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).