Nat's amicus curiae brief on indictment

May it please the court, this charge is entirely dependent on what the definition of spam is. It seems that NHC has defined it as unnecessary telegrams. Due to the legal definition of defamation, it must be shown that NHC's statement was made with "a reckless disregard for its factual accuracy" (Criminal Code 1.10). I do not believe that NHC's definition recklessly disregards factual accuracy, it seems to be a sufficient definition of spam. Because of this, I submit that there is not probable cause that NHC committed defamation. As such, the court should not indict NHC on this charge of defamation (Judicial Act 5.1).