. Unless an AC to a magus is a property of that magus, which would be a really bad precedent, IMO, there is no crime of peering into a wizard's affairs, even.
Mark Shirley's spell might even be simpler and not necessary to cast at R:Arc. If the AC is part of the whole, then you'r casting Cr(In)Im at R:Touch, and it displays an image of the person, because the AC "knows" to whom it is connected.
Regardless of whether or not this 'sifting for ACs' is a legal matter, it is a clear violation of hospitality. It feels like someone was going through your cupboards or copying your credit card info while you went to the bathroom. If nothing else, trying to bring this up at tribunal will damage the 'offending' magus's reputation (or give him/her a new one) that is liable to cause issues for him/her.
This would be the sort of thing that would get a Redcap into a lot of trouble. Might not be a crime by the code, Jonathan.Link has brought up some very good points on the matter, but the court of public opinion would still be likely to condemn you for it. This is not an AC held by your superior or freely given to a friend. This isn't something expressly used to easy your life that doesn't directly endanger others, such as the previously mentioned AC used to travel near a friendly covenant. If it were the 'offender' wouldn't be so secretive about it.
We don't know why, but the simplest explanation is that this is in preparation for Wizards War. Again this is technically legal but that doesn't mean you wouldn't or shouldn't press the issue. I don't imagine the 'offender' will be welcomed at many covenants any time soon after this becomes public knowledge.
Before jumping to Wizard's War, there is Certamen, if the target of the AC finds out about it. And yes, it is most uncouth behavior. But, it would be unwise for someone to prosecute a Wizard's War against someone who is in possession of an AC to oneself. It could be that was the intent all along...
On the other hand, if every magus in the covenant declares a wizard war in the offending individual because they feel violated by this approach... even if he has ACs for all of them he is likely to be overwhelmed...
I meant that the 'offender' was trying to procure an AC to his target prior to a WW but I can easily see the scenario spelled out by yourself and Silveroak, Jon. If only because it would be exceedingly difficult to get this 'case' to tribunal. Either way, the validity of any reprisals or sanctions depends on the people involved. A stubborn, hard line transitionalist quaesitor is more likely to prosecute this case than a traditionalist, based on what we know now.
Just double checking it takes a season to fix an AC for good right? So it's not like 'Mr. Public AC' (I can't keep calling him/her the offending party) has a lot of time to use it...
Any other interesting legal issues any would like to bring up? I'm drawing a blank at the moment.
IMS, we house-ruled that gathering an Arcane Connection to another magus without their knowledge and consent was a violation of the Peripheral code, and a clear sign of ill intent. It isn't punishable by a March, but could be prosecuted as a lesser crime.
Well, you leave out the most interesting part. Why? And is this a Grand Tribunal ruling or only a retinal Tribunal? What about ACs to locations magi frequent?
Put me down as another person who thinks using magic to search for arcane connections of a magus counts as scrying on a magus.
If you believe that there is more to a magus that a particular instantiation of that person, that they have an Essential Nature, then discovering what things connect to that Essential Nature and what things do not provides information regarding that magus. To my mind, that counts as scrying.
But how does anyone know that the "scrying" spell has been cast? The spell is not cast on the target of the AC, but the AC itself. Maybe the labels to the AC of my amici have fallen off, and I have to cast a spell to determine who is who. That's a crime? I've not peered into the affairs of a magus, nor have I seen what the magus is doing or even where he is. It is a distinction, but it's an important one, because knowledge of the target of the AC does not tell you anything about the current status of the AC, except if he's living or dead, perhaps.
I could see this as being an absurd codification in some Tribunal's Peripheral Code, I don't see it as being widespread across the Order.
The rule is that you are not to scry on fellow magus, not that you are not supposed to target them with spells. The fact that the spell which is providing information doesn't specifically target the magus shouldn't be relevant. Turning yourself invisible and following another magus around counts as scrying, and that spell doesn't target the person who is being scryed upon. A spell which answers the question "Is X an arcane connection to Y" provides information regarding Y.
This is very much a YMMV area, but I expect that most magi would feel uncomfortable with the idea that someone could go looking for AC to them, and there is no legal recourse. I believe they would vote accordingly. Such a ruling would not make AC less useful in general, just AC which target magus who has not agreed to provide an AC to someone.