Argonath RPG - A World of its own

GTA:VC => Vice City - City Hall => VC:MP - Vice City Multiplayer => VC:MP Courts => Topic started by: Nylez on March 24, 2016, 04:12:40 pm

Title: Ammunation Vice Point (North Point Mall) vs [EAF]Nylez
Post by: Nylez on March 24, 2016, 04:12:40 pm
Court of Argonath Vice City,

I am [EAF]Nylez, trucker, EAF member and co-owner of Ocean Beach Ammunation.

Today a well affiliated man of North Point Mall, named Reaper, destroyed stock worth of $100,000 while I was being stopped for a routine check by FBI Chief Marco_White and FBI Agent Rapture. There has also been made a fine of $10,000 for delivery costs.
Along with the stock was also a Yankee from the Vice City Port Authority destroyed, which obviously had to be replaced. This costed $65,000 as that's the price Sunshine Autos sells it for, including delivery costs of course. As the stock, ordered by [EAF]Sean didn't reach his Ammunation, a lot of profit was also lost. This profit was budgeted to $100,000.

My request is that the NPM Ammunation owner will compensate OB Ammunation and VCPA for the costs made as a result for the done deed.

As a summary:
NPM Ammunation owes $210,000 to [EAF]Sean and his Ammunation
NPM Ammunation owes $65,000 to Vice City Port Authority, to Truck Driver [EAF]Nylez in particular. He was the one being held responsible for the destroying of the truck.

Evidence:
[EAF]Sean ordering the stock
(http://i.imgur.com/zMJC958.jpg)

[EAF]Nylez taking the delivery from [EAF]Sean
(http://i.imgur.com/pb3pXPj.png)

Evidence of the stock being destroyed and Reaper being the one doing it.
(http://i.imgur.com/9gj8Z5k.jpg)

(http://i.imgur.com/TfSNzoP.png)

Thank you in advance.

Signed,

[EAF]Nylez
Title: Re: Ammunation Vice Point (North Point Mall) vs [EAF]Nylez
Post by: stormeus on March 24, 2016, 07:34:28 pm
I'll be presiding over this case. Has the defendant been informed of the case against him? Also, I'm assuming that the claimed damages of $210,000 ARD to Sean's business is a typo as the evidence submitted indicates damages of $110,000 ARD instead ($100,000 for the shipment + $10,000 in fees).

As far as legal standing goes, I need a statement from Sean authorizing you to act as his legal representative for this case, as he is the one directly damaged by this incident. Your personal damages would be limited to any compensation you would've directly lost from being unable to deliver the stock — in this case the $10,000 in fees.

Lastly, if the Vice City Port Authority themselves would like to sue for the cost of the replacement vehicle, that's their choice, though I fail to see how you're directly affected by it. Moreover, since the VCPA is an autonomous government agency, it's highly unlikely that they'd be able to sue in the first place.

To summarize, these are the damages I'm considering for this case:

I'll be awaiting a response from the defendant. I'm also summoning Marco White and Rapture to testify as witnesses to this case.

Stormeus
Chief Justice for the State of Florida
Title: Re: Ammunation Vice Point (North Point Mall) vs [EAF]Nylez
Post by: stormeus on March 24, 2016, 08:05:14 pm
The summons for Marco and Rapture to testify has been delivered and is hereby being entered into the public record.

(http://i.imgur.com/zYW2gXS.png)

Stormeus
Chief Justice for the State of Florida
Title: Re: Ammunation Vice Point (North Point Mall) vs [EAF]Nylez
Post by: Marcell on March 24, 2016, 09:57:31 pm
Hello, this is North Point Mall Ammu-Nation management.
We are very sorry for your loss, but our employee's actions have nothing to do with it. In fact, according to our information, he was shot down by FBI agents shortly after his assault. Formalities wise, the man has been fired (even though he's dead) and is in no way associated with our business. He was replaced by a more competent employee.
In fact, we even grabbed a shot from Printworks CCTV cameras:
(http://imgup.pl/di/CKP2/2016-03-24-15-17-51-0184.png)
Sincerely,
North Point Ammunation Management
Title: Re: Ammunation Vice Point (North Point Mall) vs [EAF]Nylez
Post by: Nylez on March 24, 2016, 10:15:17 pm
As the employee in question was acting on behalf of your Ammunation I have every right to blame you for the deeds he has done.
In the business world it's common sense that once an employee is hired, management of the business in particular is responsible for any action of this employee.

Signed,

[EAF]Nylez
Title: Re: Ammunation Vice Point (North Point Mall) vs [EAF]Nylez
Post by: Dance on March 25, 2016, 01:43:58 am
Hello, [EAF]Sean here. Nylez being co-owner of Ocean Beach Ammunation, and my family member, will speak on my behalf as a lawyer.

Signed,

[EAF]Sean
Title: Re: Ammunation Vice Point (North Point Mall) vs [EAF]Nylez
Post by: Marcell on March 25, 2016, 10:20:31 am
Quote from: Dance on March 25, 2016, 01:43:58 am
will speak on my behalf as a lawyer.
Mr. Nylez is not a registered lawyer.
Title: Re: Ammunation Vice Point (North Point Mall) vs [EAF]Nylez
Post by: Marco on March 25, 2016, 02:13:59 pm
   To the Honorable Court Hall of Vice City,


   I, Marco White, hereby present my statement as an answer to the summons received.
   
   Me, as acting FBI Director, and Agent Rapture were conducting a traffic stop on a cargo truck near the bridge between Vice Port and Washington/Ocean Beach. During that stop, a civilian wearing a police uniform (which later was found out to be a disguise) appeared bearing a M60 machine-gun and shot the truck until it exploded. He was suspected on sight and a chase ensued, ending at the Print Works factory in Little Haiti, where he opened fire against us and ended up killed.

   Should there be any doubts to be cleared regarding this statement, I'd be glad to do so. Thank you for your time.
Title: Re: Ammunation Vice Point (North Point Mall) vs [EAF]Nylez
Post by: Rapture on March 25, 2016, 02:52:37 pm
Honorable judge,

I'm here on behalf of the witness summon that was delivered to me, and I'm here to testify as an eyewitness.
I, Rapture, was with Marco White at the precise time this event took place. While pulling over a truck driver for a routine check, he gave us an invoice about this delivery that took place to Ocean Beach Ammunation. The Vice Port Authority employee in question; Mr. Nylez; also did have crates of weaponry in the back.

The event that the court is interested in; destruction of stock contained within the truck was indeed destroyed by a civilian arriving in a motorbike and blowing up the aforementioned truck with an M60 machine gun. Afterwards, the civilian ran away with said motorbike and the FBI was involved in a chase until it came to a stop at Haiti Print Works. The civilian opened fire on us and we were engaged in a firefight, where it came to an end where Marco White neutralized the man.

By his belongings, he had a counterfeit VCPD uniform & credentials.
Title: Re: Ammunation Vice Point (North Point Mall) vs [EAF]Nylez
Post by: stormeus on March 25, 2016, 09:17:46 pm
Nylez is not registered as a lawyer for the state, which only means that he isn't required to represent people who can't afford private lawyers. Private lawyers and self-representation is still allowed in this courtroom. I will ask the plaintiff to provide some form of evidence to directly show Reaper's involvement in the operation of the NPM Ammunation.

The court also recognizes the testimony of the witnesses summoned.

Stormeus
Chief Justice
Title: Re: Ammunation Vice Point (North Point Mall) vs [EAF]Nylez
Post by: Nylez on March 26, 2016, 12:50:04 pm
Respected Judge,

could you ellaborate on the required evidence you need?
Defendant Reaper has already stated to be the owner of the business I am suing and has admitted that the attacker of the VCPA Yankee was an employee of his company.

Some more details on the required evidence are necessary.
My apologies for the inconvenience.

Signed,

[EAF]Nylez
Title: Re: Ammunation Vice Point (North Point Mall) vs [EAF]Nylez
Post by: Marcell on March 26, 2016, 01:18:07 pm
Quote from: Nylez on March 26, 2016, 12:50:04 pm
Defendant Reaper has already stated to be the owner of the business
Sir, that man has nothing to do with our store - you're free to go and check yourself who's the current employee/owner, it's legal information available for everyone (/place).

Signed,
NPM Ammu-Nation Management
Title: Re: Ammunation Vice Point (North Point Mall) vs [EAF]Nylez
Post by: Nylez on March 26, 2016, 01:37:02 pm
 So you lied in court about owning the Ammunation?

Let me quote the statement you made:

Quote from: Marcell on March 24, 2016, 09:57:31 pm
Hello, this is North Point Mall Ammu-Nation management.

Selling your business and make one of your associates the owner will not change anything, you were still the owner at the moment the incident took place.
Just to clarify you have owned it:

(http://i.imgur.com/fa1wbnw.jpg)
Title: Re: Ammunation Vice Point (North Point Mall) vs [EAF]Nylez
Post by: Marcell on March 26, 2016, 01:56:19 pm
That reference doesn't show any date when it took place. You are suing the store and so I am answering as 'business' itself and not a person, the person you're blaming is well, dead, which doesn't really make it valid.
Title: Re: Ammunation Vice Point (North Point Mall) vs [EAF]Nylez
Post by: Nylez on March 26, 2016, 02:12:01 pm
You were answering as Management of the Ammunation, proving you are an individual, representing the North Point Mall Ammunation. The fact that you first claim to be part of Management and then claim that "Reaper" has no business with the Ammunation in particular?

(http://i.imgur.com/TfSNzoP.png)

The picture above shows the employee in particular shout : "no stock for you!!"
This clearly shows that the employee has planned the attack all along, as he knew exactly which truck with which driver he had to attack to make sure Ocean Beach Ammunation would not get their delivery.

I'll let the respected Judge handle this further.

Signed,

[EAF]Nylez
Title: Re: Ammunation Vice Point (North Point Mall) vs [EAF]Nylez
Post by: Nylez on March 26, 2016, 02:21:26 pm
Respected Judge,

Hereby I would like to request an employee of City Hall to check latest Business sales and purchases, to proof that the defendant has only recently sold his Business to avoid losing the case and therefore avoid paying the compensation Ocean Beach Ammunation requires.

Thanks in advance,

Signed,

[EAF]Nylez
Title: Re: Ammunation Vice Point (North Point Mall) vs [EAF]Nylez
Post by: stormeus on March 26, 2016, 02:30:38 pm
My apologies, I failed to make the connection between Marcell and Reaper being the same person.

To the defendant: I understand that there's a distinction between the business and the individual being sued. However, if you truly don't have any stake in the operation of the NPM Ammunation anymore, I'm confused as to why you're continuing to respond as a management representative.

The fact that you died in this series of events doesn't seem to be in question, nor is the fact that you intentionally destroyed a competing business's stock. The main question in this case is whether this was the action taken in the business's interest or a random individual. So far, I don't see a convincing reason to allow a complete distinction between "management" posts and your individual persona, when it'd otherwise be completely unestablished who manages the business and actually is responding to this case.

To the plaintiff:
Quote from: Nylez on March 26, 2016, 02:12:01 pm
I'll let the respected Judge handle this further.

Are you officially resting your case then?
Title: Re: Ammunation Vice Point (North Point Mall) vs [EAF]Nylez
Post by: stormeus on March 26, 2016, 02:32:14 pm
Quote from: Nylez on March 26, 2016, 02:21:26 pm
Hereby I would like to request an employee of City Hall to check latest Business sales and purchases, to proof that the defendant has only recently sold his Business to avoid losing the case and therefore avoid paying the compensation Ocean Beach Ammunation requires.

This kind of subpoena ability isn't available to the court as business ownership changes aren't in the public record for inspection. This would be an interesting idea to give official scripting support for, though: limited information (business and property sales, paydays, deaths) being publicly available somehow.
Title: Re: Ammunation Vice Point (North Point Mall) vs [EAF]Nylez
Post by: Marcell on March 26, 2016, 02:36:27 pm
I don't have patience to drag the RP game as it doesn't make much sense so I'll just write like this;
You can't use out of character chat as evidence AFAIK, if that was the case the court would be flooded with cases. I'm not sure if checking logs is allowed or not in court cases so I'd leave that up to the judge, although from my point of view you simply lack evidence, the one presented by you lacks /time.

I only responded as the business entity instead of my own character because I thought dead men can't speak in court. That being said, I have nothing else to add, my character has nothing to do with the business and there's no evidence pointing otherwise. I fail to see any relation and why is this court case pointed at a business, while there's simply no evidence it was related to said business, except for out of character chatlog that was said due to admin-side confusion.
Title: Re: Ammunation Vice Point (North Point Mall) vs [EAF]Nylez
Post by: stormeus on March 26, 2016, 02:51:08 pm
The problem is that Argonath's administration doesn't make much of a distinction between in-character and out-of-character, and so drawing that kind of line in the court system would be confusing and arbitrary. The court doesn't deal with issues that are handled by an admin, and I see you'd been frozen, but apparently this was reverted and the incident continued in the game world until you died.

Likewise, it's hard to draw a distinction between a business entity and an individual when there's an individual representing the business in every way but in name. It's not really an issue that this court has ever resolved.
Title: Re: Ammunation Vice Point (North Point Mall) vs [EAF]Nylez
Post by: Marcell on March 26, 2016, 03:07:54 pm
Quote from: stormeus on March 26, 2016, 02:51:08 pm
The problem is that Argonath's administration doesn't make much of a distinction between in-character and out-of-character
Yes, not much, but there are some limits. This is evidenced by non written common sense rules such as having to roleplay an actual surveillence device while for example reporting a corrupt officer - you can't just take screens and post them as it is, judging by FBI cases on different servers for example they have to roleplay proper surveillence instead of just taking screens.
That being said, the only proof in this whole case I see is a chatlog that was posted only because of admin matter. If this could be used as evidence, VCPD could sue EAF daily for writing 'vcpd sucks' on the main chat, or a similar matter. The rest is pure speculation of the plaintiff.
Title: Re: Ammunation Vice Point (North Point Mall) vs [EAF]Nylez
Post by: Nylez on March 26, 2016, 03:58:22 pm
I am not resting my case, I am avoiding a 1v1 argument in the court case, as I want it to handled in a professional matter.

The point I made about the individual identified as Reaper shouting before shooting my truck specifically, clearly explains the fact he knew what he was shooting at and with what intentions.

Adding to that is that the Management made clear that the individual was an employee of the NPM Ammunation, I have delivered proof enough that the crime was done premediated.
I request that the defendant proves that the employee had no intention of destroying the stock just to make sure a rival Ammunation wouldn't get the stock required to continue selling weapons (OB Ammunation is still without stock as we speak).

Signed,

[EAF]Nylez

Title: Re: Ammunation Vice Point (North Point Mall) vs [EAF]Nylez
Post by: Kessu on March 26, 2016, 07:53:16 pm
Summing up so all parties involved stay on the same track:

Nylez's evidence of planned attack against the delivery truck is in the pictures as a roleplay shout:
Quote
"Reaper shouts: no stock for u!!"

You, Marcell, pointed out that the "Reaper" character who destroyed the van actually did work for the ammunation that is being sued:
Quote from: Marcell on March 24, 2016, 09:57:31 pm
Hello, this is North Point Mall Ammu-Nation management.
We are very sorry for your loss, but our employee's actions have nothing to do with it

The previous or current owner of the business makes no difference in this matter since you, Marcell, are answering to this lawsuit representing the management of the business being sued rather than a single person (or the character that died during the events that lead to this court case).

Which is why Nylez is now saying this:
Quote from: Nylez on March 26, 2016, 03:58:22 pm
I request that the defendant proves that the employee had no intention of destroying the stock just to make sure a rival Ammunation wouldn't get the stock required to continue selling weapons (OB Ammunation is still without stock as we speak).


EDIT: Do note that I am not taking any part in this court case, I just posted a summary since people seemed to be somewhat confused about what's happening

And yes Stormeus, Reaper = Marcell
Title: Re: Ammunation Vice Point (North Point Mall) vs [EAF]Nylez
Post by: Marcell on March 26, 2016, 10:01:49 pm
I'm sorry, but there's simply no roleplay evidence that we could go on. You can't ask me for proof of defending myself when you literally have zero evidence for your own accusations. Even if you prove your point, there's still n-o-t-h-i-n-g that would point at some kind of business rivalry/illegal activity that took place, except for pure speculations. Things that happened out of roleplay might be obvious, but court has to go on proper roleplay evidence. You can't just use chat logs and obvious non-roleplay information to prove your point, else FBI could just sue EAF based on the fact that they declare themselves as a gang on their own forum. What happened was a plain terrorist attack, this case would make more sense if the stock was stolen and delivered to another business - then no problem in such case. If you have no RP evidence to present I believe this case is totally redundant.
Title: Re: Ammunation Vice Point (North Point Mall) vs [EAF]Nylez
Post by: Klaus on March 26, 2016, 11:32:07 pm
Interesting theory Marcell, but I have to disagree. The judge only has to piece together all the evidence that you seem to think doesn't exist. Let me explain for you. I think it's rather evident that the 'employee' in question was no psychopath. We can clearly see that it was a planned attack in order to destroy the stock by evidence shown "Reaper shouts: no stock for u!!". Now we know that Ocean Beach Ammunation has two other Ammunations who compete for wholesale. They are the only businesses who would actually profit from destroying the stock. Downtown Ammunation is currently owned by Nylez, who was the trucker in this very incident. We also know that Downtown Ammunation has a joint collaboration with the management of the Ocean Beach Ammunation (Both are run by EAF). Knowing all of this, all the evidence surely points to the NPM Ammunation being the culprit of this planned attack. That and you openly admitted the man was actually an employee of the Ammunation anyway which clearly puts the store at fault. So I fail to see where you're going with saying there is zero evidence?
Title: Re: Ammunation Vice Point (North Point Mall) vs [EAF]Nylez
Post by: Marcell on March 27, 2016, 12:23:23 am
What you said is a matter for police investigation and is a mere speculation. The phrase 'no stock for you' could refer to anything, perhaps even a matter of personal hatred against the victim, not to mention that it was only heard by witnesses and is not documented in any proper form. Again, if the matter was stealing the cargo and delivering it to a different business, the situation would totally fit your scheme. As of now it could've been anything, ranging from personal hatred of the perpetrator to a terrorist attack. If your thesis would be proven by some kind of police investigation maybe it'd make sense, otherwise it's a mere speculation anyone can make. If court would go by pure speculations and common non roleplay knowledge, EAF would cease to exist due to lawsuits.

I rest my case.
Title: Re: Ammunation Vice Point (North Point Mall) vs [EAF]Nylez
Post by: Marco on March 27, 2016, 12:47:39 am
   Esteemed Court Hall of Vice City,


   Several individuals have given statements while not officially requested by either parties or the Court Hall itself; as a state-appointed lawyer, even if not acting in this very case as one, I believe that the Court Hall's procedures should be maintained and such activity be curbed in order for a due process of law, not only for this but every following case made by any civilian or entity.
Title: Re: Ammunation Vice Point (North Point Mall) vs [EAF]Nylez
Post by: Klaus on March 27, 2016, 12:50:06 am
Nothing of what I said is speculation though. I was laying down the facts easily enough for you to see there is plenty of evidence saying that the NPM Ammunation is behind the attack. If lets say the attacker had some kind of hatred on Nylez he wouldn't give a damn about destroying the stock would he? Same for if he was a terrorist just wanting to cause havoc. Also, the line "no stock for u!" clearly shows that the attacker's intent was to destroy the stock. There's no vagueness about it. What do you mean by not properly documented? I don't know how else you would document a man shouting other than the evidence already shown? Anyway as you've rested your case I'll leave you to it.
Title: Re: Ammunation Vice Point (North Point Mall) vs [EAF]Nylez
Post by: stormeus on March 27, 2016, 01:08:40 am
Quote from: Marco on March 27, 2016, 12:47:39 am
   Esteemed Court Hall of Vice City,


   Several individuals have given statements while not officially requested by either parties or the Court Hall itself; as a state-appointed lawyer, even if not acting in this very case as one, I believe that the Court Hall's procedures should be maintained and such activity be curbed in order for a due process of law, not only for this but every following case made by any civilian or entity.

Agreed. From here on out I ask that only the plaintiff, defendant, and their legal representatives comment.

The defendant has rested his case. Does the plaintiff have any closing arguments?
Title: Re: Ammunation Vice Point (North Point Mall) vs [EAF]Nylez
Post by: Nylez on March 27, 2016, 01:31:41 am
Respected Judge,

I have shown all my evidence and made my statements based on that evidence in my previous posts.

Awaiting your decision.

Signed,

[EAF]Nylez
Title: Re: Ammunation Vice Point (North Point Mall) vs [EAF]Nylez
Post by: stormeus on March 29, 2016, 07:21:28 am
(http://i.imgur.com/ijwg0Vk.png) (http://i.imgur.com/1PyQkiD.png)   
Court of Vice City
Fiat justitia.

17 Bayshore Ave.
Downtown Vice City, FL 33128


As an aside regarding posting arguments for one side or the other in court threads: I'd welcome people to share their opinions with the court about cases and why one side should be allowed to win. However, I'd need to look into an organized way of allowing outsiders to share opinions with the court without directly involving themselves in the case and causing distracting back-and-forths. I'll probably have something for a future case, but for now I ask that people not make open arguments in the courtroom.

What follows is a summary of the arguments made in the case and remarks about their interpretation by the court so that citizens can understand why the outcome was reached. The actual decision can be found at the very end of the post.


Seeing as the defendant's main argument is that the evidence is inadmissible due to a lack of roleplay, the decision of the court largely hinges on the interpretation of what's considered roleplaying. The idea that civilians have to fully roleplay surveillance for evidence to count is easily dismissed, as prior cases have established a precedent of accepting this degree of roleplay in evidence for civilians, including Brian v. Robd (http://www.argonathrpg.eu/index.php?topic=95580.0) and Klaus v. Brian (http://www.argonathrpg.eu/index.php?topic=69565.msg1051626#msg1051626). Other relevant cases aren't available for analysis since their evidence has been lost or destroyed. (Thanks ImageShack.)

Explicitly stating that some sort of recording equipment such as a camera or microphone is on makes it unambiguous that anything after that is admissible. However, for civilian cases this is mostly a formality. We can infer here that the evidence was recorded from the truck.

Moreover, the distinction between "roleplayed" and "non-roleplayed" doesn't exist in the case. Writing to global chat does not disqualify statements as "out-of-character" because that'd contradict Argonath's own policy against IC/OOC distinctions. The evidence submitted even shows the defendant even participating in what he would consider an RP context, using local chat to inspect the truck before destroying it.

Because of that, these statements:
Quote
Reaper: no stock man
Reaper: is business
Reaper: competition

Are part of the same roleplay context, even if they're not in local chat, and clearly establish that this was a business-motivated decision taken by the owner.

Moreover, there's the matter of who's responding to a lawsuit where the employee involved is also the business owner. The business is clearly the entity being sued. Still, the owner still "exists" to an extent, and can't establish a defense by claiming to have fired themselves. They assume two separate identities, so to speak — their identity as the employee and their identity as the business owner.

Even though the "employee" is dead and can't speak about things like the ensuing police chase, what they were doing before the incident, etc., the business owner still assumes responsibility for the actions of the now-dead employee if their actions were part of the business's operations. The consequence of this is that since the owner's only defense is that their actions were not related to the running of their business, which has been disproved in this case.

(To that end, if ownership of a business actually does change in the middle of a lawsuit, the new owner must assume legal responsibilities and represent the business. The old owner can still be brought in to testify on business-related decisions as a previous owner, but is still prohibited from speaking about anything from his "employee" persona.)

Finally, there's the matter of whether the business or the individual should be held responsible. If the employee acts on their own volition and without connection to the business, this is a case that could be made, and is an argument that was used by the defendant. However, we've already established that all evidence in this case is admissible, and so we can make the logical connection that this was a business-related action, and not sheer insanity.


The court hereby rules in favor of the plaintiff and awards the following damages:

Stormeus
Chief Justice
SimplePortal 2.3.7 © 2008-2025, SimplePortal