Estleback v. Ministry of Peace
#1
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
ONGOING CASE
_____________________________________________________________________

The Commonwealth of Evocity is hereby protected under the constitution and federal jurisdiction of the United States of America, as a territory which falls under federal law applied by the United States Supreme Court.

The citizens of the Commonwealth, are not only U.S. Citizens as defined by Jones-Shafroth Act of March 2nd, 1917, but also dependants of the Constitution of the United States of America, by birth-right, as defined by the 14th Amendment, and the U.S. Supreme Court, United States v. Wong Kim Ark.

It’s within these jurisdictions that we find the Ministry of Peace within no legal right to demand financial compensation without first going through the United States Supreme Court, as well as the United States Congress, and finally the current political regime on the Commonwealth of Evocity.

These requirements are to be fulfilled within respect of the Constitution of the United States of America, and more noticeably to respectfully acknowledge the defined rights set by the United States Bill of Rights.

As of the current situation, four amendments in the Constitution of the United States of America, have not been followed, and we shall hereby list them in respect of the requirements required by our legal system.





I.
The current amendments of the United States Constitution which have been broken are as followed, the Fifth Amendment, the Sixth Amendment, the Seventh Amendment, and the Eighth Amendment.


Fifth Amendment

“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, 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.”

We hereby declare that the Ministry of Peace has failed to uphold the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution, by failure to appeal to a Grand Jury in the Supreme Court of the Commonwealth of Evocity, as well as forcefully make several members of the Estleback Corporation give up stock, and property by impeding on them to be witnesses against themselves.

Presently, the Ministry of Peace has bullied the Estleback Corporation into paying $150,000, and is attempting to force other employees of the corporation into paying fines with reasons that have yet to be proven. These fines are presently set between $50,000 for some members, and at a maximum of $175,000* for one of Estleback’s Agents, Dominic “Instinct” Stevens.

No evidence, or jury, has been provided in the regards to why these members are required to pay fines. There by making the actions taken by the Ministry of Peace as unconstitutional and varying into criminal extortion.

* It has also been noted by several stockholders and employees of the Estleback Corporation, that several contracts and activities inside the corporation have been postponed until further notice, do to fear of the Ministry of Peace attacking employees and clients of the Estleback Corporation.
Sixth Amendment

“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.”

We hereby declare that the Ministry of Peace has failed to provide a jury, public trial, and has yet to provide any form of evidence for a case to be initiated in the Supreme Court of the Commonwealth of Evocity. Therefore their actions are deemed unconstitutional within regards of the Sixth Amendment.

As defined by Freedom of Information Act, the Ministry of Peace is not required to release trade secrets, information in the regards to personal corporate rules and regulations, or things that would otherwise be detrimental to their own organization[as also acknowledged in the 5th Amendment’s clause against “witness against oneself”]

However this does not imply that the Ministry of Peace is free from obligations to release evidence in the regards of their reasons for giving financial demands to the Estleback Corporation, as well as it’s employees.

Any evidence provided must meet the following criteria for it to be deemed valid within the Supreme Court of the Commonwealth of Evocity.

* The evidence must be publically available. ADMIN LOGS are not considered public, therefore are deemed non-applicable.

* Screenshots must also be taken by members of the Ministry of Peace, and must be seeable within a user’s profile on Steam. Images from IMGUR are considered to carry the possibility of forgery, and therefore are non-applicable.

* Video must remain as SOURCE DEMOS, and be provided so that all members of the jury may see the entire case as it occurred.
* Evidence must of been collected during the events via /me and had photos taken of said event to make it a form of APPLICABLE EVIDENCE.

With these procedures followed, the court will require at the very least, seven jurors with no relations to either group, and require the current Regime of Evocity to review the case.

Witnesses will be allowed for each side of the case, but direct relations to the case and events must be defined as they take the stand to make their statements.































Seventh Amendment

“In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.”

We hereby declare that the Ministry of Peace, has failed to give a public trial after their fines on multiple corporations[inc. Estleback Corporation] and those corporations employees, had exceeded $20, and thereby they had failed to give the right of trial to the citizens of the United States of America. In doing so, they have attempted to override the Seventh Amendment, of the Constitution of the United States of America.

As mentioned in the previous two pages, the failure of the Ministry of Peace to organize a trial, and provide evidence for their convictions has been seen as to show disregard for the Constitution of the United States of America, and thereby molesting the sovereignty of a free nation, and her commonwealths.






















Eighth Amendment

“Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”

We hereby declare that the Ministry of Peace has imposed harsh fines ranging from $50,000 to $200,000 upon Estleback Corporation and their employees in the Commonwealth of Evocity. They have also enforced these fines without jurisdiction of current regimes in the Commonwealth, and have threatened to inflict cruel and unusual punishments on the Estleback Corporation, employees of Estleback, and those who affiliate or purchase goods and stocks from the Estleback Corporation.

These cruel and unusual punishments have been the effect of emotional distress found within the leadership of Estleback, as well as it’s agents who are fearful of retaliation against their clients, who may or may not be American.

Not only did the activities of giving out the fines to the Estleback Corporation for $150,000, and Dominic Stevens for $175,000, require a proper trial, they also required the right to an unbias jury without the cruel loansharking on their thread, of which they were not given.


_____________________________________________________________________

This concludes the unconstitutional actions committed by the Ministry of Peace against the Estleback Corporation, the employees of Estleback, customers of Estleback, and those who affiliate with them.


Section II of Estleback Corporation v. Ministry of Peace, will entail the issue with the Ministry of Peace’s case against the Estleback Corporation, and how the usage of Hobbs Act of 1947, isn’t applicable







II.

The snippet used in the Estleback thread was in the regards to attacks against organized labor, yet no proof was provided in the Estleback thread[or otherwise been seen by members of the group] to state that any form of attack or true threat to attack was ever conducted.

As mentioned within the post by Kprey they noted that the Estleback agent made nothing more than a sarcastic remark about, “taking the building” with a good burst of laughter. The incident was as far as the case could provide, never recorded, no photos taken, or otherwise. Even with some visual evidence, no one is sure if their was any actual threat made, and as defined by the Hobbs Act, no act of violence or intent to commit act of violence was conducted.

Another situation is how the activity is related to the Estleback Corporation.
As defined within the Clan RP Basics post on Fearless, in order for clan activities to be declared, the players must set their job with /job to whatever their clans name is, their rank, and occupation.

“When RP'ing a fighting member of the clan, the person must set their clan name (or special unit) as his custom job (/job)”

Unless Hyde, and the other members of the Estleback Corporation had put on tags to symbolize their clan affiliations, they were not doing clan roleplay, as defined by the present Clan RP rules.

Even in the recollection of their stories and statements gathered by Professional_Instinct, nothing would implicate these men for any form of crime considering all they did was make a rude statement as they were leaving the building. Not even directed at KPrey.

As the Commonwealth of Evocity is defined as territory of the United States of America, it does fall under federal law, and therefore the Constitution of the United States of America hereby applies to in the Commonwealth.
As such, the employees of the Estleback Corporation are guarded by the Right to Free Speech on the Federal and Local level*
* This does not also include International Law, in which they are guarded by the United Nation’s definitions of Human Rights.


The Hobbs Act of 1947 is also defined that extortion and actions to commit extortion must have actual injury or loss of economic well being. Simply to joke or indicate a threat is not enough to charge a the Estleback Corporation or it’s employees, for it’s supposed extortion of a non-official enterprise.

In United States v. Lopez in 1995, the powers of the United States Congress and Federal courts had been limited in the regards to the US Commerce Clause. It was seen that the sale and possession of firearms does not affect any form of economic proceedings in interstate commerce, therefore the Hobbs Act of 1947, does not apply in cases which do not cause great strides of economic damage, and cases in the regards to the Hobbs Act of 1947, must provide actual proof that some form of economic damage was found.

As we can see with this case, if the Estleback Corporation was not directly responsible for economical loss for an established enterprise, the case which was brought against them was not valid.

As defined by the rules in Clan RP Basics, unless KPrey was an employee or member of clan, or related to an official clan by the sale of their trademarked or patented products, the Estleback Corporation, may not be charged under the Commerce Clause or the Hobbs Act of 1947.

The case made by the Ministry of Peace, in the regards of the Estleback Corporation, has failed to provide any evidence that can prove that the Estleback Corporation, has caused any financial loss to KPrey.

The Ministry of Peace, has also failed to prove outside of the admin logs that only they have access to, that employees of the Estleback Corporation had bugged their vehicles.

And finally, the Ministry of Peace never collected any form of evidence in the regards of actual roleplay, via /me’s or otherwise. It’s within these reasons that any evidence which can be seen by employees of the Estleback Corporation and the jurors of the Supreme Court of the Commonwealth of Evocity, has yet to be provided.
_____________________________________________________________________

With these reasons, we conclude Section II, and move to Section III, where we will discuss if the Ministry of Peace, is allowed to do what they have done within the rules of roleplay, and the guidelines and restrictions set by Fearless RP.


III.

In the current document we have made numerous references to the Clan RP Basics thread, and how the usage of the Hobbs Act of 1947, would not apply to Kprey without himself being apart of a Clan and selling under a clan job-tag, and would also not apply if he was not selling patented or trademarked products from clans, corporations, and organizations.

We find that the Ministry of Peace, has failed to keep itself within the realm of Fearless RP’s rules and guidelines in the regards of roleplay. In doing so, their two cases against the Estleback Corporation did not hold legal rights, and therefore the fines were unjust, and illegal.

In the Section III, we’ll be relating to numerous threads on Fearless, and discussion numerous fall-shorts of the Ministry of Peace’s investigation, and how they have failed to abide by the numerous rules and guidelines set on the Fearless forums.

In order to start off this review, we’d like to start our case by acknowledging the fines which had been pushed onto the Estleback Corporation, and it’s employee, Dominic “Instinct” Stevens.

These fines which in order were: $150,000 taken from the Estleback Corporation and $175,000 taken from Dominic “Instinct” Stevens, are not only extremely over-the-top for the convictions of both parties, but are also not adhering to the rules of Fearless Roleplay.

In the past, most admins and mods adhered that the maximum anyone person can demand for hostages, robbery, court rp, and otherwise, may only reach $2,000. This is guarded within the Fearless Rulelist, at Hostage Rule #4 with the direct quote stating:

“4. The maximum you can ask for the release of a hostage is $2000.”

This would imply that the Ministry of Peace, is not within the realm of Fearless RP’s rules when giving fines of $2,001, and without doubt not allowed to fine players or groups $150,000 or $175,000, as was the case with the Estleback Corporation and Dominic “Instinct” Stevens.

It should also be noted that in the thread titled Rules Q&A 2.0, the leaders of the Ministry of Peace also were in agreement that you may not demand over $2,000 in any situation. As the quote states within the thread:

“Is there a limit to how much you can set the jailbail to? (ie. 3k for being unarrested)
Because as far as I know, the only limit is for hostages (2k)”
Answer : ”From what I've been told, The max for bail is 2,000 (2k).”
[image of this quote]

This isn’t the only quote within the very same thread which acknowledges these types of situations. The next quote we will mention:

”If one can demand they drop an item below $2000 from their inventory if a valid enough reason is found, can one also demand one sell the doors to their house valued at $250 each.”
Answer : ”Demanding to sell the doors is acceptable, if RP'd properly - meaning huge organized hostile takeovers, this is way out of league for a lonesome small-time criminal.”
[image of this quote]

These two quotes prove that the Ministry of Peace, is not allowed to request more than $2,000 for each incident involving the Estleback Corporation, and furthermore they cannot demand fines upward of $150,000.

The fact they made these requests[and recieved one] is very much against the rules. The Estleback Corporation, should be reimbursed either the full fine of $150,000 or be given $148,000 so that $2,000 is kept for the original fine. Dominic “Instinct” Stevens, should be reimbursed the full fine of $175,000 or $173,000 so that the fines requested by the Ministry of Peace, remain within the legal limits of the rules.

The Ministry of Peace, has also been noted previously in this legal document for using non-public records to push a legal case within roleplay. As noted by other cases in FL's History, the release of documents, logs, and information that are usually only available to admins and moderators is considered an act of leaking, no matter how small the leak, which can see users demoted or banned, depending on the severity of the information released.



The Estleback Corporation and Dominic “Instinct” Stevens, do not have access to admin logs, and thereby the Ministry of Peace, using logs and documents only available to the members of their clan involved in the admin team, is unfair and is considered to be metagame.

Metagame as defined by the Fearless RP rules, as:
“1. Do not Metagame, that means don't talk in OOC ( Out Of Character) while in IC (In Character)”

As the information used by the Ministry of Peace has not been proven to be, photographic, videographic, or information gathered through /me, it’s within the belief of Estleback’s legal guidance that the Ministry of Peace is guilty for the usage of non-public documents in order to fine Estleback and it’s employee Dominic Stevens for a combined amount of $325,000.

As Estleback cannot fight or argue against phantom documents, or against things they have no access to, it can be considerably seen that the Ministry of Peace, is also responsible for possibly powergaming.

Powergaming as defined in Rules Q&A 2.0:
”What is powergaming, and when am I powergaming?”
Answer : Power gaming tends to take on two forms.

”First is the obvious one; switching to jobs and utilising the market for your own gain and then switching back. You should always aim to find a merchant or advertise your interest in purchasing items; not get them yourselves. This is a pretty black and white offence and is likely to result in a warning or ban depending on the circumstances.

The second form is when you attempt to force roleplay scenarios on another individual, notably using /me or /it. An example would be when raiding the President and you're in the final stretch, you cannot simply type /it The ceiling falls in and all the opposition drop dead. Another one would be trying to powergame your way into the Nexus by simply saying /me shows a valid ID. Of course, none of this ever applies if all parties are involved in a consensual roleplay and are fine with it; but it is powergaming when you are forcing others to abide by what you happened to type first. This will generally be a warning because of the heavy part context plays in it; but extensive power gaming with experience could lead to a ban.”
[image of this quote]





As the second representation of powergaming is forcing other users into doing what you wish for them to do, the Ministry of Peace can be seen as knowingly or unknowingly forcing the Estleback Corporation and it’s employees into paying fines of which they cannot fight in a legal scenario, and thereby creating a scene involving powergaming.

The Estleback Corporation as a whole, and it’s individual employees faced fines for “criminal activities” under the Hobbs Act of 1947. As provided in Section II, we can provide that thanks to the U.S. Supreme Court case, United States v. Lopez, and through the understanding of what’s an actual legal entity or established brand in Fearless’s Clan RP rules, that the Estleback Corporation’s “threats” were infact not applicable against them unless the user had established a brand name, sold patented/trademarked items, or was involved directly with another corporate entity. The Ministry of Peace, would also have to prove that the man by the name of Kprey had indeed lost money with the presence of the Estleback Corporation.

The Ministry of Peace, has thus far not provided any form of actual evidence in the regards to Kprey losing money in part to the Estleback employee’s comments, and thereby their entire legal basis for demanding Estleback give a fixed-fine of $150,000 was unwarranted, and was not required.

The Ministry of Peace, also never made a statement or press-release into the regards of the “bug” or “chip” that was supposedly put on their cars. Never had they even so much implied that they did any /me roleplay in order to remove and investigate the chips. No videographic or photographic evidence has been submitted, and therefore our only conclusion is that the Ministry of Peace is using the admin logs which are not available to all players to see, in order to garner evidence for their own purposes.

This would provide that the Estleback employee, Dominic “Instinct” Stevens, has infact been powergamed by the Ministry of Peace, through his supposed activities being monitored by the Ministry of Peace, within the admin logs.

We can conclude finally, that the Ministry of Peace has possibly broken several rules listed in the Fearless RP rulelist, the Clan RP Basics, and is also impeding on their duties as admins by releasing classified information to benefit their cause and activities.
With this we conclude Section III and move forward to Section IV.
Section IV will deal with the request for reimbursement to the Estleback Corporation and Estleback employee, Dominic “Instinct” Stevens, and will also deal with a request for payment for damages dealt during a period of loss confidence.






































IV.

The Estleback Corporation would like to conclude through its legal advisors, its legal department, and the people of the Commonwealth of Evocity, on what it would like to see accomplished with this case.

As we understand the Ministry of Peace is working with the United States government, and the Estleback Corporation would like to remind the Ministry of Peace to always obey the Constitution of the United States of America, as well as obey the current government regime at work in the Commonwealth of Evocity.

We’d like to see the Ministry of Peace uphold it’s pledges as a United Nation’s organization by guarding and legally abiding the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

As our current predicament has shown, you have failed to give the employees of the Estleback Corporation the right to a fair trial, and attempted to prove them guilty until proven innocent.

Not only this, you never attempted to give us a fair trial in which our employees are given at birth, by being American citizens. You attempted to override the Constitution of the United States of America, and fail to understand that you may not do this as decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in Reid v. Covert.

We never truly had any obligations to pay you under these facts, but we did so because we were afraid that we would see the same fate faced by the Blackwatch Corporation. Those of which are now being deemed war criminals, all though they attempted to resolve issues between you peacefully as they are required by the Fearless Clan RP rules.

The current actions of the Ministry of Peace, have shown that you have a lack of respect for the clan world’s rules, lack of respect for the rules in Fearless, and do not care about using things not available to the public if it benefits you.

This worries us.
We only wish for the best of the Fearless RP Clan World, and for the moment, the actions of the Ministry of Peace has only harmed the image of our world.

As for our legal requests with Estleback Corporations v. Ministry of Peace, we would like to see the following occur.

* Full reimbursement of $150,000 to the Estleback Corporation
* Full reimbursement of $175,000 to Dominic “Instinct” Stevens
* $2,000 for each employee of the Estleback Corporation
* A formal apology for using our clan page as a base to start a legal case against us.
* A passive roleplay event paid by the Ministry of Peace in order to show to the clan world, that you do not wish to harm the clan world.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LDDI...sp=sharing
Kind Regards,
Doctor

'There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.'

The following 11 users Like D0ctor's post:
  â€¢ RockHunter, TheDoctorâ„¢, ArcHammer, BlackDog, Moisty, Wood, Link, Glade, Kulthro, Tandy, NotSep
#2
TL;DR Wat?
#3
WOW-WA-WEE-WOW!
Sorry, but, What.

Sincerely,
ArcHammer
[Image: LkB62ld.png]

+Rep
#4
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.
The following 7 users Like Eisenhorn's post:
  â€¢ Killjoy, yarrrs, Flame, equal, Faustie, Freezak, Narc
#5
[Image: burnt-toast-2.jpg]
#6
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.
#7
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
Kind Regards,
Doctor

'There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.'

The following 12 users Like D0ctor's post:
  â€¢ Generation, Link, Moisty, BlackDog, Hyde, RockHunter, Kulthro, Floodify, Wood, Toxic, NotSep, Sub-Zero
#8
Well said.
Through time ...
[Image: JmCzDqB.png]
#9
Will you please make up your mind if you want to pursue an OOC or an IC case?
[Image: KJSIG.png]
#10
You guys have waay too much time on your hands.
Go to sleep.
[Image: Astro%20Signature.png]
Made by DigDug
I have 5 RP point(s)
The following 5 users Like Astroo's post:
  â€¢ ArcHammer, Kulthro, Small Bear, GeorgeTheBoy, Termin


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)