Estleback v. Ministry of Peace

[Eisenhorn]

Please find attached, all communications from the Ministry Of Peace too Estleback corporation regarding the aforementioned incident.

These documents are provided to vindicate that we acted lawfully, and that you were informed at all times as to the proceedings, excluding the private conference of the tribunal as is per the norm with juror debates. The following statements are meant to in no way vindicate your right to claim.

Spoiler: notification of legal proceedings

Ministry of Peace
Legal dept.
MPS Athena

October 16th, 2013
Office Complex #1
Evocity

For the attention of: Director Michael Stanson of Estleback Security Corporation.

I am writing to you on behalf of the Ministry of Peace, regarding potential breaches of human rights articles, in specific the Rome statute of the International Crime Court.
I am notifying you that at this moment of time, your organisation is under close scrutiny by the Ministry of Peace, for reasons which will be listed shortly. This scrutiny is neither negative nor positive, it is to allow us to assess whether complaints regarding your operatives are based in fact or not.
The incident which sparked this investigation, is the actions of persons named; Benjamin 'Hyde' Taylor and Steve 'Link' Burwin. It is our understanding that the individual known as Hyde was conducting aggressive operations against a private travel company whom were at the time operating a bus service inside EvoCity. At this moment we are uncertain as the motivation of said aggression, and whether it was a legitimate act or not, furthermore we are including Steve Burwin in this letter due to his position as a supervisor to your corporation, and his proximity to the incidents at the time, we are at this time uncertain as to his role in the aggressive acts, and whether or not he was aware of them.
We at the Ministry of Peace are providing you an opportunity to explain the circumstance and the extent to which the aforementioned aggressive acts have been legitimised by your corporation.
If we find you have been deceptive, or authorised said aggressive acts without legitimate cause or reason, we will convene a tribunal, and reach verdict as to the appropriate penalty to be affixed to your organisation.

Thank you for your time.

Evan Moore
Director for Personnel Affairs
The Ministry Of Peace

Spoiler: Notification of judgement

From the office of the Secretary-General for Legal Affairs, Ministry Of Peace.
To the entire entity of Estleback Security Corporation, including affiliates, employees and representatives thereof. This letter is a notification of the findings of the Ministry Of Peace, pending investigation into your recent activity. The investigation and complaints regarding Dominic Stevens have been dropped after investigation into the matter and an interview with the aforementioned.

It was reported to us that your entity (referred hereby throughout as you for brevity) was involved in an act of aggression, against a private commercial company.
It is our understanding that whilst you did not use any deliberate force against the individual concerned, you did in fact act in an aggressive manner, and insinuated that violent actions would follow should your demands not be met.
I shall quote your own statements as evidence to vindicate the view taken by the Ministry Of Peace.
''Hyde then asked something like
“we need to use this building can we buy it from you?” KP replied with “no” Hyde
then said “But this is the only building big enough” KP then replied with “I said
no.” we then sort of sighed and turn our backs to walk out, on the way out Hyde
said (as a joke) “or we could just take the place” Which to be completely honest
was given away as a joke by the the rather blatant laughter afterwards.''
As can be seen from above it is entirely reasonable that such a threat would be believed by a congregation of armed men outside the property concerned.
Taking the testimony of Officer Evan Moore, whom witnessed the event, it is our belief that you were in fact armed, given that you have provided no evidence to deny this fact beyond personnel statements. I am sure you can understand given the contradictory reports we cannot entirely rely on your own written evidence, and we will take the testimony of our own officer as evidence of the fact you were armed.
It is our belief that you intended to disrupt commerce with threats or fear of provocation of violence, for the purpose of gaining access to the property. Furthermore we believe that such threats were reasonably believable in the circumstance by the victim, regardless of your subjective intent.
Reviewing the case subjectively it is our belief the victim was reasonable intimidated by your actions, and that accordingly you are guilty of such an offence as defined under article (a) and s(2) of the following statute18 USC § 1951 – Interference with commerce by threats or violence provided beneath for your convenience.
18 USC § 1951 – Interference with commerce by threats or violence
(a)Whoever in any way or degree obstructs, delays, or affects commerce or the movement of any article or commodity in commerce, by robbery or extortion or attempts or conspires so to do, or commits or threatens physical violence to any person or property in furtherance of a plan or purpose to do anything in violation of this section shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.
(b)As used in this section—
(1)The term “robbery” means the unlawful taking or obtaining of personal property from the person or in the presence of another, against his will, by means of actual or threatened force, or violence, or fear of injury, immediate or future, to his person or property, or property in his custody or possession, or the person or property of a relative or member of his family or of anyone in his company at the time of the taking or obtaining.
(2)The term “extortion” means the obtaining of property from another, with his consent, induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of official right.
(3)The term “commerce” means commerce within the District of Columbia, or any Territory or Possession of the United States; all commerce between any point in a State, Territory, Possession, or the District of Columbia and any point outside thereof; all commerce between points within the same State through any place outside such State; and all other commerce over which the United States has jurisdiction.
©This section shall not be construed to repeal, modify or affect section 17 ofTitle15, sections52,101–115, 151–166 of Title 29 or sections 151–188 of Title45.

In conclusion we have reached a verdict as to the case at hand, we at the Ministry Of Peace have decided it is appropriate for us to issue a fixed penalty to the corporation of Estleback Security Corporation, of the amount of $150,000, to be paid as damages to the aggrieved party.

Payment will be made to a representative of Ministry Of Peace, who will then forward payment to the injured party, we will provide evidence of this transaction to prove that the injured party has recieved payment.

Spoiler: Notification of legal proceedings against Dominic Stevens

To Michael Stanson.
I am writing to you on behalf of the Ministry of Peace, I would like to thank you for your co-operation in the difficult issues we have recently faced, and inform you that the payment has been successfully collected. However an issue did arise during the collection of payment, and I am hoping you will be able to shed some light on the matter.

During the transaction two representatives of the Ministry Of Peace collected Dominic Stevens, whom we were informed was acting on your behalf, he was taken to a safe location, and the transaction occurred without incident. However for reasons unbeknownst to ourselves, Dominic Stevens decided to attempt to plant a bug on one of our vehicles.

We at the Ministry Of Peace are hoping that he was acting without your authorisation as a rogue agent of some fashion, as we are hoping for a positive resolution to the previous issues.

Hopefully you will be able to shed some light on this matter, and the extent to which Estleback Security Corporation did or did not authorise attempted espionage of an international agency representing the United Nations.

Yours sincerely Z.Massani

Spoiler: notification of the case against Dominic Stevens

To Michael Stanford of Estleback Security Corporation.
Please note that the Ministry Of Peace is not pursuing your corporation regarding the attempted espionage conducted by one agent of your corporation, instead we are pursuing that person for the recovery of damages. Please note our actions will not interfere with any investigation of yours, and we will share any pertinent information recovered from the target.

To Dominic Stevens of Estleback Security Corporation.
Please note that the Ministry Of Peace is pursuing you individually for the recovery of damages, pursuant to your actions in attempting to collect private and/or sensitive data regarding the Ministry Of Peace. Due to our actions on the behalf of the United Nations, and the United States, we are pursuing your person under: 18 USC § 794 - Gathering or delivering defense information to aid foreign government. We have legal power under this act due to the geographical location, and our work on behalf of the United States of America, as a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council.

Please find the article quoted beneath in full for your benefit.
(a) Whoever, with intent or reason to believe that it is to be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of a foreign nation, communicates, delivers, or transmits, or attempts to communicate, deliver, or transmit, to any foreign government, or to any faction or party or military or naval force within a foreign country, whether recognized or unrecognized by the United States, or to any representative, officer, agent, employee, subject, or citizen thereof, either directly or indirectly, any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, note, instrument, appliance, or information relating to the national defense, shall be punished by death or by imprisonment for any term of years or for life, except that the sentence of death shall not be imposed unless the jury or, if there is no jury, the court, further finds that the offense resulted in the identification by a foreign power (as defined in section 101(a) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978) of an individual acting as an agent of the United States and consequently in the death of that individual, or directly concerned nuclear weaponry, military spacecraft or satellites, early warning systems, or other means of defense or retaliation against large-scale attack; war plans; communications intelligence or cryptographic information; or any other major weapons system or major element of defense strategy.
(b) Whoever, in time of war, with intent that the same shall be communicated to the enemy, collects, records, publishes, or communicates, or attempts to elicit any information with respect to the movement, numbers, description, condition, or disposition of any of the Armed Forces, ships, aircraft, or war materials of the United States, or with respect to the plans or conduct, or supposed plans or conduct of any naval or military operations, or with respect to any works or measures undertaken for or connected with, or intended for the fortification or defense of any place, or any other information relating to the public defense, which might be useful to the enemy, shall be punished by death or by imprisonment for any term of years or for life.
© If two or more persons conspire to violate this section, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy shall be subject to the punishment provided for the offense which is the object of such conspiracy.
(d)
(1) Any person convicted of a violation of this section shall forfeit to the United States irrespective of any provision of State law—
(A) any property constituting, or derived from, any proceeds the person obtained, directly or indirectly, as the result of such violation, and
(B) any of the person’s property used, or intended to be used, in any manner or part, to commit, or to facilitate the commission of, such violation.
For the purposes of this subsection, the term “State” includes a State of the United States, the District of Columbia, and any commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States.
(2) The court, in imposing sentence on a defendant for a conviction of a violation of this section, shall order that the defendant forfeit to the United States all property described in paragraph (1) of this subsection.
(3) The provisions of subsections (b), © and (e) through (p) ofsection 413 of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 (21 U.S.C. 853 (b), ©, and (e)–(p)) shall apply to—
(A) property subject to forfeiture under this subsection;
(B) any seizure or disposition of such property; and
© any administrative or judicial proceeding in relation to such property,
if not inconsistent with this subsection.
(4) Notwithstanding section 524 © of title 28, there shall be deposited in the Crime Victims Fund in the Treasury all amounts from the forfeiture of property under this subsection remaining after the payment of expenses for forfeiture and sale authorized by law.

Due to the fact you were unsuccesful in your attempt, we are pursuing a financial remedy to the damages caused.

Furthermore we have legal power to pursue you for such remedies under the following act.
Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations 1946.
The pertinent subsections of article 2 (II&III) have been quoted for your benefit.
SECTION 2. The United Nations, its property and assets wherever located and by whomsoever held, shall enjoy immunity from every form of
legal process except insofar as in any particular case it has expressly waived
its immunity shall extend to any particular case it has expressly waived its
immunity. It is, however, understood that no waiver of immunity shall ex
tend to any measure of execution.
SECTION 3. The premises of the United Nations shall be inviolable. The
property and assets of the United Nations, wherever located and by whom
soever held, shall be immune from search, requisition, confiscation, expropriation and any other form of interference.

Mr Stevens please make the following amount of $175,000 payable to the Ministry Of Peace, at our discretion, or we will pursue other measures to remedy the situation.

Yours faithfully Z.Massani.

P.s To Estleback Security, we do not consider the actions of Dominic Stevens to be representative of your company, and ergo we are at not pursuing you for his espionage, furthermore we consider the previous case now closed, and wish you all the best in future endeavors.

Spoiler: notification of attempt to collect damages

To Dominic Stevens of Estleback Security Corporation

If the specified fine is not met, the Ministry Of Peace will utilise all methods as is reasonable to recover the amount specified. This includes seizure of assets and properties, utilising such force as is reasonable to recover the damages. We expect the citation to be met with in the following 48 hours.

Evan Moore
Director of Personnel Affairs
Ministry of Peace

Spoiler: notification of intent and legal authority

Due to the fact that EvoCity is considered a constituent of the United States, and you previously had no issue with accepting this fact until such time as we took issue with your conduct, we will ignore your previous comment and continue to pursue the legal remedy which you owe to us.

As the United States is a member of the permenant security council of the United Nations, and EvoCity is considered a constituent of the United States evidenced by your acceptance of the application of United States laws, and common knowledge, your legal obligation to the Ministry Of Peace to repay all damages owed has not been discharged.

Spoiler: Letter to Estleback regarding the actions of Dominic Stevens

Hello I felt it appropriate to explain the actions of the Ministry Of Peace to you regarding Dominic Stevens.

The reason we are conducting such conversation on your clan page is because you are his employer, and his conduct whilst acting as a representative of Estleback, has caused us to levy a citation against him (we fined him for attempted espionage).

We feel that you as his employer have the right to witness the proceedings against him, especially when his actions could of damaged your corporate reputation.
Pursuant to the laws quoted we decided to levy a fine against Dominic Stevens, for his actions were directly hostile to not only the Ministry Of Peace, but the good nature and conduct Estleback Security had presented in the course of handling the previous incident.

I apologise for any inconvenience caused to persons not directly involved, or any concern this has caused your self, but we at the Ministry Of Peace felt you had every right to be informed as to the conduct of one of your employees and any actions taken against him.

I hope this clarifies the matter at hand, and makes it clear to you that we are pursuing Dominic Stevens and not you nor the entity of Estleback Security Corporation.

Yours faithfully Z.Massani Legal Secretary General of the Ministry Of Peace.

.ooc the reasons are not blurry at all, we have every right as a legal authority to impose fines and or sanctions where appropriate, rather than declaring war for every transgression, we prefer to refer to the law and pursue appropriate action according to the law.

Spoiler: Letter to Michael Stanson regarding Dominic Stevens

Hello I felt it appropriate to explain the actions of the Ministry Of Peace to you regarding Dominic Stevens.

The reason we are conducting such conversation on your clan page is because you are his employer, and his conduct whilst acting as a representative of Estleback, has caused us to levy a citation against him (we fined him for attempted espionage).

We feel that you as his employer have the right to witness the proceedings against him, especially when his actions could of damaged your corporate reputation.
Pursuant to the laws quoted we decided to levy a fine against Dominic Stevens, for his actions were directly hostile to not only the Ministry Of Peace, but the good nature and conduct Estleback Security had presented in the course of handling the previous incident.

I apologise for any inconvenience caused to persons not directly involved, or any concern this has caused your self, but we at the Ministry Of Peace felt you had every right to be informed as to the conduct of one of your employees and any actions taken against him.

I hope this clarifies the matter at hand, and makes it clear to you that we are pursuing Dominic Stevens and not you nor the entity of Estleback Security Corporation.

Yours faithfully Z.Massani Legal Secretary General of the Ministry Of Peace.

Spoiler: Private notification to Michael Stanson of delivery of fine to aggrieved party

I am writing to inform you that, the Ministry Of Peace has delivered the fine collected from you and/or your corporation too KPredeyes, if you require proof that the fine was collected feel free to contact me further and such evidence will be provided to you.

Thank you for your time.
Yours faithfully Secretary General of Legal Affairs, Z.Massani

The Ministry of Peace invites you to drop all slanderous allegations regarding our conduct, especially references to cruel and unusual punishments, threats, and intimidation of share holders, as can be seen in the provided correspondence, no such remarks were made, and for you to allege as such is slander. We have acted in good faith for the betterment of the nation.

Please refer to the laws on Defamation per se, as quoted here for your relevance:
''All states except Arizona, Arkansas, Missouri, and Tennessee recognize that some categories of false statements are so innately harmful that they are considered to be defamatory per se. In the common law tradition, damages for such false statements are presumed and do not have to be proven.
Statements are defamatory per se where they falsely impute to the plaintiff one or more of the following things:
Allegations or imputations "injurious to another in their trade, business, or profession"
Allegations or imputations "of loathsome disease" (historically leprosy and sexually transmitted disease, now also including mental illness)
Allegations or imputations of "unchastity" (usually only in unmarried people and sometimes only in women)
Allegations or imputations of criminal activity (sometimes only crimes of moral turpitude)''

This statement will serve as legal notice of our intention to pursue you in the court of law for defamation if your statements are not retracted, furthermore you may not rely on the protection afforded to defamatory statements in court, as the document you published is merely a declaration of your case, it is not in court, ergo your statements are legally defamatory, and will be construed as a slanderous attempt to defame the reputation of the Ministry of Peace. Furthermore you may not rely on the first amendment to the right for free expression, as your statements are patently ridiculous, mendacious and exist solely with the intent to defame the Ministry of Peace.