Capitalist Producers vs. The Vocals - A court case

I agree with Fastercat´s opinion... to a point.
Fastercat can claim that the overall intention of the document is to steer Capitalist Paradise toward freedom... but Fastercat cannot give a true opinion regarding the 'respectful posting" clause since that idea was mine, and originally implemented 10 years ago.

Thats the point exactly: Capitalist Paradise´s Constitution cannot go against Nation States rules.
We must provide all the freedom we can... but we cant go against NS rules.
This is our dilemma.

The 'respectful posting" clause is the... "democratic"... way for the Vocals, CEO and Founder to suppress a post and to avoid confrontations in the RMB that can lure NS Mods.
Is a way to "match" the Constitution with the NS rules.
Is also a way to "match" the in-game-powers that are provided to the Founder (Next, to the CEO... next, to the Vocals and Ministers) with the Constitution.

So, is a way to provide all the freedom we can, until we reach the NS rules (enforcing freedom); and then, take the situation by ourselves avoiding the intervention of the Mods (enforcing sovereignty).
Is the solution to the previous dilemma.

I agree with the idea; I have no problem in clarifying the "formula" I have used all this time.
Nevertheless, I don't think it will be the solution: I have not change my methodology in the last 10 years.

I mean, the actual trial is a consequence of me applying that criteria. Bottom-line:
- With my criteria/formula NOT codify into the Constitution, Capitalist Producers started a trial after he got a warning from the Vocals.
- With my criteria/formula codify into the Constitution... the outcome will be the same!!!

Some Vocals (maybe all Vocals) have decided to remove Fastercat as the one who represented them; a telegram was sent to me more than a week ago regarding this matter.
So, I believe the decision should be introduced individually.

 

For the record, I, as the Vocal UNDelegate offer:

- Acceptance with the Supreme Court idea: Items #1 / #3 / #5 under a legislation bill.
- Giving in favor of the Plaintiff item #2
- Giving in favor of the Defence item #4
All the above combined in the offer below.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"1. The plaintiff asks the court to rule the standard of "respectful posting" indefinable and cannot be enforced"
* Denied.
This court does not have authority to change the Constitution. As an understanding, the rule will remain but a legislation bill will be created to enforce that rule with the criteria (formula / procedure) offered by CID.


"2. The plaintiff asks the court to find plaintiff's reprimand by the Vocal's indefensible by plaintiff and withdrawn, all record of it be expunged and that it never be brought up again in any legal context."
* Approved (conditional).
The reprimand will be redraw from the Vocals if the Plaintiff accepts the fact that CID, as the Founder, has been giving him several warnings in the past.


"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."
* Null.
The criteria offered by CID stablish that the respectful posting clause line is the same for everyone. Members of the government should try to keep a higher standard in order to provide an example; that standard is similar to a personal line of conduct and is not judged under the respectful posting clause.
This understanding will be included in the legislation bill.


"4. The plaintiff asks the court rule that use of phrases like "useful idiots," "economic jihad," "social justice lynching" and others is not only appropriate for use on the RMB with the condition those uses pass the "all of X are Y" test, but are historically and factually accurate."
* Denied.
CID warning will sustain as phrases like "useful idiots," "economic jihad," "social justice lynching" and others are NOT appropriate for the RMB. Nevertheless, by point #2, Vocals reprimand will be redraw.


"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."
* Null.
The "respectful posting" clause is the "democratic" way for the Vocals, CEO and Founder to suppress a post and to avoid confrontations in the RMB, therefore matching the Constitution with the NS rules. Is the democratic way to provide all the freedom we can, until we reach the NS rules (enforcing freedom); and then, take the situation by ourselves avoiding the intervention of the Mods (enforcing sovereignty).
This understanding will be included in the legislation bill.

 

I think we are closer to an agreement than when this trial started.

1. While the court may not be able to order a change in the constitution, if the court rules a certain portion of the constitution cannot be enforced for whatever reason, that renders that portion mute.

2. Now the conversations with the Plaintiff are placed in that light, the Plaintiff stipulates to several warnings in the past.

3. Agreed. I would like to see that expectation of greater discretion placed as discretional on the office holder.

​

4. The Plaintiff and the Defense have a little more work to do on this one. If the trial were to progress, among the things Plaintiff will point out is that using the term "useful idiots" in the post about Trump protesters referred only to those protesters engaging in disruptive behavior. we are talking the egg and tomato throwers, the people blowing whistles during his speeches, the people trying to vandalize the news media gear and cables, etc, etc, etc. I would think that we could all agree on the status of those individuals.

Useful idiots is a phrase originated in Russia. Back then and even now it applies to those that blindly follow an ideology to the point of self destruction. When the term first came into use it was the Russian equivalent of "useful tools." (Russian: полезные дураки, tr.polezniye duraki) Originally attributed to Lenin, though no one can seem to find anyplace where Lenin actually wrote the phrase down, it carried over through the Russian Revolution and beyond World War II.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot

Since that time it has come to represent those who blindly follow an ideology to the exclusion of all else, including their own well being. So when someone wanders out into the the lanes of traffic, holding up a black lives matter sign or wants to trade their freedom for some government program, the phrase legitimately applies. It should also be pointed out that in those posts I never stated that all Trump protesters were useful idiots. I limited that title to a select group of assholes trying to make everyone else miserable. It is my view there may be some room for compromise here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot_(disambiguation)
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Useful idiot

When I use the phrase "economic jihad" it is correct and proper. Merriam Webster offers up the kindest definition as follows:

1 : a holy war waged on behalf of Islam as a religious duty; also a personal struggle in devotion to Islam especially involving spiritual discipline
2 : a crusade for a principle or belief
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/jihad
​

Other cross references for the definition of Jihad:

2. any vigorous, emotional crusade for an idea or principle.
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/jihad?s=t

3. A campaign against perceived foes, especially such a campaign regarded as fanatical or immoderate: "The war against smoking is turning into a jihad against people who smoke" (Fortune).
https://ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=Jihad&submit.x=0&submit.y=0​

So when the plaintiff mentions that social justice warriors declared an economic jihad against Chic-Fil-a because founder Dan Cathy does not support gay marriage, the statement is solidly accurate. The fact there are some that do not like what they are doing called what it is that they are doing should be irrelevant.
http://triblive.com/home/2329177-74...boycotts-cathy-consumer-foods-president-south

Social justice lynching does indeed occur. While no one is swinging from a tree when it is over, the fact is that it occurs in plain open sight. Just one of literally hundreds of examples was the untimely demise of Cecil the Lion. Minnesota dentists Walter Palmer engaged in a perfectly legal big game hunt. This was later verified by Nation of Zimbabwe Environment Minister Oppah Muchinguri who stated Palmer's papers were all in order.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-34508269

While engaging in a legal, permitted hunt, Palmer had the miss fortune to kill a lion that enjoyed celebrity status in the region. Without knowing the facts or waiting for the outcome of any of the numerous investigations on several continents, the keyboard commandos went on to lynch Palmer. His home was vandalized. His business was vandalized. On line ratings for his dentistry practice were vandalized and filled with comments by people that never set foot in the state, let alone had Palmer look in their mouths. His family and employees were threatened on line, over the phone lines, through mail, and even in person in the way of messages left in spray paint on their walls and doors. They even got his vacation home.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/08/us/walter-palmer-dentist-cecil-lion-return/
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/home-lion-hunting-dentist-walter-palmer-vandalized-n404631

Dictionary.com defines lynch as follows:
1. to put to death, especially by hanging, by mob action and without legal authority.
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/lynch?s=t

As a rule, no one actually dies in these social media lynchings. But do lead to the death of people's businesses, people's careers, in some cases their marriages, and those people's lives are over as they knew them. Palmer's dentistry practice shut down for a year over a perfectly legal act. Ok, so his business was not dead, but the attack was life threatening to his business.

One who did suffer the death of a career is Mozilla founder and former CEO Brendan Eich. He resigned from the company he founded rather than allow the social justice lynching he was under going to go after it. Eich's sin was exercise the most basic of rights in this nation: He gave $1000 to California's Proposition 8, a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage in California. He did nothing illegal. There was nothing to try and convict him for. But yet he is now unhireable in Silicone Valley. His career is dead. If that is not a lynching, we need to revisit the word.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mozilla-ceo-resignation-idUSBREA321Y320140403

Plaintiff submits the use of the phrase is reasonable and accurate. Once again, if some people are made uncomfortable by having a light shown on the true nature of their actions, that is on them, not not the plaintiff.

5. Plaintiff would like to have input in the legislation. Plaintiff feels there should be language included reflecting the idea there is no right to never get your feelings hurt.

Plaintiff also submits a further addition that no nation may be reprimanded, sanctioned or ejected without being able to face their accuser.

So... how far apart are we now?

 

As a member of the Vocals, a justice of this region, a former President of the Legislature, and an ever constant friend of the court. I one take offense with the court offering a settlement before the defense has a chance to offer a rebuttal, it appears that the Chief Justice has made up his mind before all judicial actions took place. The Chief Justice asked both NoQ and myself to recuse ourselves because we most likely had made up our minds. See the contrast at this point?

 

Plaintiff does not see a problem with a justice suggesting a settlement. It happens all the time in civil suits. However, the plaintiff is prepared to proceed an either case.

Up until Kaputer's objection it was the Plaintiff's understanding that Fastercat was removed as counsel and The-CID is now representing the defense. Based on Kaputer's objection, before we proceed with any kind of settlement negotiations, it would be best if the defense is given some time to decide among themselves whether or not all the parties are on board with a possible settlement. It should also be publicly established that The CID is the designated counsel for the defense and authorized to deal in the name of the Vocals collectively.

My apologies your honor, for a moment there appeared to be a light at the end of this tunnel. But the defense must make sure that light is not an oncoming train.

 

No I do not There is simply an offer on the table Vocals are still free to reject this.
This court will recess for 4 days If there no agreements reached in this time Capitalist Producers may call his next witness, we will proceed in order.

Make a Legislation bill.

 

* CID faces the Court *

I said "Some Vocals (maybe all Vocals) have decided to remove Fastercat as the one who represented them; a telegram was sent to me more than a week ago regarding this matter. So, I believe the decision should be introduced individually."

But the Vocals never execute this order to the Court; therefore:
- Fastercat was NOT removed as counsel.
- I, as The-CID, am NOT representing the defense.
I only expressed my opinion regarding that Vocals should state their opinions individually.


Since there are no more questions for me as witness, as CID, I am leaving this court now.

* CID has left the building *

 

I, as the Vocal UNDelegate, gave an offer. That offer I made (as UNDelegate) is sustain with no changes.
All changes made by Capitalist Producers (1/4/5) are rejected for the following reasons:

No. You are confusing "the ability of enforcing the rule" with "enforcing the rule appropriately".
This Court is NOT allowed to rule if the "respectful post" rule can or cannot be enforced. The rule must be enforced because that is the spirit of that rule (it was written in order to be enforced) and all nations are equal under the Constitution.
Of course, once the rule is enforced, if a nation complains, then the Court can decide if the rule was enforced appropriately (see item #5).

In my offer - item #2, which you agreed, I suggested to redraw the Vocals reprimand but to maintain CID´s warning. This implies all the term used in the post are insults.
Also, you provided evidence that "Useful idiots" means misinformed and/or naive and/or ignorant and/or just idiot...
Those are a personal insults. You broke NS rules and the "respectful posting" clause. Period.

Not in a million years; you are not part of the government anymore (it was your call), live with it. You will not be part of the Legislation; the Bill will contain the procedure explained by CID.
The idea of creating a dictionary in order to settle down which words are allowed or not, is ridiculous... the Context is as important as the words!!! The same sentence saying by your closest friend its different when it is said by your worst enemy.
Finally, the idea of a trial or a hearing or anything before a Reprimand / Ejection / Ban-ejection is out of the question. Trust me, I am close with the Founder CID. Forget it. Also, CID already provided evidence that before any Reprimand / Ejection / Ban-ejection there is always a warning along with telegram exchanges that serves as a hearing... an even the warning itself can be removed after those telegrams.


So, bottom-line, my offer should be considered as a whole (1-Denied / 2-Approved (conditional) / 3-Null / 4-Denied / 5-Null)... and the Plaintiff must state if he accepts it or not. If the Plaintiff accepts, the trial will be over. If the Plaintiff rejects, then the Vocals should state if they accept or reject the Plaintiff proposal.

 

During the recess, please keep these negotiatings private

These 2 entries stricken

 

Your honors, clearly there will be no settlement. The defense simply wants the plaintiff to fold while declaring this region to be a dictatorship immune from the constitutional authority of the courts.

I stand ready to call my next witness.

 

stricken

 

The plaintiff stands ready to negotiate with whomever the defense appoints to represent them in this matter.

 

Your Honors, I have an emergency motion for the court.

Our founder has once again threatened the Plaintiff for pursuing this case. By now you all have received a forwarded copy of a telegram from The CID to the Plaintiff. In light of that threat, the Plaintiff moves this court to issue an emergency order forbidding the founder from ejecting this nation without permission of this court.

Thank you your honors

 

Until there is clarification on the matter, the Court will issue a temporary order, under-which no nation involved in this case can be ejected, banned, or ban-ejected without the expressed approval of this court. This order will last 72 hours, upon which it will be reviewed. If this order is not followed, criminal charges may be pressed against the offender(s)

 

Thank you your honors.

 

TO ARMUS REPUBLIC


This is the telegram I sent:
"declaring this region to be a dictatorship immune from the constitutional authority of the courts."
Last advice: one more of this stupidity, I ban eject you.
Proceed with the trial without offending me.
I am tired.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


This is Cap. Producers post:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


This is your post:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Now... YOU, ARMUS REPUBLIC, have 36 hours in order to explain to ME why the sentence "Last advice: one more of this stupidity (calling me a dictator), I ban eject you. Proceed with the trial without offending me" can be understood as "Our Founder has once again threatened the Plaintiff for pursuing this case."...
Oh! And don't forget to explain the "again" part!

 

The Court is under no obligation to explain it's decisions. The order is temporary, and will be reviewed once it expires.

 

IN THE SUPREME COURT FOR CAPITALIST PARADISE

Case No.

Capitalist Producers - Plaintiff

vs.

The Vocals

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Motion for Permanent Restraining Order
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comes now the Plaintiff with a motion to convert the temporary restraining forbidding the Founder, The CID, the UNDelegate from ejecting the plaintiff to a permanent order as outlined below.

The Plaintiff presents the following facts for the record:

1. On July 28, 2016 The CID said the flowing while giving testimony before this court:

By the other hand,

If the Court answer is "Yes, their warning was inside their duties as per respectful posting rule"...

Then, you had a final warning by me via private telegram (the telegram you submitted as evidence) and another final warning from the Vocals (since the Court ruled in their favor). After those final warnings, you again disobeyed the NS Rules: your post from 11/12 days ago was suppressed by a NS Moderator.

Conclusion: After strike #1 (my telegram) and strike #2 (Vocals telegram), you broke NS rules again... That is Strike #3 and I will ban-eject you.​

2. On Aug 5, 2016 The CID said the following while giving testimony before this court:

Capitalist Producers should have been ejected from Capitalist Paradise way before, but I avoid nations putting him on trial or going directly to the CEO by saying those nations that "I will talk to Capitalist Producers" several times... for personal reasons I stood up for him...maybe that was my mistake.​

3. One Aug 19, 2016 The CID sent the following telegram to the Plaintiff:

"declaring this region to be a dictatorship immune from the constitutional authority of the courts."
Last advice: one more of this stupidity, I ban eject you.
Proceed with the trial without offending me.
I am tired.​

4. Clearly 1,2 and 3 are threats and implications The CID will arbitrarily eject and ban the Plaintiff.

5. Clearly, these threats and implications are in response to this trial and the questions put to the The CID and other witnesses in this proceeding.

6. The CID clearly demonstrates a lack of respect for these proceedings and this court. His statements through out this trial indicate a lack of deference to the constitutional authority of this court and certain lack of knowledge about the pleadings in this case.

7. While only the The CID can know all the reasons for his statements, these threats are clearly retaliatory in nature resulting from this litigation.

8. The CID's statements suggest an attempt to intimidate the Plaintiff into backing off his rightful pursuit of this case and more than a suggestion of extra judicial penalties should the Plaintiff fail to prevail this matter. Perhaps eject the Plaintiff even if the Plaintiff prevails.

Based on the facts presented above, the Plaintiff prays the court issue a permanent order restraining The CID, UNDelegate and all their puppets from ejecting and or ban-ejecting the Plaintiff from this region without the permission of the chief justice of this court.

Respectfully Submitted for the Plaintiff,
Capitalist Producers

 

31 hours left

 

Capitalist Producers and The CID, please approach the bench