Douglas Riche
IND Attourney and Representative
***********
Be prepared for me to file a separate slander motion against you personally for additional charges and see you disbarred. You CR... you don't seem to learn do you?
Doug Riche
Is better than you,
Richer than you,
Prettier than you,
Has sampled pleasures the likes of which you cannot even dream.
Before I begin the legal proceedings concerning the case, I will give an answer to the Colonial Republic's statements.
First, this is not a legal trial.. This is a civil trial where the plaintiff, Otis Jethro, Jonathon Winchester III, and the Independent Neuralnet Division, are making a case to prove wrongdoing on your part that resulted in economic harm, which includes damage to reputation, profit opportunity, and ability to conduct business. The plaintiff is pressing charges based on Defamation laws, which are a part of a person's civil rights. Defamation includes spoken (slander), and written (libel) statements that harm a person's reputation, ability to find work, gain profit, or any other damage, that the speaker/writer knows to be false, or writes it in disregard or ignorance of the statement being false. The plaintiff is charging that you, the Colonial Republic, made false statements about the company, IND, which resulted in damages, past and future, to their reputation and economic abilities.
Lacking a physical location for the accused actions, lex doci can't be used, as there is no 'law of the place' to use. As such, this case is being based in the courts of which the plaintiff is a citizen or registered company. As you say, your actions did not happen within our borders. In fact, they didn't happen in any physical location, but on a virtual communication system. As such, the plaintiff can petition a government of his choice in which to base his civil lawsuit against the defendant. Being a Liberty citizen, and IND being a Liberty corporation, it is no surprise that Mr. Jethro chose his own government, in which his lawyers and himself, are most familiar with the laws. That you actions did not occur inside Liberty, would only make our jurisdiction in question if it occurred inside the borders of another nation. As I said before, it was a virtual communication system, and thus, jurisdiction is in whatever country the plaintiff files his lawsuit. Furthermore, the original agreement between the IND and Colonial Republic is legal involvement by both parties, and any breakage of that contract, or lawsuit in which it is involved, gives Liberty jurisdiction. Furthermore, the sale and use of Colonial Republic 'Nyx'-class fighters to Liberty citizens makes you an arms dealer in our nation, thus you can legally be served a lawsuit in in our courts.
This direct agreement with our government further solidifies the legal jurisdiction we have to hold cases against you in our courts.
While the government could make the decision to attempt to make you follow its rulings through military actions, as has happened by governments throughout history, such action is unlikely. So you are right in that we cannot, or rather, will not, 'force' our ruling upon you. Liberty can place economic and political sanctions against the Colonial Republic if it finds you guilty of the charges, and you refuse to abide by the settlement it sets. This is not a threat, simply an answer to the issue you raised over Liberty's legal capabilities and possible actions to this case.
The defendant or plaintiff can petition for the abdication of a judge in favor of getting a new judge, who is chosen by the state, not by either side of the case. Due to the issues the defendant raised, the former judge stood down from the case, and I was randomly selected to step in.
Your accusations of the Liberty Judicial system have no merit, no precedence, and no evidence. The IND is a corporate organisation, and their status as a registered corporation of Liberty only affords them the rights as defined by laws, many of which have been a part of this nation since its founding, based on the old United States constitution. These accusations are further unwarranted considering Liberty has had trade deals with both the IND and the Colonial Republic for a long time. This case will be decided purely on the evidence supplied by both sides.
Your demands that the IND present evidence of their claims is fully within your rights to do, however, it is premature. In this stage of the proceedings we are simply establishing the basis for the case. The charges, and the defendant's stance on them, be it affirmation (guilt) or denial (innocence). After the case has begun the plaintiff will present his evidence against you, for you to then refute. At this moment in time, the Colonial Republic is innocent, and it is the responsibility of the IND to provide sufficient evidence for you to be found guilty.
If you wish to file a formal Compel to Discovery motion, please do so and, if approved, the plaintiff will be required to send all information and evidence relevant to this case to the legal counsel of the defendant. However, the defendant must also give all information and evidence relevant to this case to the legal counsel of the plaintiff. If either counsel intentional withholds information or evidence after a Compel to Discovery motion is approved, they will be held in contempt of court.
As to the earlier issue over the Colonial Republic's sovereignty status. It is true that at the present the Colonial Republic is not recognized by Liberty as a sovereign body. The reason isn't of choice, dislike, disrespect, or any other biased status. It's simply because there exist no treaties between the Colonial Republic and Liberty that recognize your sovereign status. If you wish for the Colonial Republic to be a recognized sovereign body, please file a treaty proposal with our government. The government might hold the proposal in stasis for the duration of this case, or stipulate that any formalized treaty agreement does not come into affect until after this case. This will be a legislative or executive decision over which the legal branch will have no say, as doing so violates no constitutional laws, so I cannot say for certain their actions.
I will now move on to the legal proceedings of this case.
The defendant of this case, the Colonial Republic, is being charged by the plaintiff, the Independent Neuralnet Division, for intentional damage to the reputation of the aforementioned company through act of defamation in an attempt to prevent the company from continuing its business practices, as well as intended and successful economic losses for the company, its Vice President, Otis Jethro, and its acting President, Jonathon Winchester III. The plaintiff, Otis Jethro and the IND, also charge the Colonial Republic for taking intentional actions resulting in fines from the Bretonian Government being levied against the IND, causing damage to the plaintiff's reputation and ability to make profit. Other similar and related charges can be found in the plaintiff's Action Statement documentation.
We have no official statement concerning the Colonial Republic's stance on these charges. I need an official statement of affirmation or denial of the actions outlined in the plaintiff's charges. If the defendant decides not to issue an official statement, a case will be taken without representation for the defendant.
The plaintiff is seeking the following reparations;
* General damages for interference with economic relations, conspiracy, libel, slander, trespass, disparagement, nuisance, and breach of privacy in the amount of $1,000,000,000
* Punitive or exemplary damages based upon the extreme ill will and malice exhibited towards the Plaintiffs in the amount of $2,000,000,000.
* Permanent injunction enjoining the Defendants and each of them from making any oral or written derogatory statements referring to Otis Jethro, Jonathon Winchester III or the IND.
* Restraining Order against the Colonial Remnant from entering Libertonian Space.
* Costs on an Attorney and own client basis.
The plaintiff, the Independent Neuralnet Division, has filed a Compel to Discovery motion. I am approving this motion, and both defendant and plaintiff are to send all information and evidence relevant to this case that they are in possession of, to my office. After both plaintiff and defendant have done so, the submitted evidence will be sent to the other team's legal counsel. Either team intentionally withholding evidence will be held in contempt of court until that information is submitted.
Both defendant and plaintiff will talk to the court from now on, and not directly to each other's legal counsel. This case will follow protocol as if being held in a physical court room.
<div align="right]Right Honourable Mr. Raines, 4th circuit judge Presiding
Honourable Mr. Raines,
I welcome your appointment with much pleasure, as finally it seems a man versed in law enough has stepped into this case.
Yet again, I do dare to point out several things I consider either wrong, or in question concerning your rather large statement.
First is to question the law of the place where incident happened. While IND claims that it all happened over the Neuralnet, we do strongly believe that Bretonia is the place where it all began, and where originally IND could claim we attempted to damage their reputation and earnings, as per this communication message. With regards to that, Bretonian law, as lex loci damni infecti or lex loci conclusionis contractus should be used, instead of Liberty laws, being the lex fori and lex incorporationis in this case.
Next, considering us arms dealers for your country is something we do strongly disagree with and demand that such label be removed from Colonial Republic. And again, even if we could be considered as arms dealers in Liberty, legal action against the entire Republic are unthinkable, as Armaments ministry is responsible for handling out requests of weaponry. Nor to mention, those ships are sold only in our home system, Tau-44. We are merely wondering how many citizens of Liberty travel all the way up there to acquire one, whilst your military production facilities surely offer equally powerful combat craft.
On point number three I yet again do raise the fact that we are sovereign nation and demand treatment as such. As you have stated on few occasions, there is at least some recognition towards us, be it trade relations or supposed arms dealing. Still, a sovereign nation cannot be put into trial by another sovereign nation, may them be merely those providing the court and manpower to solve the dispute. Subduing our nation to your laws is unthinkable, as we are guided and ruled only by our own law system, which differs from yours greatly, and very nature of international relationships forbid one state to hold upper hand over any other, as you surely know. With regards to that, if IND wishes to pursue the stated claim, we are willing to submit to independent court, where Liberty house on behalf of IND would put us to trial, as there we would be equals on same ground. Such conditions are far more acceptable for our side, with no disrespect towards Liberty Court system.
Other option is to fully recognize Colonial Republic as sovereign nation with all its rights and duties as per international law, where we then might be willing to take responsibility for our action.
Unless these problems are solved, we will not be presenting any evidence towards the case, as we intend to first ensure stable and fair ground for both sides, with regards to international laws.
If you still intend to put us to trial despite the fact that principles of international law forbids you from doing that, our conversation is more or less done. I do hope you keep the fair trial, democracy, liberty and rights of parties higher, then simple cause.
The charges being filed in the IND's lawsuit against you are against statements released by you over the neuralnet to multiple parties, only one of which is Bretonia. As none of the action being called into question was done within the borders of Bretonia, or within their legal jurisdiction, they have no legal authority over the issue. Having taken place in a virtual location, the jurisdiction belongs to the court in which the plaintiff files his lawsuit. In this case, Liberty.
I reference United States v. Roberts, a case happening prior to our nation's exodus from the Sol System. The defendant, a citizen of Saint Vincent and the Granadines, a Caribbean island, was indicted in a federal court in the United States for a crime committed aboard a ship registered in Liberia and owned by a company incorporated in the Republic of Panama. The crime also occurred in international waters. The defendant's motion for dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction was denied by the court. This action was taken under the Passive Personality Principle, which is international law which allows states to claim jurisdiction for crimes committed abroad that affect its own citizens.
The label of arms dealer does not carry any of the connotative meanings that have risen in popular culture. Our label of you as arms dealers to Liberty citizens is purely of economic activities involving the sale, including legal sale, of ships and armaments with destructive power. Other examples of arms dealers are Detroit Munitions and Ageira Technologies Inc. There are several Liberty citizens in present use of Nyx-class fighters produced by the Colonial Republic, sold on the permission of the Colonial Republic to those buyers. Regardless of whether the sale is performed or reviewed by only a division of the Colonial Republic, or its entirety, it means that you in your entirety are legally seen under the label of an arms dealer.
There is currently no legal evidence or justification for the Libertonian Judicial System to officially recognize the Colonial Republic as a sovereign nation. As I stated before, you are to contact the legislative and executive branches of our government and propose a treaty.
As afforded to us by international law and legal precedence, Liberty has legal jurisdiction and authority over this case, and refusal to follow judicial policies, regulations, motions, and rulings is contempt of court.
<div align="right]Right Honourable Mr. Raines, 4th circuit judge Presiding
As I have said twice already, there is no legal record of your existence as a sovereign state. Continued refusal to submit a statement of affirmation or denial will lead me to assume the Colonial Republic has decided not to have representation in this case, and we will continue without Colonial representation. I'll remind you, that without any sort of defense, the chances that you will be found guilty are very high. I highly recommend you give this court a statement.
<div align="right]Right Honourable Mr. Raines, 4th circuit judge Presiding
Honourable Mr. Raines,
let me rephrase for you then. How exactly does Liberty house claim jurisdiction over outside organization, which at least partially recognized, is viewed as subject of international law.
Please attempt for at least once avoiding direct and clear answer to our questions. If you continue to elude the answer, I shall then use examples and will be forced to lecture you on international law from the times back then, provided you already referred to a state from those ancient times. We too do posses extensive record on cases, far exceeding former jurisdiction of United states.
International level is what our aim and interest is. Single nation, past or present, plays merely a minor role in grand scheme of international relations.
International law has several articles that allow our courts to conduct civil cases, as well as criminal, against foreign corporations and individuals. As the plaintiff is a Liberty citizen and filed his lawsuit through the Liberty legal system, this case is under the Liberty Judicial System's jurisdiction. This is a direct answer to the issues you have raised, and you have been given this answer several times. This lawsuit involves a Liberty citizen, who is charging a foreign entity with defamation and other acts, through a communication and data system owned and operated by a Liberty corporation, who's data repository and computing center resides in Liberty's borders. We have legal jurisdiction over this case, as well as the legal authority to conduct the case and give you a ruling, if we find you guilty of what you're accused of.
As warned, with continued refusal to give an affirmation or denial of the charges, this case will proceed without legal representation for the Colonial Republic, until such time as they provide a statement of their stance. Furthermore, in refusal to comply with the approved Compel to Discovery motion, you are in contempt of court, and subject to the consequences for doing so.
The Colonial Republic's access to these communications, save for viewing, are being revoked until the Colonial Republic sends in, through another transmission channel, a statement of denial or affirmation, and through a confidential transmission, all evidence and information relevant to this case, as required by the Compel to Discovery motion.
Any and all transmissions to our courts that do not contain the mentioned requirements will not be replied to.
<div align="right]Right Honourable Mr. Raines, 4th circuit judge Presiding
Douglas Riche
IND Attourney and Representative
***********
Your honour, I am entering the following items into evidence, if you could please review them and confirm them, once done I will proceed to presenting my case.
Exhibit B.
The communication logs between Bretonia (MI5) and the Colonial Remnant where the Colonial Remnant Slander the IND, Mister Winston, and Mister Jethro. Kindly provided by the Defense. It also shows the reaction of the Director of MI5 to the slanderous statements made by the Colonial Remnant Representative.
A sworn Affidavit from a Moderator of Neural Net that shows that no employee of IND, nor Mister Winchester, nor Mister Jethro forged this deal. I am aware that this is being drafted by Nerual Net's Moderation team, and ask the courts indulgence while the proper and due process of obtaining this affadavit runs its course.