Character
Rules
Events
Map
RP Points
Proplimits
Statistics
Steam Group
Members
Hall of Fame
Team
Bans
Blacklists
Warnings
Changelog
Content
10-23-2013, 05:20 AM
(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
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.
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.