Estleback v. Ministry of Peace

[Kulthro]

Unexpected, but interesting.

[Adman]

In the benefit of roleplay, I suggest stating the fine as 2 billion or whatever... but in-game actually paying 2k. Shouldn't matter and shouldn't be the primary concern as you're all rich as fuck anyways...

[Toxic]

In the benefit of roleplay, I suggest stating the fine as 2 billion or whatever... but in-game actually paying 2k. Shouldn't matter and shouldn't be the primary concern as you're all rich as *** anyways...

Wouldn't that defeat the purpose? PPPP

[Adman]

In the benefit of roleplay, I suggest stating the fine as 2 billion or whatever... but in-game actually paying 2k. Shouldn't matter and shouldn't be the primary concern as you're all rich as *** anyways...

Wouldn't that defeat the purpose? PPPP

I suppose that depends on the purpose.

[Enzyme]

Oh this thread. Quite impressive from both parts! More text than the bible (well almost I guess).

[BlackDog]

Will you please make up your mind if you want to pursue an OOC or an IC case?

I think their pursueing both, but throwing an RP flare on it.

[Faustie]

If you're throwing an RP flare on something you initially accept in IC terms and then complain about it being a breach of the rules in OOC, I'm not going to take it seriously. If you had a problem with it OOC wise you should've filed a complaint from the start, not try and include it in RP to bolster your arguments. If you want a legitimate RP scenario, stick to IC. If you have an OOC complaint against the admins, take it to the admin abuse forums. Don't try and combine the two, because I'll disregard both of them because you're clearly taking neither seriously enough.

[Eisenhorn]

In answer to:
Estleback Corporation v. Ministry of Peace
G.Mod. GC: Fearless Roleplay (FL or FL:RP) - Case 0001
Zaeed, Secretary General of Legal Affairs, Ministry of Peace
v.
Dominic “Instinct” Stevens, Agent, Estleback Corporation

Unfortunately we fail to recognise the defence raised by Estleback under the fifth amendment of the constituition. This is for the following reasons, namely that Estleback corporation can be legally identified as a militia, after consulting global security experts, and past cases it is our belief that Estleback and it's security interests fit the criteria to be legally identified as a militia, and thus the Ministry of Peace cites the following statement from the fifth amendment to dispel such notion as we acted unlawfully; ''except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger'' Furthermore we will establish from the grounds of reasonable belief that the matter comes under a case of public danger. But firstly I must stress the importance of the quote from US Attorney General Eric Holden, the importance being that the US Constitution does not guarantee judicial process, rather it guarantees due process, which was served upon Estleback corporation, whom were given adequate time to produce a defence, and appoint legal council, their inaction or unwillingness to do so, is not the fault of the Ministry Of Peace, and we acted reasonably, and within the limits of the law.

Reflecting upon the 2008 supreme court judgement in the case of; ''District of Columbia v. Heller,554 U.S. 570(2008)'' and reading the Obiter Dicta of the most enlightened judges ruling upon the aforementioned case, we cite the following in identifying what constitutes a militia.

''the de jure definition of "militia" as used in United States jurisprudence was discussed. The court's opinion made explicit, in its obiter dicta, that the term "militia", as used in colonial times in this originalist decision, included both the federally organized militia and the citizen-organized militias of the several States: "... the 'militia' in colonial America consisted of a subset of 'the people'—those who were male, able-bodied, and within a certain age range" Although the militia consists of all able-bodied men, the federally organized militia may consist of a subset of them"

As can be seen from the above paragraph a militia does not explicitly need to be a federally recognised or organised institution, and it can in fact be citizen organised.

In contrast to the argument raised by the legally challenged claimant, that being that Estleback is a multinational corporation that cannot be found to be a militia due to the nature of it's work.

I in turn highlight the following statement taken from the official website for Estleback corporation, and published by the companies president himself Michael Stanson; ''Estleback Corporation is a corporation that have security as objective. It can be everything from protecting one single client to a whole society. The whole Corporation are equipped with various guns, but they are only allowed to be used if lifes are in danger. We aim to keep the world in peace, but to accomplish that we are willing to use lethal force.

As I stated before, our corporation is all about the safety. Our Agents are equipped with guns to protect, not attack. If we are to be attacked by an enemy, we will eliminate the threat, for the safety of the client or the society of course. We don't leave anything half done, we finish it to the very end. We may not always use the most legal way of dealing with the "problem", but we get the job done. Our goal is to keep objects or persons safe from danger. This include corrupted leaders and objects that can harm the humanity. Even though it might seem that we work for the Government, we don't. We protect anything that we can see a bright future in. ''

How can it be in question that these persons are not a militia, when they state their primary purpose is the protection of citizens through the use of lethal force, especially when they have highlighted their preparation to resist legitimate government authority, it is patently obvious from their claims that they are nothing more than a band of militarised thugs, acting as an unofficial militia as interpreted from their very own statements on the matter. The following quote; ''This include corrupted leaders and objects that can harm the humanity. Even though it might seem that we work for the Government, we don't. We protect anything that we can see a bright future in. '' as published by Michael Stanson himself can be interpreted with the second amendment to identify Estleback corporation as a militia; ''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. '' if the purpose of a militia is not to combat tyranny or corruption in the government and protect a nations peoples than what exactly can a militia be described as. I argue that from the very quotes of Estlebacks president that the company is in fact a militia, and ergo the actions of the Ministry Of Peace are defensible under the fifth amendment as shown in the following quote; '''except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger'' ergo it is only logical that the Ministry Of Peace acted lawfully in dealing with such a case.
Further to this, I highlight the following quote from Michael Stanson president of Estleback corporation; '' We may not always use the most legal way of dealing with the "problem", but we get the job done.'' to indicate and highlight the lack of respect for law, authority and the citizens rights his agents proclaim to uphold, the very notion of Estleback being a force for good, is a farce, they are a self serving corporate mafia, as evidenced by their activites.

Furthermore we would highlight that the actions of Estleback Corporation upon our first contact with them constituted a gross scenario of public danger. The corporation had positioned armed men outside of a private travel company, as witnessed by one agent of the Ministry Of Peace Evan Moore, the corporation attempted to at first purchase said property, but after being refused chose to position armed men outside and talk in hushed tones of threats to shut the business down.
I petition that is not entirely unreasonable to believe that a collective of armed persons outside of ones property can be considered a threat. It is in fact entirely reasonable to believe that the rogue-militia of Estleback were trying to infer or imply threats through their presence. As identified in the following statute following statute18 USC § 1951 – Interference with commerce by threats or violence it is not necessary as Mr Stevens erroneously claims to prove that any financial loss was experienced by the victim of his corporations callous actions.

As can be demonstrated under article A of ''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.''
It can be seen that Estleback corporation in fact constituted a breach under said section, in conspiring to do so, and by threatening Kieran Mason, Estleback has committed a gross breach of this article, and attempted to interfere with commerce through conspiracy, and the use of threatening behaviour. To determine if the threat made by the individual referred to in all seriousness as 'Hyde' constituted a valid threat to be reasonably feared, we refer to the United States law on criminal assault. It is patently obvious to all with a legal background that such a charge requires four elements. As defined in the MONT CODE ANN § 45-5-201 : Montana Code - Section 45-5-201: ASSAULT .
An assault is committed if: (1) A person commits the offense of assault if the person:
(a) purposely or knowingly causes bodily injury to another;
(b) negligently causes bodily injury to another with a weapon;
© purposely or knowingly makes physical contact of an insulting or provoking nature with any individual; or
(d) purposely or knowingly causes reasonable apprehension of bodily injury in another.
(2) A person convicted of assault shall be fined not to exceed $500 or be imprisoned in the county jail for any term not to exceed 6 months, or both.

Please note we are not pursuing Estleback corporation under a charge of assault, we are merely citing the laws on Assault to establish that the actions of ''Hyde'' and the following comment made by the individual ''Hyde''; ''or we could just take the place” constitute a threat which in reasonableness can be believed. Given that the intention was to cause the loss of property ownership rights and business to one Kieran Mason, the positioning of armed men outside when construed with the comments made by the collective of men, can only be construed as conspiracy to disrupt commerce.

Furthermore we at the Ministry Of Peace are grossly appalled by the actions of Estleback security, not only did the claimant recently attempt to place a bug in one of our vehicles, he was subsequently rewarded for his gross infringement of International Law and the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations 1946, by being promoted to a position of legal practise within Estleback corporation, the individual known as Hyde was also similarly rewarded as he is known to have assisted Dominic Stevens in his endeavour to reach a position of legal practise. Furthermore the invented accusations of Dominic Stevens will not be tolerated, as we have provided copies of all communications between the Ministry Of Peace and Estleback, and he has yet to remove his defammatory remarks, or acknowledge the wrong he has committed in publishing them, we will pursue a case for defamation against Dominic Stevens upon the conclusion of this legal farce.

[yarrrs]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3z9Kmla_ceA

[D0ctor]

Dear Faustie and Killjoy,
I’d like to reason that it is both theoretically, and physically impossible for this case not to flip-flop between in character and out of character. We have been attempting to compile a list to the best our intentions to provide as Blackdog and other mentioned, “roleplay flare” to this case so that it can still hold an interesting roleplay situation. But even with the best of our intentions, it’s impossible to not jump back and forth between, IC and OOC.

Another reason we have chosen to flip-flop is thanks to the ambiguity of the case, and how it’s presently set up. With all the best intentions I’d like to list a few things in this case which make it impossible to continue it as a solidly In Character, or solidly Out of Character case:
- The fines against Dominic “Instinct” Stevens, and the Estleback Corporation have exceeded $2,000. As mentioned by Soul, the Fearless Rulelist, and the Rules Q&A 2.0, this is not allowed in Fearless.
Thereby this turns the case into an Out-of-Character issue.
- No actual IC roleplay involving the collection of evidence was ever proven to happen. We have yet to see any photographic or videographic evidence to prove it has happened.

This has created some skepticism that admin logs were the only things used to prove that these incidents happened. Which would fall under powergaming, as we cannot fight phantom documents that we have no access too.
- We have forwarded a request to prove that Kieran Mason had lost any money thanks to the joke made by members of the Estleback Corporation.
This request was never met, and thereby the only evidence of the incident, is word of mouth from Kieran Mason. We had to use the Clan RP rules to provide that the Hobbs Act of 1947, would not apply to the current case as Kieran Mason has never been proved to be organized under a brand name, clan, corporation, or otherwise.
- Several accounts and reports of the Ministry of Peace threatening the usage of admin powers have been noted. Ranging from threats of inventory wipes for not agreeing to pay fines, and to one of the actual visual evidence of Zaeed blackmailing us with the possibility of being banned for continuing this case. The exact quote of this, and an image are below:
http://i.imgur.com/M93sOCn.png
”.ooc if you want to pursue them I will pursue a case against you for backseat administration, either take it to a ban request, or stop trying to punish persons for rule infringements as you see them under in character pretenses.”

The Estleback Corporation and it’s employees are tired of being threatened, and bullied to pay things that have yet to be even so much as proven with videographic and photographic evidence. Estleback and it’s employees only paid the original fines because they felt cornered and didn’t want something that they’ve worked on for so many months going to waste in the blink of an eye[see: Blackwatch Corporation]
Our reasons for using IC and OOC in a marvelous cocktail is because we have an obligation to see the return of at the very least $321,000 dollars. The rules of Fearless, and SoulRipper have guaranteed us that we will eventually see the return of that.

In our current case, we cannot choose to step down one path, and expect to get anywhere. Had we stayed on the In-Character path, the Estleback Corporation would of been tossed aside for a backstory which allows the Ministry of Peace to essentially powergame its way out of every situation. If we had chosen to walk down the out-of-character path, we would of never won. We would have never been able to provide our in-character defense, and equally strengthen it with a defense that reassures us that every player of FL, admin or not, is looked upon equally within the FL Rulelist.

With kind regards, and hopes for a promising future,
The Legal Advisor for the Estleback Corporation
P.S. All though I am acting under an advisory role for the Estleback Corporation’s Legal Department, I am not related to any clan or organization on Fearless. I choose to help people because I believe everyone deserves to be viewed the same… In Character or Out of Character.