Character
Rules
Events
Map
RP Points
Proplimits
Statistics
Steam Group
Members
Hall of Fame
Team
Bans
Blacklists
Warnings
Changelog
Content
10-21-2013, 11:43 PM
(This post was last modified: 09-01-2022, 01:02 AM by Fearless Community.
Edit Reason: Fixed Encoding
)
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
1.Legal Authority of the Ministry Of Peace to act in lieu of the United States Law Enforcement Agencies, on United States soil.
In regards to this claim we at the Ministry Of Peace highlight the foundation of our organisation and the reason behind it, ''In the Autumn of 2013, the member states of the United Nations convened a meeting, and voted no confidence in the United Nations, citing the ineffective nature of their actions, sanctions and any peacekeeping force. Citing the conflicts of Sierra Leone, Rwanda, Kenya, Ireland, and other instances of global instability as the prime reasons for the vote of no confidence. Another reason for this vote of no confidence was the increasing growth in paramilitary businesses, owning private armies they were loyal to no one and they had no accountability.
The United Nations were backed into a corner, they had to either accept the demands of the nations, or fall off the cliff to which their backs were off. The United Nations agreed to the proposal, fore they had no alternative but ruin. This was the genesis of the Ministry of Peace, amongst it's members known as Ministerium Pax (Peace Ministry in Latin) or simply 'MiniPax', a global police agency without jurisdiction, a force who could act where the UN couldn't. The Ministry of Peace's primary function, is to protect the rule of law, and hold accountable any who would threaten the right to life of the common man. They fight without borders, they pursue the unjust beyond boundaries, they hold all accountable.
Acting with the approval of the member states of the United Nations, they have jurisdiction over any man whom has committed a crime, as well as any corporation,''
Furthermore we highlight the conduct of the claimant prior to the allegations against us, whereby he refused to recognise the rule of law, ''Due to the fact that Evo-City is a sovereign city state within the United States that has yet to enter into the United nations, as such the United Nations is not authorised to act inside non member states. There for you have no jurisdiction to place a citation of any kind on any persons. If you have any issues with this, your legal team may contact me to arrange a date at the high courts. ''
Furthermore we highlight the notion of the rule of law under which the United Nations operates; ''UN rule of law activities support the development, promotion and implementation of international norms and standards in most fields of international law.
The United Nations works to support a rule of law framework at the national level: a Constitution or its equivalent, as the highest law of the land; clear and consistent legal framework, and implementation thereof; strong institutions of justice, governance, security and human rights that are well structured, financed, trained and equipped; transitional justice processes and mechanisms; and a public and civil society that contributes to strengthening the rule of law and holding public officials and institutions accountable. These are the norms, policies, institutions and processes that form the core of a society in which individuals feel safe and secure, where disputes are settled peacefully and effective redress is available for harm suffered, and where all who violate the law, including the State itself, are held to account.''
2.Fifth amendment-
We at the Ministry Of Peace are not liable under the fifth amendment, due to 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; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” As both parties are a military force, or at the very least of a legal definition a militia, the fifth amendment is not applicable, and as the matter pursued was in the interested of public safety due to the public danger posed by a corporation using extortion or the imminent fear of violence, the fifth amendment was not applicable in this case.
3.Sixth amendment-
We at the Ministry Of Peace find defence in that the accused faced due process, we also argue that the trial was conducted in an unusual process, but that the process of presenting charges, reviewing evidence and reaching a verdict amounted to due process. We cement our defence to this allegation in the following quote from current United States Attorney General Eric Holder '' Some have argued that the President is required to get permission from a federal court before taking action against a United States citizen who is a senior operational leader of al Qaeda or associated forces. This is simply not accurate. “Due process” and “judicial process” are not one and the same, particularly when it comes to national security. The Constitution guarantees due process, not judicial process.''
4.Seventh amendment-
We at the Ministry Of Peace refuse this claim on the grounds the trail was not pursued at common law, and this amendment is inapplicable due to the defence provided to us under the fifth amendment.
5.Eight amendment-
In addressing the complaint raised by Dominic Stevens, we entirely refute and deny any such accusation made by Mr Stevens. We do not find the penalty applied to be cruel and unusual nor grossly excessive, we strongly refute the accusation that the Ministry Of Peace made any such threat of cruel and unusual punishments, or threatened any person with physical harm. We made our intent to collect such penalty as we imposed via the seizure of property to remedy the harm caused. We find defence against such accusations in the case of Waters-Pierce Oil Co. v. Texas, 212 U.S. 86 (1909), given that the claimant is known to have assets in excess of $1,000,000 value, we consider that the fine imposed against Dominic Stevens to be non excessive, due to the value of his equity.
Due to the nature of Estleback Security, we find the relatively minor amount of $150,000 to be not grossly excessive, as it was levied against a corporation for war crimes. As has been previously discussed we as representatives of the United Nations had authority to bring justice as we saw fit, and due to the purpose of our creation as ratified by all five nations of the United Nations Security Council, we had the legal authority to impose a fine in the manner we did.
At no point did we threaten any affiliates of Estleback Security, nor their stockholders, we find such notion legal inadmissable as Estleback Security is not listed as a publically traded company, and we find the remarks made by Dominic Stevens in this case tantamount to slander, as he has presented no legal evidence as such of any action on our part. We also highlight the hypocrisy of his claim, whereby he has produced such claims against the Ministry Of Peace without providing any evidence to back his claim.
In Waters-Pierce Oil Co. v. Texas, 212U.S.86 (1909), the Supreme Court held that excessive fines are those which are "so grossly excessive as to amount to a deprivation of property without due process of law." The Court wrote in its syllabus:
''The fixing of punishment for crime and penalties for unlawful acts is within the police power of the state, and this Court cannot interfere with state legislation in fixing fines, or judicial action in imposing them, unless so grossly excessive as to amount to deprivation of property without due process of law. Where a state antitrust law fixed penalties at $5,000 a day, and, after verdict of guilty for over 300 days, a defendant corporation was fined over $1,600,000, this Court will not hold that the fine is so excessive as to amount to deprivation of property without due process of law where it appears that the business was extensive and profitable during the period of violation, and that the corporation has over $40,000,000 of assets and has declared dividends amounting to several hundred percent.''
Ergo, we entirely refute the claim under the eight amendment as our actions were proportional and the fines imposed were not grossly excessive, furthermore we highlight that the only fines imposed were for the following amounts, $150,000 and $175,000, against the respective parties of Estleback corporation, and Dominic Stevens for reasons previously referred to and presented to them. We would further highlight that the first amount for $150,000 was recovered in payment of damages to one Kieran Mason, due to actions committed by Estleback Corporation against his person.
Ergo we do not recognise the legitimacy of your complaint, this letter is in answer to your complaint, and is not an admission that you have a legal case at all, furthermore if you continue you to pursue this course we will launch several counter suits against your person for unlimited damages.
The complaints under articles II and III of your letter are inadmissable in the court, and subsequently are unfounded and will not be addressed.
Yours faithfully Zaeed Massani - Secretary-General for Legal Affairs.
.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.
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
1.Legal Authority of the Ministry Of Peace to act in lieu of the United States Law Enforcement Agencies, on United States soil.
In regards to this claim we at the Ministry Of Peace highlight the foundation of our organisation and the reason behind it, ''In the Autumn of 2013, the member states of the United Nations convened a meeting, and voted no confidence in the United Nations, citing the ineffective nature of their actions, sanctions and any peacekeeping force. Citing the conflicts of Sierra Leone, Rwanda, Kenya, Ireland, and other instances of global instability as the prime reasons for the vote of no confidence. Another reason for this vote of no confidence was the increasing growth in paramilitary businesses, owning private armies they were loyal to no one and they had no accountability.
The United Nations were backed into a corner, they had to either accept the demands of the nations, or fall off the cliff to which their backs were off. The United Nations agreed to the proposal, fore they had no alternative but ruin. This was the genesis of the Ministry of Peace, amongst it's members known as Ministerium Pax (Peace Ministry in Latin) or simply 'MiniPax', a global police agency without jurisdiction, a force who could act where the UN couldn't. The Ministry of Peace's primary function, is to protect the rule of law, and hold accountable any who would threaten the right to life of the common man. They fight without borders, they pursue the unjust beyond boundaries, they hold all accountable.
Acting with the approval of the member states of the United Nations, they have jurisdiction over any man whom has committed a crime, as well as any corporation,''
Furthermore we highlight the conduct of the claimant prior to the allegations against us, whereby he refused to recognise the rule of law, ''Due to the fact that Evo-City is a sovereign city state within the United States that has yet to enter into the United nations, as such the United Nations is not authorised to act inside non member states. There for you have no jurisdiction to place a citation of any kind on any persons. If you have any issues with this, your legal team may contact me to arrange a date at the high courts. ''
Furthermore we highlight the notion of the rule of law under which the United Nations operates; ''UN rule of law activities support the development, promotion and implementation of international norms and standards in most fields of international law.
The United Nations works to support a rule of law framework at the national level: a Constitution or its equivalent, as the highest law of the land; clear and consistent legal framework, and implementation thereof; strong institutions of justice, governance, security and human rights that are well structured, financed, trained and equipped; transitional justice processes and mechanisms; and a public and civil society that contributes to strengthening the rule of law and holding public officials and institutions accountable. These are the norms, policies, institutions and processes that form the core of a society in which individuals feel safe and secure, where disputes are settled peacefully and effective redress is available for harm suffered, and where all who violate the law, including the State itself, are held to account.''
2.Fifth amendment-
We at the Ministry Of Peace are not liable under the fifth amendment, due to 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; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” As both parties are a military force, or at the very least of a legal definition a militia, the fifth amendment is not applicable, and as the matter pursued was in the interested of public safety due to the public danger posed by a corporation using extortion or the imminent fear of violence, the fifth amendment was not applicable in this case.
3.Sixth amendment-
We at the Ministry Of Peace find defence in that the accused faced due process, we also argue that the trial was conducted in an unusual process, but that the process of presenting charges, reviewing evidence and reaching a verdict amounted to due process. We cement our defence to this allegation in the following quote from current United States Attorney General Eric Holder '' Some have argued that the President is required to get permission from a federal court before taking action against a United States citizen who is a senior operational leader of al Qaeda or associated forces. This is simply not accurate. “Due process” and “judicial process” are not one and the same, particularly when it comes to national security. The Constitution guarantees due process, not judicial process.''
4.Seventh amendment-
We at the Ministry Of Peace refuse this claim on the grounds the trail was not pursued at common law, and this amendment is inapplicable due to the defence provided to us under the fifth amendment.
5.Eight amendment-
In addressing the complaint raised by Dominic Stevens, we entirely refute and deny any such accusation made by Mr Stevens. We do not find the penalty applied to be cruel and unusual nor grossly excessive, we strongly refute the accusation that the Ministry Of Peace made any such threat of cruel and unusual punishments, or threatened any person with physical harm. We made our intent to collect such penalty as we imposed via the seizure of property to remedy the harm caused. We find defence against such accusations in the case of Waters-Pierce Oil Co. v. Texas, 212 U.S. 86 (1909), given that the claimant is known to have assets in excess of $1,000,000 value, we consider that the fine imposed against Dominic Stevens to be non excessive, due to the value of his equity.
Due to the nature of Estleback Security, we find the relatively minor amount of $150,000 to be not grossly excessive, as it was levied against a corporation for war crimes. As has been previously discussed we as representatives of the United Nations had authority to bring justice as we saw fit, and due to the purpose of our creation as ratified by all five nations of the United Nations Security Council, we had the legal authority to impose a fine in the manner we did.
At no point did we threaten any affiliates of Estleback Security, nor their stockholders, we find such notion legal inadmissable as Estleback Security is not listed as a publically traded company, and we find the remarks made by Dominic Stevens in this case tantamount to slander, as he has presented no legal evidence as such of any action on our part. We also highlight the hypocrisy of his claim, whereby he has produced such claims against the Ministry Of Peace without providing any evidence to back his claim.
In Waters-Pierce Oil Co. v. Texas, 212U.S.86 (1909), the Supreme Court held that excessive fines are those which are "so grossly excessive as to amount to a deprivation of property without due process of law." The Court wrote in its syllabus:
''The fixing of punishment for crime and penalties for unlawful acts is within the police power of the state, and this Court cannot interfere with state legislation in fixing fines, or judicial action in imposing them, unless so grossly excessive as to amount to deprivation of property without due process of law. Where a state antitrust law fixed penalties at $5,000 a day, and, after verdict of guilty for over 300 days, a defendant corporation was fined over $1,600,000, this Court will not hold that the fine is so excessive as to amount to deprivation of property without due process of law where it appears that the business was extensive and profitable during the period of violation, and that the corporation has over $40,000,000 of assets and has declared dividends amounting to several hundred percent.''
Ergo, we entirely refute the claim under the eight amendment as our actions were proportional and the fines imposed were not grossly excessive, furthermore we highlight that the only fines imposed were for the following amounts, $150,000 and $175,000, against the respective parties of Estleback corporation, and Dominic Stevens for reasons previously referred to and presented to them. We would further highlight that the first amount for $150,000 was recovered in payment of damages to one Kieran Mason, due to actions committed by Estleback Corporation against his person.
Ergo we do not recognise the legitimacy of your complaint, this letter is in answer to your complaint, and is not an admission that you have a legal case at all, furthermore if you continue you to pursue this course we will launch several counter suits against your person for unlimited damages.
The complaints under articles II and III of your letter are inadmissable in the court, and subsequently are unfounded and will not be addressed.
Yours faithfully Zaeed Massani - Secretary-General for Legal Affairs.
.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.