Character
Rules
Events
Map
RP Points
Proplimits
Statistics
Steam Group
Members
Hall of Fame
Team
Bans
Blacklists
Warnings
Changelog
Content
10-16-2013, 05:21 PM
(This post was last modified: 09-01-2022, 01:02 AM by Fearless Community.
Edit Reason: Fixed Encoding
)
From the office of the Secretary-General for Legal Affairs, Ministry Of Peace.
To the entire entity of Estleback Security Corporation, including affiliates, employees and representatives thereof. This letter is a notification of the findings of the Ministry Of Peace, pending investigation into your recent activity. The investigation and complaints regarding Dominic Stevens have been dropped after investigation into the matter and an interview with the aforementioned.
It was reported to us that your entity (referred hereby throughout as you for brevity) was involved in an act of aggression, against a private commercial company.
It is our understanding that whilst you did not use any deliberate force against the individual concerned, you did in fact act in an aggressive manner, and insinuated that violent actions would follow should your demands not be met.
I shall quote your own statements as evidence to vindicate the view taken by the Ministry Of Peace.
''Hyde then asked something like
“we need to use this building can we buy it from you?” KP replied with “no” Hyde
then said “But this is the only building big enough” KP then replied with “I said
no.” we then sort of sighed and turn our backs to walk out, on the way out Hyde
said (as a joke) “or we could just take the place” Which to be completely honest
was given away as a joke by the the rather blatant laughter afterwards.''
As can be seen from above it is entirely reasonable that such a threat would be believed by a congregation of armed men outside the property concerned.
Taking the testimony of Officer Evan Moore, whom witnessed the event, it is our belief that you were in fact armed, given that you have provided no evidence to deny this fact beyond personnel statements. I am sure you can understand given the contradictory reports we cannot entirely rely on your own written evidence, and we will take the testimony of our own officer as evidence of the fact you were armed.
It is our belief that you intended to disrupt commerce with threats or fear of provocation of violence, for the purpose of gaining access to the property. Furthermore we believe that such threats were reasonably believable in the circumstance by the victim, regardless of your subjective intent.
Reviewing the case subjectively it is our belief the victim was reasonable intimidated by your actions, and that accordingly you are guilty of such an offence as defined under article (a) and s(2) of the following statute18 USC § 1951 – Interference with commerce by threats or violence provided beneath for your convenience.
18 USC § 1951 – Interference with commerce by threats or violence
(a)Whoever in any way or degree obstructs, delays, or affects commerce or the movement of any article or commodity in commerce, by robbery or extortion or attempts or conspires so to do, or commits or threatens physical violence to any person or property in furtherance of a plan or purpose to do anything in violation of this section shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.
(b)As used in this section—
(1)The term “robbery” means the unlawful taking or obtaining of personal property from the person or in the presence of another, against his will, by means of actual or threatened force, or violence, or fear of injury, immediate or future, to his person or property, or property in his custody or possession, or the person or property of a relative or member of his family or of anyone in his company at the time of the taking or obtaining.
(2)The term “extortion” means the obtaining of property from another, with his consent, induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of official right.
(3)The term “commerce” means commerce within the District of Columbia, or any Territory or Possession of the United States; all commerce between any point in a State, Territory, Possession, or the District of Columbia and any point outside thereof; all commerce between points within the same State through any place outside such State; and all other commerce over which the United States has jurisdiction.
©This section shall not be construed to repeal, modify or affect section 17 ofTitle15, sections52,101–115, 151–166 of Title 29 or sections 151–188 of Title45.
In conclusion we have reached a verdict as to the case at hand, we at the Ministry Of Peace have decided it is appropriate for us to issue a fixed penalty to the corporation of Estleback Security Corporation, of the amount of $150,000, to be paid as damages to the aggrieved party.
Payment will be made to a representative of Ministry Of Peace, who will then forward payment to the injured party, we will provide evidence of this transaction to prove that the injured party has recieved payment.
To the entire entity of Estleback Security Corporation, including affiliates, employees and representatives thereof. This letter is a notification of the findings of the Ministry Of Peace, pending investigation into your recent activity. The investigation and complaints regarding Dominic Stevens have been dropped after investigation into the matter and an interview with the aforementioned.
It was reported to us that your entity (referred hereby throughout as you for brevity) was involved in an act of aggression, against a private commercial company.
It is our understanding that whilst you did not use any deliberate force against the individual concerned, you did in fact act in an aggressive manner, and insinuated that violent actions would follow should your demands not be met.
I shall quote your own statements as evidence to vindicate the view taken by the Ministry Of Peace.
''Hyde then asked something like
“we need to use this building can we buy it from you?” KP replied with “no” Hyde
then said “But this is the only building big enough” KP then replied with “I said
no.” we then sort of sighed and turn our backs to walk out, on the way out Hyde
said (as a joke) “or we could just take the place” Which to be completely honest
was given away as a joke by the the rather blatant laughter afterwards.''
As can be seen from above it is entirely reasonable that such a threat would be believed by a congregation of armed men outside the property concerned.
Taking the testimony of Officer Evan Moore, whom witnessed the event, it is our belief that you were in fact armed, given that you have provided no evidence to deny this fact beyond personnel statements. I am sure you can understand given the contradictory reports we cannot entirely rely on your own written evidence, and we will take the testimony of our own officer as evidence of the fact you were armed.
It is our belief that you intended to disrupt commerce with threats or fear of provocation of violence, for the purpose of gaining access to the property. Furthermore we believe that such threats were reasonably believable in the circumstance by the victim, regardless of your subjective intent.
Reviewing the case subjectively it is our belief the victim was reasonable intimidated by your actions, and that accordingly you are guilty of such an offence as defined under article (a) and s(2) of the following statute18 USC § 1951 – Interference with commerce by threats or violence provided beneath for your convenience.
18 USC § 1951 – Interference with commerce by threats or violence
(a)Whoever in any way or degree obstructs, delays, or affects commerce or the movement of any article or commodity in commerce, by robbery or extortion or attempts or conspires so to do, or commits or threatens physical violence to any person or property in furtherance of a plan or purpose to do anything in violation of this section shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.
(b)As used in this section—
(1)The term “robbery” means the unlawful taking or obtaining of personal property from the person or in the presence of another, against his will, by means of actual or threatened force, or violence, or fear of injury, immediate or future, to his person or property, or property in his custody or possession, or the person or property of a relative or member of his family or of anyone in his company at the time of the taking or obtaining.
(2)The term “extortion” means the obtaining of property from another, with his consent, induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of official right.
(3)The term “commerce” means commerce within the District of Columbia, or any Territory or Possession of the United States; all commerce between any point in a State, Territory, Possession, or the District of Columbia and any point outside thereof; all commerce between points within the same State through any place outside such State; and all other commerce over which the United States has jurisdiction.
©This section shall not be construed to repeal, modify or affect section 17 ofTitle15, sections52,101–115, 151–166 of Title 29 or sections 151–188 of Title45.
In conclusion we have reached a verdict as to the case at hand, we at the Ministry Of Peace have decided it is appropriate for us to issue a fixed penalty to the corporation of Estleback Security Corporation, of the amount of $150,000, to be paid as damages to the aggrieved party.
Payment will be made to a representative of Ministry Of Peace, who will then forward payment to the injured party, we will provide evidence of this transaction to prove that the injured party has recieved payment.