(03-09-2019, 05:26 PM)Nat Wrote: Nat's amicus curiae brief with reference to Volaworand's new claims

May it please the court, Volaworand's claim that Review of the ban on Malayan Singapura (HCRR1801) sets a precedent in this case is incorrect. The judgement of HCRR1801 relates to a ban from the region and uses Article III, Section 3 of the Charter (which applies only to ejection or banning) to require due process, in this case notification of rule violations. The facts of the present case are not similiar, so the findings of HCRR1801 do not apply. Further to this, the burden on Volaworand is not to show that their actions were legal but rather to demonstrate that NHC's comments were, among other requirements, made "with a reckless disregard for [their] factual accuracy" (Criminal Code 1.10). Hence, it does not matter if Volaowrand's actions constitute spam or not, the key is whether NHC was reckless in believing it was spam. Given the large number of spam definitions which fit or somewhat fit NHC's definition, I do not believe this threshold of recklessness has been met. As such, if the court agrees that the charges are unlikely to be true (a lack of probable cause), the case should be dismissed (Judicial Act 5.1).

I am citing the judgement as setting forth requirements on Local Council warnings that I as a local councilor am required to provide such warnings.  The court did not specify the method of such written warnings.  NHC's subjective belief that such warnings constituted spam is not a legal standard. 

I remind the court that none of the telegrams I sent were identical, meaningless or unnecessary and so do not fit the definition of spam that even HNC himself has submitted in his defense.  Even as little as 2 hours ago NHC himself made the following public statements:

https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=34706503

new_haudenosaunee_confederacy;34706503 Wrote:It's not repetitive because it's not the same thing twice.
www.google.com/search?q=define+repetition

https://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=34706876

new_haudenosaunee_confederacy;34706876 Wrote:If they're not the same post then it's not repetition, what is confusing about that?

What was at issue is his public misrepresentation of my communication which resulted in defamation.  Clearly NHC understands that my telegrams were not spam.  However he knowingly defamed me by repeatedly publicly misrepresenting that I spammed him and he made these statements with a reckless disregard for the factual accuracy of those statements.

I await the Courts finding of justicabilty on this case.