Capitalist Producers vs. The Vocals - A court case

Overruled
This court finds... previous presented evidence... abundant to the point of tiresome

I will point out this is correct But be aware that all is considered, there is a... finality in all that is spoken here

Again, no one is on trial This court will onlt decide which these Capitalist Producers claims for relief have the merit and then if the court has this authority to grant these reliefs.

Capitalist Producers have you any more questions to this witness?

 

Your honors, at this point plaintiff makes a motion for contempt against The-CID for continuing to act like he runs this court, for threatening the Plaintiff from the stand. for making unsolicited testimony, and for his overt contempt of this court and this proceeding. I ask that you find some appropriate sanction suitable to the Founder.

 

Your honor we posted at the same time. And yes, I have many more questions once the motion for contempt is ruled on.

 

Capitalist Producers I am sympathize your complain. How ever if The-CID answers with the all works of Shakespeare the court will accept these answer Your motion is denied

Next question...

(Bailiff, my hookah please.. these one from afghanistan...)

 

* CID faces the Court *

I already said several times I am not running this Court; its on the Plaintiff mind.
Also, I am not threatening the Plaintiff, I just told him the possibles outcomes of this trial.

Of course, I do not have over contemp to this Court and this proceeding; I only have over contemp for the Plaintiff´s argumentative and misleading questions. But since its the Court decision there is no punish for the Plaintiff due to his argumentative and misleading questions, I believe its a fair decision that I will not be punish due to my "Shakespeare-ians" answers.

Bottom-line, I promise the Court I will short my answers if the questions of the Plaintiff are properly made (like his last question... which I replied it in only 3 lines).

 

Thank you your honor.

We will now take the witnesses through the four offending posts, one at a time in chronological order. This is the first:

The Benevolent dictatorship of Czeckolutania wrote:I'll just be here, waiting for libertarians to vote libertarian.
If your first choice candidate has less than a 25% chance of winning in the polls, casting a vote for that candidate is a vote against your second choice and a vote your worse nightmare does not have to overcome.



The Free Land of Big Freedom wrote:Say what you will about Bernie (I don't like him much either), he is the only honest candidate remaining in this race outside of Gary Johnson. He is the only one who believes what he says.
And what Bernie is proposing will push the economy the rest of the way over. He cannot pay for what he wants to do. The numbers just are not there. As bad as Trump is, at least he can add. There is no way I can vote for Hillary, who should not be allowed to command a latrine digging detail. Nor can I vote for the communist because that would be a little like voting for my own suicide.



The Free Land of Big Freedom wrote:Additionally, while your communist spiel was cute the first couple of times, it's now become rather childish and detrimental to an intelligent debate. It loses its meaning when you constantly apply it to everyone who doesn't share your world view. How about we leave the soundbites to the Donald Trumps of the world?
Nothing cute about it. Pure fact derived from their own words and ideals.

Liberal, communist, progressive, socialist, Marxist, Democrat... They are all the same critter. No matter how well meaning, whether or not they admit it, or even realize it, they are all headed for the same place. Nationalization of private property, totalitarian central control of every aspect of our lives and complete collapse of all significant freedoms.

I say that because that is the only place any of what the left is selling can end up.

Never forget that government produces nothing. That means that anything they give to you, or anyone else, must first be taken away from from someone else. Eventually the people are going to get tried of giving up their hard earned money for the "good" of others. That will result in the wealthy bailing on this nation (See all those jobs and all that capital leaving our shores), many of the not so wealthy will simply give up and become part of the problem and eventually government will run out of other people's money. At that point government has only one choice, nationalize everything.

And yes, Bernie is a communist. In his own speeches he talks about bring "the revolution" to this country. He honeymooned in the Soviet Union at the height of the cold war and thought is was great.

I am curious though. Didn't you learn any of this in school? History? Economics? The Russian revolution? Communism? North Korea? Cuba? Venezuela?



The International Spydom of Drasnia wrote:Happy 18 birthday Drasnia. Now you get to register for the draft and vote in a terrible election. Yay.
Happy 18th. Welcome to legal adulthood.
​

http://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=17629625

Would the witness please read the post and then tell us what is unacceptable about that post?

​

 

No "Shakespeare-ians" answers here, just a cold analysis of the post, as required by the Plaintiff.
I will analyze the post as I always do, so the Court will also have an understanding about how this task is perform.

Step #1: Democratic rule
The "respectful posting" clause was created by me in 2006 with the "spirit" of providing the Government of Capitalist Paradise several ways to calm down heated debates and stop aggressions between nations, before the Mods can take over the situation. Then it was included in the actual Constitution.
---> As consequence, we can analyze the post under the actual Carta Magna.

* Step #2: Full context
Since the clause can only be defined in subjective terms, it needs a context to became objective; once the context is presented, the line and how to enforce that line its very clear and objective.
---> As consequence, we can realize this is a heated debate between Big Freedom and Capitalist Producers. We must read all the posts involved, in order to track down who start any kind of aggression, who replied, etc. Here is the full chain since the post regarding Big Freedom was incomplete:
1st whole post by Big Freedom: http://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=17512702
2nd post by Capitalist Producers: http://www.nationstates.net/page=rmb/postid=17629625

* Step #3: Analysis
The ones in the government should try to held a higher standard; this means they should try to give the example by trying to draw a "personal line of conduct" that could not be even close to disobey the "respectful posting" clause. Nevertheless, they have the same amount of freedom of speech than others, so, as long as they don't cross the "respectful posting clause line", its ok.
---> As consequence, since Capitalist Producers is a member of the government (I am talking about that moment), we analyze both: the "personal line of conduct" and the "respectful posting clause line"
- From one side: we see comments from Big Freedom as "I respectfully disagree"; but also, an spicy comment like "while your communist spiel was cute the first couple of times, it's now become rather childish and detrimental to an intelligent debate." All of them are inside the rules, as none of them are breaking the NS rules (nor the respectful posting clause).
- From the other side: All answers presented by Capitalist Producers, although spicy like "And yes, Bernie is a communist" are correct. Nothing wrong in there. Sadly, the last paragraph is beyond the higher standard a member of the Government like him should try to maintain: "I am curious though. Didn't you learn any of this in school? History? Economics? The Russian revolution? Communism? North Korea? Cuba? Venezuela?".
- The last paragraph (underlined) is ironic, condescending and rude. That comment was 100% personal and is needlessly inflammatory, meaning, Capitalist Producers is deliberately escalating the heated situation. This not how he should behave, specially since we don't see any comment like that against him in the previous post. Also, Capitalist Producers have several warnings in the past (from me and from the Mods), so he knows he is already borderline.
- The NS Rules have not been broke yet, since there is not a direct insult (trolling, baiting, flaming, etc.).

* Step #4: Conclusion
- Once again, Capitalist Producers has failed to achieve the higher standard a member of the Government like him should try to maintain.
- Both posts (1 from Big Freedom / 1 from Capitalist Producers) are inside the NS Rules (hence, the "respectful posting" clause).
- Despite any complain from any nation, no actions (warnings) should be taken due to this specific post.
- Nevertheless, due to the fact Capitalist Producers escalated the debate, we must keep a close watch to it.

Note: While keeping an eye on this debate, we found out that 4 days after that post, Capitalist Producers crossed "the respectful posting clause" line with a different post.

 

So your complaint with the above post was Plaintiff's question about Big Freedom's education. Please explain how that question crosses the line from a legitimate inquiry to ironic, condescending, rude, personal and inflammatory.

 

The appointment of Mortem Inferre as Temporary Justice has lapsed, Constitution states a maximum of 30 days. Thanks to Repentant Jihadi for keeping us in line here. Mortem Inferre has accepted reappointment and will serve for another 30 days.

 

* CID faces the Court *
Objection, your honor: Argumentative and misleading (again)

Is true that I said:

But I also said:

Therefore...

The Plaintiff´s question implies that "(I have a) complaint with the above" and that is not true. Moreover, I was clear that I believe any complain should be redraw from this post, since although it is borderline, it does not brake the NS Rules (hence, the "respectful posting" clause).

I do believe Capitalist Producers has failed to achieve the higher standard a member of the Government like him should try to maintain, however that's my personal opinion regarding "his personal line of conduct". That "line of conduct" is not under any Constitutional clause, hence, it is not under discussion here. Any matter regarding this point is irrelevant and will lead to an exchange of opinions with no evidence whatsoever.

If the Plaintiff´s got any complain from me regarding that post breaking "the respectful posting clause line", he should present it as evidence.

 

**sigh**

Your honors, the post above is one of those Anonymous pointed to as offensive. The defense himself witness pointed out the words in question as offensive and not up to the standards of a member of government. I am asking the witness to explain how those words cross whatever line he set for those in government and why that was not a legitimate inquiry.

I ask you to instruct the witness to answer the question.

 

**sigh**
* CID faces the Court *

Your honors, if Capitalist Producer´s post (above) was pointed as offensive by Anonymous... or if any post was pointed as offensive by any nation, is irrelevant.
Are we going to discuss any post because any nation may thinks it is offensive? I have hundreds of those!!!!!!

ONLY the posts considered offensive by the Vocals/Founder/CEO are the ones that break the "respectful posting" clause... and those post are the ones that give place to a warning... like the several warning Capitalist Producers got by me or by the Vocals.

Moreover, the Plaintiff said:

I NEVER said offensive.
I said "ironic, condescending and rude"; not offensive.

I NEVER said "I set a line for those in the government".
I said the ones in the government should try (I underlined try) to maintain a higher standard by setting their own line of conduct.


Please instruct the Plaintiff to stop lying!!!

 

Your honors, we are trying to establish whether or not it is possible to establish a black and white standard for respectful posting. The witness found something wrong with that sentence and went so far as to bring it out in his own testimony. That cat is out of the bag. Now I am asking the witness to explain that something.

I again ask the court to explain why that last sentence is not a legitimate question.

 

* CID faces the Court *

I do not know if the Plaintiff is unable to read or to understand.
Does the Court understand the difference between the respectful posting line (per Constitution) and the personal line of conduct (imposing to a nation by itself)???

If that is true...

Why the Plaintiff is asking for something that has no relation whatsoever with the respectful posting clause???

My testimony point out that "Capitalist Producers has failed to achieve the higher standard a member of the Government like him should try to maintain."
That is UNRELATED with the respectful posting clause. It only makes reference to Capitalist Producers own line of conduct.

Moreover, I said "both post are inside the NS Rules and the Respectful posting clause / No NS Rules have been broken / no actions should be taken."


Maybe the Plaintiff needs a kindergarten draw:

* = Post above
/ = Personal line of conduct a member of the government should try to have
||| = Respectful Posting clause & NS Rules

(------------------------------------------/--*--)|||(----------------------------------------------------)
{Posts inside the respectful posting clause} ||| { Posts brakes the NS Rules / the respectful posting clause}

Did the Plaintiff keep a cat in his bag? That is disgusting!!


I want to remind the Court there are 3 objections pending here:
1 from the Plaintiff: He asked the Court to instruct me to answer his question.
1 from me: I asked the Court to rule that question is irrelevant, argumentative and misleading.

And also
1 extra from me: The Plaintiff has put words in my mouth I never said; therefore I asked the Court to instruct the Plaintiff to present evidence when he quotes me (as I always do) or else, the Plaintiff must stop lying. Please note the Court already asked this once:

 

Noted

After so many ...trying to keep a civil inquirey...
Capitalist producers from this witness you may ask only yes or no, true or false question -and without a premise or explaining

Mr. The Cid you may only answer these with a yes or no, true or false answer -and without pretense or explaining

To both of you... Am I to be understand on this?

 

Your honor, as it is impossible to establish whether or not there is a definable standard for respectful posting in yes or no questions, I have just one more question for the witness.

Did you report my post to the moderators? The post that was subsequently suppressed?

 

The Plaintiff reminds the witness he is under oath.

 

I am sorry to again interupt

I had written this letter to The-Cid but have decided to offer this as a possibly to resolve much to this case

*************

Thank You Mr. The-CID,
I accept your letter as "friend of the court brief". Since Capitalist Producers is ending his questionings I am going to let this ruling stand without farther comment. It will not applyto and is not intended to restrict more questions he will have for other witnesses or for the Defence questionings

In another case a friend wrote to me: "The intention of this document (refering to our Constitution) is not to empower a government, but to steer Capitalist Paradise toward freedom rarely seen in Nation/States." - Fastercat

It is my intending as the top officer on this court to rule in this spirit
It is the purpose of this court to enforce the Constitution and the rules of Nation/States

At this point I wish to offer resolution the following to Claims:

1. The plaintiff asks the court to rule the standard of "respectful posting" indefinable and cannot be enforced.
3. The plaintiff asks the court rule on the constitutionality of applying a higher, or lower, standard of free speech to a member of government or elected official.
5. The plaintiff is aware that punitive damages are impractical in this format. However in place of the multimillion dollar awards that customarily deter defendants from future bad behavior, the plaintiff asks the court to rule in such a way that preserves free speech, no matter who is making the speech, in this region forever.

True the defence has not present it case yet, but as Capitalist Producers testify, I am believe that the 'respectful posting" clause is not ...adequate
I am also believe you have presented a real ...formula ...process for judging what is legal and what is not legal on the RMB
This court does NOT have authority to order changings at the Constitution, only Legislature is charge with this
Do you think you and Capitalist Producers can put to side differences to create a legislation bill that will codify your
idea?

Of course to achieve, I will have to pursued Armus Republic and Derivative to accept this, and you to get the Vocals also to accept this and also Capitalist Producers

Copy of this proposal to Capitalist Producers, The-Cid, Armus Republic and Derivative.
RJ

********************

If the Vocals and one other Justice and Capitalist Producers agrees to this conditions (underlined)we may proceed to resolve claims 2 and 4
(Fastercat you will present the Vocals decision)

 

Your honor,

While the court cannot order a change to the constitution, the court can rule any portion of it as unenforceable rendering that particular language moot.

I would like an answer to my last question before we proceed to settlement negotiations. Plaintiff will consider settlement in light of that answer.

 

NO, I NEVER reported one of your post; moreover, I did my best to avoid others nations to report any your post (as evidence I presented) because I knew the Mods will suppress your post and, maybe, delete you. I have been protecting you all this time, you moron!