Criminal Complaint (charge someone with a crime under the Criminal Code) [1911] Volaworand v. New Haudenosaunee Confederacy |
(03-09-2019, 05:26 PM)Nat Wrote: Nat's amicus curiae brief with reference to Volaworand's new claims 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. 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. Legislator | Local Councilor | Aspiring TSP Curmudgeon Messages archived by the Ministry Of the Regal Executive - Bureaucratic Services |
Users browsing this thread: |
1 Guest(s) |