Character
Rules
Events
Map
RP Points
Proplimits
Statistics
Steam Group
Members
Hall of Fame
Team
Bans
Blacklists
Warnings
Changelog
Content
10-22-2013, 06:32 AM
(This post was last modified: 09-01-2022, 01:02 AM by Fearless Community.
Edit Reason: Fixed Encoding
)
IN RESPONSE
to
Estleback Corporation v. Ministry of Peace
by
Estleback’s Legal Advisor
Zaeed, Secretary General of Legal Affairs, Ministry of Peace
v.
Dominic “Instinct” Stevens, Agent, Estleback Corporation
________________________________________________________
1. In counter of the Ministry of Peace’s backstory, we’d like to bring up the reality of the United Nations, as mentioned previously in Section III, of our original court challenge.
As self-determination is a right guarded by the United Nation, under Resolution 1514 of 1960, it can be understood that the Commonwealth of Evocity is very much like the real-life nation of Puerto Rico. All though it derives most of it’s powers and such as a Commonwealth of the United States of America, it also has a separate existence with it’s own parliament, laws, and social systems.
With this in mind the Ministry of Peace, would require the definitive leader of the Commonwealth of Evocity to approve of the presence of the Ministry of Peace’s operations. Naturally, the definitive leader of the Commonwealth, and Fearless, is Soulripper.
Within the roleplay, SoulRipper would have to agree to allow the Security Council of the United Nations to disperse its forces into the Commonwealth of Evocity. The United States of America may be allowed to allow United Nations troops to station in a base on the Commonwealth of Evocity, but ultimately they would still have to communicate with the current president, and supreme leader, SoulRipper, on what they plan to do inside of Evocity.
As mentioned previously, Resolution 1514 of 1960 guards the right of countries and the individuals of said countries rights to self determination.
Exact quotes from the United Nations page:
“The General Assembly,
Mindful of the determination proclaimed by the peoples of the world in the Charter of the United Nations to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small and to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,
Conscious of the need for the creation of conditions of stability and well-being and peaceful and friendly relations based on respect for the principles of equal rights and self-determination of all peoples, and of universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion,
Recognizing the passionate yearning for freedom in all dependent peoples and the decisive role of such peoples in the attainment of their independence,
A ware of the increasing conflicts resulting from the denial of or impediments in the way of the freedom of such peoples, which constitute a serious threat to world peace,
Considering the important role of the United Nations in assisting the movement for independence in Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories,
Recognizing that the peoples of the world ardently desire the end of colonialism in all its manifestations,
Convinced that the continued existence of colonialism prevents the development of international economic co-operation, impedes the social, cultural and economic development of dependent peoples and militates against the United Nations ideal of universal peace,
Affirming that peoples may, for their own ends, freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources without prejudice to any obligations arising out of international economic co-operation, based upon the principle of mutual benefit, and international law,
Believing that the process of liberation is irresistible and irreversible and that, in order to avoid serious crises, an end must be put to colonialism and all practices of segregation and discrimination associated therewith,
Welcoming the emergence in recent years of a large number of dependent territories into freedom and independence, and recognizing the increasingly powerful trends towards freedom in such territories which have not yet attained independence,
Convinced that all peoples have an inalienable right to complete freedom, the exercise of their sovereignty and the integrity of their national territory,
Solemnly proclaims the necessity of bringing to a speedy and unconditional end colonialism in all its forms and manifestations;
And to this end Declares that:
1. The subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights, is contrary to the Charter of the United Nations and is an impediment to the promotion of world peace and co-operation.
2. All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
3. Inadequacy of political, economic, social or educational preparedness should never serve as a pretext for delaying independence.
4. All armed action or repressive measures of all kinds directed against dependent peoples shall cease in order to enable them to exercise peacefully and freely their right to complete independence, and the integrity of their national territory shall be respected.
5. Immediate steps shall be taken, in Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories or all other territories which have not yet attained independence, to transfer all powers to the peoples of those territories, without any conditions or reservations, in accordance with their freely expressed will and desire, without any distinction as to race, creed or colour, in order to enable them to enjoy complete independence and freedom.
6. Any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.
7. All States shall observe faithfully and strictly the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the present Declaration on the basis of equality, non-interference in the internal affairs of all States, and respect for the sovereign rights of all peoples and their territorial integrity.”
The Ministry of Peace has conducted operations that go directly against Resolution 1514 of 1960, and thereby are acting as a rogue element of the United Nations.
I would also like to ask a question… As I read your backstory I’d also like to ask if we are acting within the same timeline, because while the United Nations has had no-confidence votes in the past, with the most recent being 2006, the effect of most “no-confidence” votes are symbolic, and generally will not have any effect on how the United Nations is operated.
I’d also like to criticize the concept that world powers such as the United States, Russia, and China, would ever allow other government bodies control their government. This is rather laughable, and seemingly spits in the face of reality. The reality of which the United States, Russia, and China, would most likely remove themselves and their allies from the United Nations before allowing themselves to become controlled.
Another thing to consider is where exactly does the United Nations get these troops and operatives for the Ministry of Peace? Most contributions to Peacekeeping Operations are generally under 15,000 combatants, without including support and medical forces. This becomes a matter of skepticism that any world power would contribute forces to something which ultimately harms their global standing, and as such is very utopian at that.
I rest this argument for another time, but I’ll answer and respond to the other comments.
2. The Estleback Corporation is a multi-trade organization and thereby is not a militia as defined by the Second Amendment. This can also be seen in the Militia Act of 1792, which defines an official militia, as seen in the United States, as something which is derived directly from the state. This was also later superseded in 1903, as the Militia Act of 1903, established the National Guard which was defined as being the official militias in the United States.
The Second Amendment is defined as the individual right to keep and bear arms, outside that of a state militia for personal protection, and in times of tragedy, to protect the Union.
The Second Amendment in exact quote:
“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
This was debated for many years after the implementation of the Militia Act of 1903, in the regards to if the Second Amendment safeguarded the right to ownership of firearm for the individual. This was later clarified in District of Columbia v. Heller, in which it was concluded through an analysis of the wording of the Second Amendment, that yes, the Second Amendment does safeguard the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
[Image of the Analysis]
You may be asking, “What exactly does this have to do with the Fifth Amendment?” well the definition as given would provide that the Estleback Corporation, is not a militia, as it’s Security Division is not the only division of it’s corporation. Thereby the Fifth Amendment, still does apply to them.
The Security branch that they offer as a service is only a mere extension of their right to keep and bear arms. Nothing more, nothing less.
3. The quote by United States Attorney General Eric Holder, is actually interesting in the respects of it’s own contexts in the regards to Anwar al-Awlaki, who by the point of his actual assassination, the U.S Treasury had labeled him as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist, and a few days later, the United Nations Security Council had labeled him an enemy combatant under UNSC Resolution 1267.
These enemy combatant labels took roughly three years of constant acts of aggression, and several indications he had been involved in acts of bombing and killing of soldiers and civilians in the ISAF. It was only a year before his death he was even charged with treason in the United States of America.
With this in mind, I’d like to ask how exactly the employees of the Estleback Corporation, are even remotely related to a man who was not only wanted in the United States, but had been put on a hitlist by the United Nations Security Council.
The employees of the Estleback Corporation, were not given the right to a fair trial as is required by the Fifth Amendment, and is also required by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, established by the United Nations.
They were also never allowed to be presented in front of an unbias jury, given the right to represent themselves or be represented by their legal advisors, and were never allowed to negotiate the pricing of the fine. The fine of which is actually not allowed within Fearless’s Rules as defined by SoulRipper:
“2:35 PM -----: Any thoughts on it all?
2:35 PM - [FL] SoulRipper: Max 2k
2:35 PM -----: Max fines is 2k you mean?
2:36 PM - [FL] SoulRipper: Yeah”
4. You cannot fine someone more than $2,000 as defined by FL’s rules, and as defined by the United States Constitution, you may not fine someone without a legal case.
5.
Soul has found that anything over $2,000 is deemed “excessive”
“2:35 PM -----: Any thoughts on it all?
2:35 PM - [FL] SoulRipper: Max 2k
2:35 PM -----: Max fines is 2k you mean?
2:36 PM - [FL] SoulRipper: Yeah”
As this is only in the regards that you must give back roughly $148,000 to the Estleback Corporation and $173,000 to Dominic “Instinct” Stevens
As your counter-argument for the provisions in the regards to excessive fines, the case of Waters-Pierce Oil Co. v. Texas of 1909 is once again not comparable with the present case, as the fines and punishment to the Waters-Pierce Oil Co. was ordered to pay fines which matched the profit they had garnered during the period of trial.
Our current case with the Estleback Corporation has caused them a financial loss of roughly $150,000 and as most of their security contracts are $500 per agent, the legal advisors for Estleback, find it hard to believe that the sanction of $150,000 was in any way constitutional and was in anyway obeying the $2,000 limit per fine in Fearless RP.
As the original case was done under the Hobbs Act of 1947, we’d like to make a formal request that all knowledge of Kieran Mason’s monetary loss be disclosed on this thread. If this cannot be done or any monetary loss be proven, we’d like to see the Estleback Corporation be refunded it’s $150,000. Even if some economic loss can be proven, the maximum fine which can be imposed is $2,000, and in that case, the Estleback Corporation would like to be refunded $148,000.
We can also see a starch comparison of the fines forced on Dominic “Instinct” Stevens to that of United States v. Bajakajian of 1998. In this Supreme Court case, Hosep Krikor Bajakajian, was ordered to forfit $357,144 dollars to the United States, but a district court had found this fine to be disproportionate, and cruel to an individual which had no evidence against him of committing illegal activities. He was later fined $20,000, and even after this, it was later acknowledged that even that he wouldn’t have to pay.
As the starch comparisons between these two cases add up, I’d like to make a formal request for evidence from the Ministry of Peace in the regards to the “bugging” of your vehicles, and actual photographic or videographic proof that you collected said evidence through /me.
Even if evidence can be provided, Dominic “Instinct” Stevens is to be refunded $173,000 as ordered by SoulRipper.
_____________________________________________________________________
With much regards,
The Legal Advisor for Estleback
OOC. We’d also appreciate it if you didn’t attempt to blackmail us with the usage of admin powers, as we find this unprofessional. In regards to the fact that most of the Super Admins are a part of the Ministry of Peace, we are forced by conditions out of our control to send this directly to SoulRipper as to get a fair and unbias jury.Original document
to
Estleback Corporation v. Ministry of Peace
by
Estleback’s Legal Advisor
Zaeed, Secretary General of Legal Affairs, Ministry of Peace
v.
Dominic “Instinct” Stevens, Agent, Estleback Corporation
________________________________________________________
1. In counter of the Ministry of Peace’s backstory, we’d like to bring up the reality of the United Nations, as mentioned previously in Section III, of our original court challenge.
As self-determination is a right guarded by the United Nation, under Resolution 1514 of 1960, it can be understood that the Commonwealth of Evocity is very much like the real-life nation of Puerto Rico. All though it derives most of it’s powers and such as a Commonwealth of the United States of America, it also has a separate existence with it’s own parliament, laws, and social systems.
With this in mind the Ministry of Peace, would require the definitive leader of the Commonwealth of Evocity to approve of the presence of the Ministry of Peace’s operations. Naturally, the definitive leader of the Commonwealth, and Fearless, is Soulripper.
Within the roleplay, SoulRipper would have to agree to allow the Security Council of the United Nations to disperse its forces into the Commonwealth of Evocity. The United States of America may be allowed to allow United Nations troops to station in a base on the Commonwealth of Evocity, but ultimately they would still have to communicate with the current president, and supreme leader, SoulRipper, on what they plan to do inside of Evocity.
As mentioned previously, Resolution 1514 of 1960 guards the right of countries and the individuals of said countries rights to self determination.
Exact quotes from the United Nations page:
“The General Assembly,
Mindful of the determination proclaimed by the peoples of the world in the Charter of the United Nations to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small and to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,
Conscious of the need for the creation of conditions of stability and well-being and peaceful and friendly relations based on respect for the principles of equal rights and self-determination of all peoples, and of universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion,
Recognizing the passionate yearning for freedom in all dependent peoples and the decisive role of such peoples in the attainment of their independence,
A ware of the increasing conflicts resulting from the denial of or impediments in the way of the freedom of such peoples, which constitute a serious threat to world peace,
Considering the important role of the United Nations in assisting the movement for independence in Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories,
Recognizing that the peoples of the world ardently desire the end of colonialism in all its manifestations,
Convinced that the continued existence of colonialism prevents the development of international economic co-operation, impedes the social, cultural and economic development of dependent peoples and militates against the United Nations ideal of universal peace,
Affirming that peoples may, for their own ends, freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources without prejudice to any obligations arising out of international economic co-operation, based upon the principle of mutual benefit, and international law,
Believing that the process of liberation is irresistible and irreversible and that, in order to avoid serious crises, an end must be put to colonialism and all practices of segregation and discrimination associated therewith,
Welcoming the emergence in recent years of a large number of dependent territories into freedom and independence, and recognizing the increasingly powerful trends towards freedom in such territories which have not yet attained independence,
Convinced that all peoples have an inalienable right to complete freedom, the exercise of their sovereignty and the integrity of their national territory,
Solemnly proclaims the necessity of bringing to a speedy and unconditional end colonialism in all its forms and manifestations;
And to this end Declares that:
1. The subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights, is contrary to the Charter of the United Nations and is an impediment to the promotion of world peace and co-operation.
2. All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
3. Inadequacy of political, economic, social or educational preparedness should never serve as a pretext for delaying independence.
4. All armed action or repressive measures of all kinds directed against dependent peoples shall cease in order to enable them to exercise peacefully and freely their right to complete independence, and the integrity of their national territory shall be respected.
5. Immediate steps shall be taken, in Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories or all other territories which have not yet attained independence, to transfer all powers to the peoples of those territories, without any conditions or reservations, in accordance with their freely expressed will and desire, without any distinction as to race, creed or colour, in order to enable them to enjoy complete independence and freedom.
6. Any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.
7. All States shall observe faithfully and strictly the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the present Declaration on the basis of equality, non-interference in the internal affairs of all States, and respect for the sovereign rights of all peoples and their territorial integrity.”
The Ministry of Peace has conducted operations that go directly against Resolution 1514 of 1960, and thereby are acting as a rogue element of the United Nations.
I would also like to ask a question… As I read your backstory I’d also like to ask if we are acting within the same timeline, because while the United Nations has had no-confidence votes in the past, with the most recent being 2006, the effect of most “no-confidence” votes are symbolic, and generally will not have any effect on how the United Nations is operated.
I’d also like to criticize the concept that world powers such as the United States, Russia, and China, would ever allow other government bodies control their government. This is rather laughable, and seemingly spits in the face of reality. The reality of which the United States, Russia, and China, would most likely remove themselves and their allies from the United Nations before allowing themselves to become controlled.
Another thing to consider is where exactly does the United Nations get these troops and operatives for the Ministry of Peace? Most contributions to Peacekeeping Operations are generally under 15,000 combatants, without including support and medical forces. This becomes a matter of skepticism that any world power would contribute forces to something which ultimately harms their global standing, and as such is very utopian at that.
I rest this argument for another time, but I’ll answer and respond to the other comments.
2. The Estleback Corporation is a multi-trade organization and thereby is not a militia as defined by the Second Amendment. This can also be seen in the Militia Act of 1792, which defines an official militia, as seen in the United States, as something which is derived directly from the state. This was also later superseded in 1903, as the Militia Act of 1903, established the National Guard which was defined as being the official militias in the United States.
The Second Amendment is defined as the individual right to keep and bear arms, outside that of a state militia for personal protection, and in times of tragedy, to protect the Union.
The Second Amendment in exact quote:
“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
This was debated for many years after the implementation of the Militia Act of 1903, in the regards to if the Second Amendment safeguarded the right to ownership of firearm for the individual. This was later clarified in District of Columbia v. Heller, in which it was concluded through an analysis of the wording of the Second Amendment, that yes, the Second Amendment does safeguard the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
[Image of the Analysis]
You may be asking, “What exactly does this have to do with the Fifth Amendment?” well the definition as given would provide that the Estleback Corporation, is not a militia, as it’s Security Division is not the only division of it’s corporation. Thereby the Fifth Amendment, still does apply to them.
The Security branch that they offer as a service is only a mere extension of their right to keep and bear arms. Nothing more, nothing less.
3. The quote by United States Attorney General Eric Holder, is actually interesting in the respects of it’s own contexts in the regards to Anwar al-Awlaki, who by the point of his actual assassination, the U.S Treasury had labeled him as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist, and a few days later, the United Nations Security Council had labeled him an enemy combatant under UNSC Resolution 1267.
These enemy combatant labels took roughly three years of constant acts of aggression, and several indications he had been involved in acts of bombing and killing of soldiers and civilians in the ISAF. It was only a year before his death he was even charged with treason in the United States of America.
With this in mind, I’d like to ask how exactly the employees of the Estleback Corporation, are even remotely related to a man who was not only wanted in the United States, but had been put on a hitlist by the United Nations Security Council.
The employees of the Estleback Corporation, were not given the right to a fair trial as is required by the Fifth Amendment, and is also required by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, established by the United Nations.
They were also never allowed to be presented in front of an unbias jury, given the right to represent themselves or be represented by their legal advisors, and were never allowed to negotiate the pricing of the fine. The fine of which is actually not allowed within Fearless’s Rules as defined by SoulRipper:
“2:35 PM -----: Any thoughts on it all?
2:35 PM - [FL] SoulRipper: Max 2k
2:35 PM -----: Max fines is 2k you mean?
2:36 PM - [FL] SoulRipper: Yeah”
4. You cannot fine someone more than $2,000 as defined by FL’s rules, and as defined by the United States Constitution, you may not fine someone without a legal case.
5.
Soul has found that anything over $2,000 is deemed “excessive”
“2:35 PM -----: Any thoughts on it all?
2:35 PM - [FL] SoulRipper: Max 2k
2:35 PM -----: Max fines is 2k you mean?
2:36 PM - [FL] SoulRipper: Yeah”
As this is only in the regards that you must give back roughly $148,000 to the Estleback Corporation and $173,000 to Dominic “Instinct” Stevens
As your counter-argument for the provisions in the regards to excessive fines, the case of Waters-Pierce Oil Co. v. Texas of 1909 is once again not comparable with the present case, as the fines and punishment to the Waters-Pierce Oil Co. was ordered to pay fines which matched the profit they had garnered during the period of trial.
Our current case with the Estleback Corporation has caused them a financial loss of roughly $150,000 and as most of their security contracts are $500 per agent, the legal advisors for Estleback, find it hard to believe that the sanction of $150,000 was in any way constitutional and was in anyway obeying the $2,000 limit per fine in Fearless RP.
As the original case was done under the Hobbs Act of 1947, we’d like to make a formal request that all knowledge of Kieran Mason’s monetary loss be disclosed on this thread. If this cannot be done or any monetary loss be proven, we’d like to see the Estleback Corporation be refunded it’s $150,000. Even if some economic loss can be proven, the maximum fine which can be imposed is $2,000, and in that case, the Estleback Corporation would like to be refunded $148,000.
We can also see a starch comparison of the fines forced on Dominic “Instinct” Stevens to that of United States v. Bajakajian of 1998. In this Supreme Court case, Hosep Krikor Bajakajian, was ordered to forfit $357,144 dollars to the United States, but a district court had found this fine to be disproportionate, and cruel to an individual which had no evidence against him of committing illegal activities. He was later fined $20,000, and even after this, it was later acknowledged that even that he wouldn’t have to pay.
As the starch comparisons between these two cases add up, I’d like to make a formal request for evidence from the Ministry of Peace in the regards to the “bugging” of your vehicles, and actual photographic or videographic proof that you collected said evidence through /me.
Even if evidence can be provided, Dominic “Instinct” Stevens is to be refunded $173,000 as ordered by SoulRipper.
_____________________________________________________________________
With much regards,
The Legal Advisor for Estleback
OOC. We’d also appreciate it if you didn’t attempt to blackmail us with the usage of admin powers, as we find this unprofessional. In regards to the fact that most of the Super Admins are a part of the Ministry of Peace, we are forced by conditions out of our control to send this directly to SoulRipper as to get a fair and unbias jury.Original document
![[Image: fgfcrai.png]](https://i.imgur.com/fgfcrai.png)