If you are not willing to submit yourselves to our laws, why has commercial shipping under the flag of the Colonial Republic been recorded within Liberty in the past? Surely, with no respect for our laws, you would not enter an area where our laws are in force. I would appreciate you clarify your statement here to better my understanding of what you mean.
Legal means to bring you to court have been issued. If they go unheeded, we have no other means to bring you to court except to proceed without a defense. I would argue that if representatives of the Colonial Republic decide not to attend court, it only shows guilt, and perhaps immaturity on your behalf, rather than a lack of impartiality on ours.
As to the matter of what we can force or not, I am afraid you misinterpreted diplomatic wording for something more concrete. If a trial comes to pass, and the Colonial Republic does not accept the verdict and whatever the courts order, the state will be forced to act in a manner to protect the power of the courts, most likely by the courts directing us to do so. To a certain extent, what happens should the Colonial Republic not attend court is out of my hands and in the hands of the Magistrates, as it should be.
My suggestion on this matter would be to attend court, and move for a mistrial if you believe there to be foul play. Rest assured, the state will act with firm resolve if there is any evidence of corruption within the judicial system.
Once again Secretary, the semantics got the better of you it seems. There is huge difference between submitting to a Court for a trial, and silently accepting and adhering to all laws present at a given time on a nation sovereign space, which is usually done upon entering such space. If our traders in past entered your systems, they were obeying all your laws, of that I am certain. However you cannot compare a tradeship to a nation. Nation itself shall not submit to your laws, as our sovereign nature forbids us to do so.
Whilst you may have issued your means, legal or others, to bring us to your court, so far all our requests and questions have been denied or swept from the table.
Incident, which is cause of this trial, happened far from your House, therefore a question arises. As you will probably agree, this dispute is more of a private one, between two equally positioned parties, being the IND and Colonial Republic.
Choice of law for such dispute can be however different. You are suggesting application either of lex fori, or lex incorporationis, with only real reason behind this being the action itself being put up by IND representatives at your offices, and secondly by the fact, that Court in question resides in Liberty. With a note to my previous statement I am curious, whether is it not better, for this dispute, to be ruled by law of place where incident happened, should it be either lex loci damni infecti, or lex loci conclusionis contractus.
Colonial Republic is of an opinion, that either of the latter two should be used, or temporary arbitrary court is elected for this case.
If you continue to elude our questions on your jurisdiction, keep us from access to your Statutes, it is much unlikely we will be willing to appear for what you call a trial.
Douglas Riche
IND Attourney and Representative
***********
The slanderous attack in question took place on Neural Net... Neural Net is a registered Libertonian corporation, again making this squarely Libertonain jurisdiction.
I am afraid the Colonial Remnant is relying upon stalling tactics because they know that they are guilty.
I am also filing a motion of Discovery, and want the Colonial Remnant's Communications records with Bretonia at the time of the slander to be opened for us to see the full extent of the damage the Colonial Remnant has done.
And I thought this is about us not letting you into our system. Interesting change of events. While you attempt to pull this to Liberty, your argument is fairly invalid, as place of the attack, or so to say slander, as you claim it, is much different to a place, where your company is registered. Stop confusing these two please, so we can move on.
Also interesting to see you issuing more demands. We demand a proof that you have at least once fulfilled the said contract under our rules and laws, as you are obliged to know them.
So then if we can assume fairness, you will not get anything prior to trial as well? I much doubt it. Plus as stated per above, our appearance is still in question, for we believe other law should be used to rule the trial.
Also, why the reluctant approach to independent court, that can decide on law principles and justice?
Douglas Riche
IND Attourney and Representative
***********
If you do not attend, that is your business. So much the better for my clients, as you will forfeit your defense and have a ruling against you.
It saves my clients time and effort and money in the long run if you don't show up to court.
You can cry foul all you wish, simply stating you are above the law doesn't, in fact, make you above it. One way or another I am satisfied that justice will be served against you. Either you appear, we go to trial and I prove my case. Or you do not appear, and verdict is passed against you. The end result will be the same.
Already sure about the verdict. Says much about impartiality as expected, to be honest. Also, if you only could read dear Sir, you would understand the point I have been making. Since you do not see, I refuse to waste my time with you and your ill attempts to prove your case.
And you did not answer my question. I do know why.
Oh and the ruling. As much as Liberty is concerned, that is where the ruling will help you. Outside, it will not. If you continue to be blind and arrogant to what I have been saying, there can be no trial, nor any reasonable discussion.
I suggest for your employers to hire a lawyer, not a passionate speaker, who cannot read between the lines, when it comes to relevant law stuff.
Douglas Riche
IND Attourney and Representative
***********
I am extremely well versed in the law, and I assure you personal insults and vain attempts to circumvent the law only compound your guilt.
Your Clients are, with out a shadow of a doubt, guilty, and your only recourse has been to attempt to cast doubt on the Libertonian Legal System through utter and sheer contempt.
I am not here to make your case for you, nor to do the job of referencing the law in question. That is your legal teams job. I suggest a library, or neural net itself, a wonderful tool in referencing material.
Thank you for your time,
Doug Riche
Is better than you,
Richer than you,
Prettier than you,
Has sampled pleasures the likes of which you cannot even dream.
Douglas Riche
IND Attourney and Representative
**********
I am extremely well versed in the law, and I assure you personal insults and vain attempts to circumvent the law only compound your guilt.
***END COM***
**************
So all you can do now is going to personal insults? That pretty much shows the entire nature of the so called case you are attempting to present, Richie.
Whilst again I have to point that you cannot read between the lines, because our actions do not doubt Liberty legal system, more of a stating that sovereign nation of Colonial Republic shall not be submitted to law pre-picked without our presence or any discussion with us. As much as we are interested in fair trial, you only seek a court that will suit your needs in order to win, as you are reluctant to provide any evidence, because you have none.
Waving non-existant laws, attempting to ignore my questions and references only prove, that no matter how much you think you are versed in law, your knowledge probably end in terms of lex mercantilia, as you clearly do not have understanding of inter-national law, where your company should have years of experience, given the fact it does trade on such level.
I am however not here to lecture you and your ill attempted case.
If Liberty courts are openly willing for one side to abuse and defame other, without any action being taken, we do not see much reason to enter the trial, for obviously, advantage and verdict are more or less clear already, since IND representative is way too sure about his case.
Yet again, we repeat our argument and demand for unbiased court to be formed and dispute be settled on neutral grounds, rather then IND homeland, which they have chosen clearly for the advantage they possess there.
Whenever you are ready to face a real legal trial, not some puppet style one, with properly defined court jurisdiction, procedural and substantial laws, then we are ready to stand up for our case. Options provided by you are nothing but one sided version of what you deem justice. We do not adhere to that.
And for a note - unless you can provide evidence that you entered our system under our laws and properly escorted, the deal never started to really exist, considering it void, thus your later entry to our system and pointing to deal already gone. While you entered in bona fidei, on our side since the deal never came to existence.
IF you wish to argue about this, face us on equal grounds. As for the rest, keep spreading your lies.
Should Court of Liberty restrain IND representative from saying such slanderous sentences, we will reconsider our attendance to the trial.
And to quoted part - I seriously doubt that. Really. I do.
Have a good day.