Ammunation Vice Point (North Point Mall) vs [EAF]Nylez

[Nylez]

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

[stormeus]

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:

I'll let the respected Judge handle this further.

Are you officially resting your case then?

[stormeus]

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.

[Marcell]

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.

[stormeus]

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.

[Marcell]

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.

[Nylez]

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

[Kessu]

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:

"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:

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:

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

[Marcell]

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.

[Klaus]

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?

[Marcell]

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.

[Marco]

   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.

[Klaus]

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.

[stormeus]

   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?

[Nylez]

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