| Criminal Complaint (charge someone with a crime under the Criminal Code) [1911] Volaworand v. New Haudenosaunee Confederacy |
Quote:As one of the recipients of the Border Control action request, it was clear to me that it was not because you disagreed with Volaworand that was the issue, but the manner of your disagreement. There are ways to disagree that do not require rule-breaking and disruption, but you do not appear to have chosen that path.Still, I'm not the only one that didn't choose that path.
how am i even still a legislator at this point...?
(03-10-2019, 01:49 PM)New Haudenosaunee Confederacy Wrote:Quote:As one of the recipients of the Border Control action request, it was clear to me that it was not because you disagreed with Volaworand that was the issue, but the manner of your disagreement. There are ways to disagree that do not require rule-breaking and disruption, but you do not appear to have chosen that path.Still, I'm not the only one that didn't choose that path. Perhaps so, but then if others are disagreeing, why are they not also the subject of BCA requests, if corruption was really the issue? As an informal opinion, I think you are far too ready to shout 'corruption' generally and need to find a more productive avenue for your frustrations. There are legitimate issues with RMB moderation which are not unique to this current LC, but which have been highlighted or exacerbated by them. Nevertheless, it is my opinion that your conduct has done nothing but make things worse and increase any sense of antagonism there might be. I implore you to find another way. Founder of the Church of the South Pacific [Forum Thread] [Discord], a safe place to discuss spirituality for people of all faiths and none (currently looking for those interested in prayer and/or "home" groups);
And The Silicon Pens [Discord], a writer's group for the South Pacific and beyond! Yahweo usenneo ir varleo, ihraneo jurlaweo hraseu seu, ir jiweveo arladi. Salma 145:8
Quote:As an informal opinion, I think you are far too ready to shout 'corruption' generally and need to find a more productive avenue for your frustrations.Mentioning corruption was only done because somebody created a region named "The LCers are evil and corrupt" and Volaworand asked me about it. If Volaworand hadn't had asked me about it I would've actually said nothing. Quote:Nevertheless, it is my opinion that your conduct has done nothing but make things worse and increase any sense of antagonism there might be. I implore you to find another way.Still, it's definitely very comparable and if not better than what others have done (which is something I could talk more about, but I do not believe it is relevant to the complaint). I can't really find another way either, because I prefer if my mentions and TGs aren't spammed.
how am i even still a legislator at this point...?
(03-10-2019, 01:49 PM)New Haudenosaunee Confederacy Wrote:I apologise to the the Court, but since the defendant addressed me directly I hope I have leave to address this tangent.Quote:As one of the recipients of the Border Control action request, it was clear to me that it was not because you disagreed with Volaworand that was the issue, but the manner of your disagreement. There are ways to disagree that do not require rule-breaking and disruption, but you do not appear to have chosen that path.Still, I'm not the only one that didn't choose that path. No other nation has made 18 double posts and ignored and subsequently blocked warnings. While it is not the issue here, should the court, or the CRS for that matter wish to receive a list of nations sent warning Telegrams by me after I've suppressed one of that players double posts I will provide it. NHC, This charge is about your defamation of me. It is not about your disagreement with the legally constituted and fairly and impartially applied RMB guidelines. I've suppressed none of your comments outside of double posts, in the same manner I have with any other member of the region. Your defamatory attacks on me, as part of a political campaign to change the RMB guidelines, is the issue of this charge. Your political motivation for attacking me personally is not a valid reason. We are expected to treat each other with respect. You have chosen to be defamatory and I am within my rights to seek redress with this court. I await the Courts determination of justicability, assignment of a justice and case number. I am prepared to proceed at the Courts pleasure. Legislator | Local Councilor | Aspiring TSP Curmudgeon Messages archived by the Ministry Of the Regal Executive - Bureaucratic Services
![[Image: BYEo2lg.png]](https://i.imgur.com/BYEo2lg.png) Finding of Probable Cause Whereas Volaworand has requested this Court to indict New Haudenosaunee Confederacy through the following request:
I submit to the Court that New Haudenosaunee Confederacy (hereinafter referred to as NHC) has defamated me by publicly accusing me of "Telegram Spam"
Whereas this Court is empowered by Article V, Section 1 of the Judicial Act to indict individuals when it finds probable cause that they may have committed a crime, as codified in the Criminal Code.
It is resolved with respect to this Review Request as follows:
It is so ordered. Kris Kringle Chief Justice Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator. I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum. Legal Resources: THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System
I request the Court provide an opinion on its reasons for issuing this determination.
Legislator | Local Councilor | Aspiring TSP Curmudgeon Messages archived by the Ministry Of the Regal Executive - Bureaucratic Services
I would note that I submitted my request for reasons within one day of this ruling.
Given that over three months have now passed, am I correct in assuming that the Court is hostile to me on this matter? Legislator | Local Councilor | Aspiring TSP Curmudgeon Messages archived by the Ministry Of the Regal Executive - Bureaucratic Services
(07-07-2019, 08:46 AM)Volaworand Wrote: I would note that I submitted my request for reasons within one day of this ruling. No I don’t believe you are correct that the court is hostile. However this probably just fell under the radar after our overworked justices needed to take a break.
In-Chambers Opinion Volaworand v. New Haudenosaunee Confederacy | 1911.IO In its finding of probable cause, the Court determined that there was not sufficient evidence to the assertion that New Haudenosaunee Confederacy (henceforth "NHC") defamed Volaworand. In so deciding, the Court both considered the definition of defamation under the Criminal Code and the facts of the case as presented by Volaworand.
Defamation, as defined in Article 1, Section 10 of the Criminal Code, relies on two primary elements: the claim must be "false or grossly misleading" with a "reckless disregard" for factual accuracy, and the purpose of the claim must be to "damage" the affected party's standing. It is therefore not enough merely to lie or misrepresent facts, the falsehoods must be malicious and to such degree that they would in some way damage the defamed party. The Court did not find probable cause that NHC's claims were grossly misleading, or that damage was caused to Volaworand's reputation. Telegrams sent pursuant to legitimate government or moderation functions would hardly qualify as spam, but that is ultimately a matter of opinion and circumstance, which every member is allowed to hold and share. There is also little evidence that the claim was made maliciously or with an intent to damage Volaworand's reputation; though again, this does not preclude the possibility that there may have been ill intent, merely not to the level necessary for the crime of defamation. In its deliberation, therefore, the Court concluded that New Haudenosaunee Confederacy's claim that Volaworand engaged in telegram spam did not rise to the level of defamation, even if the claim itself was potentially untrue, on account of the fact that the requirements for the crime were not sufficiently met based on the evidence available. Kris Kringle Chief Justice Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator. I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum. Legal Resources: THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System
Thank-you for the response.
Had I presented evidence of lost endorsements as a result of these false claims, would that have met the threshold of proving damages? I didn't document the deteriorating game endorsements at the time, however, I would certainly have done so had I known that I needed to prove damages concurrently with the process of filing the complaint. I had assumed that proving damages would be required after the Court recognized the case, not before. I'm not seeking to reopen or further litigate this matter, I am just trying to understand the process how the court seeks to handle defamation complaints, considering there is very little (no?) case law on the topic since the law was adopted by the Assembly. Legislator | Local Councilor | Aspiring TSP Curmudgeon Messages archived by the Ministry Of the Regal Executive - Bureaucratic Services |
![[+]](/images/collapse_collapsed.png "[+]")
translate![[-]](https://tspforums.xyz/images/sidr/blue/collapse.png)
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |