(03-09-2019, 04:09 AM)Nat Wrote: 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 corruption (Judicial Act 5.1).

I am not making a corruption complaint.  I am making a defamation complaint over the repeated falsehoods being alleged by NHC.  Judical Act 5.1 relates to the courts determination of probable cause.  The referenced posts containing the defamation are clearly visible in the RMB.

I fail to see how NHC can find separate telegrams alerting him to each of two separate instances of suppression, and a 1:1 reply to his own telegrams constitutes spam.  Carrying our the conversation in the RMB creates the same one notification as a single private telegram, but eliminates the additional mentions alerts every time someone else in the RMB invariably chimes in, so a telegrammed notice accually generates less mention spam for the receipient, not more.  And the telegram is easily deleted, so it does not "clog" an inbox.

I await the High Courts determination of justiciablity of this case.