STATISTICS

Start Year: 1995
Current Year: 2004

Month: February

2 Weeks is 1 Month
Next Month: 31/03/2024

OUR STAFF

Administration Team

Administrators are in-charge of the forums overall, ensuring it remains updated, fresh and constantly growing.

Administrator: Jamie
Administrator: Hollie

Community Support

Moderators support the Administration Team, assisting with a variety of tasks whilst remaining a liason, a link between Roleplayers and the Staff Team.

Moderator: Connor
Moderator: Odinson
Moderator: Vacant


Have a Question?
Open a Support Ticket

AFFILIATIONS

RPG-D

[ICJ] First Choice Intl v. French Sales Incorporated

Connor

Kingdom of Sweden
Moderator
GA Member
Jul 23, 2018
4,187
With the court announced to be in session the Swedish delegation would consciously move from formal titles to courtroom appropriate addresses. Einar Åkesson would swear her oath to the court before standing behind the complainant desks, her black leather chair pushed just behind the back of her knees, as she stands her hands naturally rest infront of her with the back of her hand clasped gently in her other palm.

Einer briefly blinks, widening her eyes in surprise as the French disrespect the court by interrupting opening statements... something which, out of courtesy, is never done in a courtroom.

"Good afternoon. Your Honour, Justices... my name is Einar Åkesson and I stand before you as the European Regional Practice Manager for Strömberg International Legal Consultants, representing our client First Choice International, a world reknown umbrella organisation housing a number defence-orientated subsidiary organisations proactively pursuing the international trade market in the defence and intelligence arena.​
Today we stand before your coat pursuing a French organisation known to us as French Military Sales Incorporated, FMSI, however operating under a number of alias' such as French Naval Sales Incorporated, French Maritime Incorporated and France Defense Sales Incorporated to name just a few; we believe these alias' are actually subsidiary organisations under the French Military Sales umbrella however this remains unrelated to the case. Your Honour to give you a small amount of context regarding the defence in this case, FMSI is a state-owned organisation that the President of the Republic of France actively takes an interest in and in this case has following proceedings from the very beginning - I think it's important to note for the benefit of the court, the tape and the defence that First Choice International and Strömberg International Legal Consultants are private organisations and are in no way state-funded in any way other than a consumer-business relationship.​
We're pursuing French Military Sales Incorporated for a number of charges namely various violations of consumer trade, abuse/perversion of judicial process, false/manipulative advertisement, defamation, witness intimidation and international law violations. This is quite a sheet for a business in it's infancy and frankly accusations of this level are unheard of... the International Court of Justice has never heard a civil dispute of this nature and frankly, Your Honour, this case is complex.​
Early in 1995 French Military Sales Incorporated began trading in a variety of military-grade and civil goods namely fixed wing aircraft, helicopters, naval vessels and civil logistical vehicles under the aforementioned alias', their business model was not unusual to any other business in the global market offering a standardised price per unit per product from which organisations and governments alike can put forward their request for production and in return for the appropriate payment, FMSI facilitate the manufacture of these goods presumably with production licences at their disposal. Almost like a WalMart for military-grade equipment, you pay what's on the label and checkout. As I said FMSI trade internationally and throughout their website it's made very clear that their business model is heavily reliant on a global sales market with their prices in the US Dollar currency and nothing to suggest any exclusions are in play. It was soon brought to our attention however that their organisation were responsible for facilitating the sale of a number of military/civilian maritime vessels and military-grade aircraft manufactured by subsidiary organisations of which First Choice International is the majority and only share holder and as such we, Strömberg International Legal Consultants, were brought in to begin legal proceedings to prevent further loss of revenue and reputation damage inevitably being caused to our client First Choice International. These products included the Eurocopter AS, 332 Super Puma, Aerospatiale Gazelle, Aerospatiale SA321 Super Frelon, Al Madinah-Class Guided Missile Frigate, Cassard-Class Frigate, PR-72P-Class Corvette and Fourde-Class Landing Platform Dock - seven products in total.​
It's here I will mention that the products were falsely advertised contrary to consumer law - a manipulative sales tactic, you will see this trend throughout this case...​
A Cease and Desist was served on French Military Sales Incorporated in which it was clearly explained that a single opportunity to discontinue illegal sale of goods - from which they immediate acknowledged their wilful infringement and ceased further production of the aforementioned products.​
The significant loss of product to our client, First Choice International, prompted follow-up correspondence from our offices advising the possibility of a civil settlement to the value of $2,000,000,000.00 flat - this amount was calculated from publicly available data, which we are able to exhibit to the court upon request, and calculations for the lost profit, administrative and legal costs and irreversible reputational damage to First Choice International. Unsurprisingly FMSI initially objected to settling at this price, denying sales anywhere near this figure - this was the first overt lie told by an organisation clearly unaware of the records both they and their clients have on public record. This was very quickly followed up by the organisation, which I will remind you is a state-owned organisation stating that the Republic of France was not part of the Global Assembly, is not subject to international law and subsequently not within the remit of the International Court of Justice - the second lie told to intentionally deceive our legal proceedings and preventing further judicial process. However they counter-offer our initial settlement with a payment of $500,000,000.00, a quarter of the amount initially pursued, followed by their refusal to acknowledge First Choice International as the majority shareholder in both Airbus Group and DCNS despite the Global Stock Market clearly displaying this on public records.​
At this point, I would like to make it clear to the court that at this stage that we are not pursuing the states placing orders with FMSI on the basis that their pursuit for the fairest and cheapest prices in the market was a natural pull to this French-run organisation - it is likely that these consumers were unaware of any infringement at the time of purchase.​
In an attempt to prevent a court case we continued to pursue the settlement fee and the correspondence from the defence became more and more aggravated at points claiming that Strömberg had "committed illegal acts in reckless pursuit of this ill-conceived lawsuit" which I am sure they will enlighten us to in their follow-up opening statement and going on to say that our case would be "discarded faster than an IKEA instruction manual" - now I don't know about you Your Honour but if the French are able to build an IKEA wardrobe without that manual then frankly that is impressive... never-the-less, you're able to see that their correspondence had reached an unusually immature and unprofessional grade.​
At this point we served our intention to pursue this via the court system, to which they replied, acknowledging the initiation of legal process.​
FMSI, following this notice, backtrack their initial correspondence and agree to the settlement figure initially requested and payment was asked to be made directly to Strömberg International Legal Consultants for distribution onto our client. We wanted to create a clear and defined barrier between our client and the defence especially with the back-and-forth we had thusfar however unsurprisingly this was disputed with FMSI contacting our client directly, despite our instruction. I would like to outline for the court that at this stage FMSI had been served notice of intended court hearing, yet they went on to contact our client, the victim in this case... it is without doubt that their contact with First Choice International was blatantly to intimidate our client into rescinding any legal action which is unforgivably illegal and diminished their respect for the judicial system even further. Thankfully their attempt was unsuccessful however despite our client referring FMSI onto Strömberg International Legal Consultants on numerous occasions, their correspondence continued again and again - at this stage it was the President of the Republic of France himself contacting our client. There is nobody higher in the French political system. This was not just some corporate lawyer overstepping their position, this is the highest-level government official intimidating our client.​
Now the agreement to settle is interesting but I am sure the court thinks we're near the end of this absurd tale? No. The agreement to settle was purely a way to delay legal proceedings even further as without any discussion, any contractual agreement, not even a mention in correspondence between French Military Sales Incorporated and our firm a payment of $200,000,000.00 was sent under the suggestion that this was one of 11 payments to cover the cost. Yes, a payment plan nobody had agreed to. To this date FMSI had paid no more than this initial payment making it even more glaringly obvious that from start to finish their organisation was determined to delay legal proceedings, manipulate international and domestic law and deceive everyone involved.​
With the view of this case being unable to proceed via domestic courts and with the Republic of France denying their membership of the Global Assembly, this dispute was raised to the Swedish Ambassador to the Global Assembly Marc Kvet in the view that this case had dangerously escalated into the French government denying justice... something that clearly sits outside of a business-to-business civil matter; because of this a Global Assembly Resolution was raised. To answer the defence in their interruption, the Global Assembly Resolution was not 'thrown out' as a result of no case, it was to be referred onwards to the International Court of Justice where it would've been in the first place had the Republic of France not denied their membership.​
Jurisdiction for this case falls word-for-word within Article 7e of the Statue of the Court. Judicial proceedings in both Swedish and French law have remained unheard as a result of the clear violations of international law. It is within our rights to have all charges heard by a judge by means of fair trial however despite our best attempts FMSI will not comply with domestic court systems bringing the requirement to the International Court of Justice to hear not only the domestic civil claims but also the international law violations that bring us to this courtroom in the first place. Your Honour should you not hear the domestic charges, they will remain unheard, the victim in this case will remain unheard and the defence will walk free knowing dragging us all to the international courts saves them any possibility of being found guilty.​
Your Honour, Justices, be under no illusion that responsibility is going to be accepted by the defence. You will be manipulated throughout this court case as they attempt to play the victim card as they have with us, I encourage you to see through this. French Military Sales Incorporated is an intelligent state-run organisation with the President of the Republic of France steering the ship. Using international law as a chess piece in their undeniably dangerous game.​
Deceit. Manipulation. Abuse.​
Thank you."​

Einar smiles to the Justices as a sign of respect before returning to her seat just behind her. She takes a very quick sip of water before opening her notebook in preparation to make notes from the French statement due to follow.
 
Last edited:

Odinson

Moderator
GA Member
World Power
Jul 12, 2018
9,342
"Thank you for your opening statement and the presentation of your case, counselor. I apologize for not stating this earlier, but I will do so now. I'm sure you're both familiar with how ICJ proceedings work. It's technically left up to the discretion of myself and the other justices, however we do have an unofficial order we like to stick to. I think I'm going to make it more strict this time, if the other justices have no objection... You're all attorneys, but I'll submit it in writing for simplicity's sake," Olhouser said as he took a sip from his Earl Grey tea.

"1. The Plaintiff - First Choice International - has given their opening statements and generally presented their case through their legal counsel.
2. The Defense will give their opening statements as well as their case for the defense.
3. The Plaintiff may then give responding remarks to the Defense's opening statements and case. If they chose not to, they may simply 'rest their case'.
4. The Defense may then make a response to the remarks of the Plaintiff - assuming they chose to make remarks. The Defense may 'rest their case' at this stage as well, of course.
5. Witnesses may be called to testify if necessary, and will be questioned by both sides.
6. Myself and the two other justices will act as a panel and question whomever we wish on either side as much as we desire.
7. Finally, the Plaintiff and then the Defense will be offered the opportunity to make closing statements - which should be a summary of their case and what has transpired, and should not include new evidence.

After this, the justices and I will deliberate, make our verdict, and decide on punishment if there is any punishment to be issued... Well then, thank you for listening to the tirade. The Court now recognizes the Defense to make their opening statements, as well as their case."

As promised, the Plaintiff and Defense were both issued a copy of this simple procedure.

@Moe
@Connor
 
Last edited:

Moe

His Dudeness
Jul 2, 2018
1,433
Counselor DuPont and rises from his chair, slightly nods his head in the directon of the court

"Good afternoon. Your Honour, Justices..."

He then moves from behind his desk and to the front of his to give himself a little space as he likes to walk and talk when giving an opening defense.

"There is an old adage in the law, If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts. If you have the law on your side, pound the law. If you have neither on your side, pound the table.'" Each time she says the word Pound he takes his right fist and stabs into his left palm.

""Well, we certainly have heard a lot of pounding from Stromberg this afternoon. I hope the Swedes have not damaged any of the courts property."

Counselor DuPont clears his court and then makes over to the Stromberg table, then gesturing with his hand begins at the Stromberg table whilst facing the Justices.

"For starters, Stromberg pounded the table by assailing French Military INC. (FMI) for promoting products and had clients pay for those in US dollars. This has been a fact of doing business since the end of World War Two. In fact, Stromberg's own client, FCI receives funds in American dollars.

Screen Shot 2019-12-03 at 7.48.45 PM.png




As does Sweden:


Sweden Sends Yankee Bucks

However, with your offer to complete the settlement for our client, all payments should be made directly to Strömberg International Legal Consultants in the first instance.

Moreover, Stromberg itself, asked FMI to pay the settlement in US dollars, not in Kronors.

So why does this statement need to be made as part of their case? I will quote verbatim:

"As I said FMSI trade internationally and throughout their website it's made very clear that their business model is heavily reliant on a global sales market with their prices in the US Dollar currency and nothing to suggest any exclusions are in play."

"I ask, what does this even mean? I see no other reason to include it in their opening statement other than to pound the table."

"Next, we can now delve into another hot-button issue with Stromberg's opening statement. That FMI, is a state-owned company."

Counsellor DuPont, still nearby the Stromberg table then takes his hands out of trouser pockets and then claps his hands high in the air.

"Stromberg, I must congratulate you on pounding the table on an issue we never refuted, not even once. Of course, it is state-owned. And being state-owned, of course the President of France will play a role in it, especially when mired in a lawsuit. Why would expect him not to be?"

Dupont then walks towards the court arms out. "Why would he not be? He is the President, and a national institution is being attacked. I ask this rhetorically only..."

'If one of your nations' national companies were under attack, would you not want your President to step in, assess the situation and attempt to mediate a situation that had clearly come to an impasse, like the one between the Brigadier General in France, who was handling the case for FMI, and the representatives from Stromberg?

I will try to wrap this up.....one of the other contentious issues was Stromberg being upset, or saying having the President of France represent his own state-owned company by contacting FCI directly, he was somehow strong-arming or attempting to intimidate FCI.

Nothing could be further from the truth. It was Stromberg's own incompetence, deciet or a combination of both that lead the President to make the decision to contact FCI directly."

Counselor DuPont then pulls from briefcase a Hard Drive disk and places it into the court computer.

On the screen then appears:

Stromberg Messages to FMI

You can clearly see in Post #4 FMI wrote, "So, as stated, at the very least, please provide some evidence that FCI is a major shareholder in Airbus and DCNS, including when these contracts were signed and by whom, including the government officials at the time."

You can clearly see in Post#5 You wrote: "Agreements to organisations including Airbus Group and DCNS are not publicly available however recognised by the Stock Market with First Choice International being the majority shareholder with 100% of all stocks and shares in the businesses. Rest assured there is no dispute regarding ownership of these businesses."

When Pressed in Post#7 You wrote: Attached is evidence of the points you have raised in your correspondence., I must stress that this will count as part of our non-sensitive evidence disclosure for court.

"Public records were not attainable, but then they were? You could imagine how difficult it was to be "rest-assured" as you like to say about anything more you had to disclose.

Now let's move onto the method of payment for the "settlement."

You claim that there no previous agreement between our two parties had been agreed upon.

I will point you to Post#10 of our correspondence.

FMI: "We will agree to the terms of settlement in the payment of $2,000,000,000 and all military hardware owned by companies of FCI will be removed from our sales catalogues."

Post#11:
However, with your offer to complete the settlement for our client, all payments should be made directly to Strömberg International Legal Consultants in the first instance.

"This is the crux of the case. You just stated that all payments should be made Stromberg. I agreed to your settlement. The onus is on you to put into place terms of payment. And moreover you already accepted 200,000,000 from France. You accepted the first installment.

You also already accepted a down payment with out rebuking it or sending it back. Now, it seems you do.

I apologize your Honor and your fellow Justices.

But before I sit down, one questions really rankles me.

Why is a private company from Sweden, representing a private Arms dealer based out of the Netherlands, even here in the ICJ? Is this is what the GA is for?

Why would Stromberg complain of the French President playing a role in these proceedings or interactions between these two parties, when Stromberg did not have the nut to actually go before the court without their own ambassador coming forth first?"

Stromberg Accepts Payment.

@Odinson
@Connor
 
Last edited:

Connor

Kingdom of Sweden
Moderator
GA Member
Jul 23, 2018
4,187
Einar, having been making notes throughout the opening statement, looks up in utter confusion as to whether the French had concluded... she glares briefly at a column set aside in her notebook prepared for the allegations or challenges made in their statement, absurdly noting the fact they'd only challenged two of the points raised in the Swedish statement.

Again, standing as a sign of respect to the court, Einar addresses the judge directly "Your Honour, may I proceed with my counter statement?" - with his permission she goes on as planned.

"Your Honour allow me to cast you back to three words I made clear at the end of my opening statement which, as expected, became unbelievably apparent in the words spoken by the defence.

Deceit.
The defence have presented to you evidence of our client, First Choice International, an internationally recognised defence asset trading organisation using the US dollar as a means of trade internationally. We do not dispute this. Infact, they have done nothing other than argue our point, those that intend to trade on the global market use the internationally recognised currency; US Dollar. Your Honour this serves no relevance to the case whatsoever other than showing you that the defence have already attempted to deceive your court into thinking this was an essential point in our case? Yet, all they have done is shown you that French Military Incorporated intended to trade internationally without exemption making them subject to domestic law in each and every state in the global market. Your Honour, we do not dispute the comments made here.

Manipulation.
Whilst the metaphor was beautiful it was just an attempt to manipulate this court. The defence have punched their hand in their statement more times than they've punched their clocking-in sheet, this is evident by their heart-set focus on our comments regarding the President of the Republic of France serving a part in the business-as-usual operation of French Military Incorporated. Again, this serves no relevance to the case other than providing some substance to our claims that this is a state-owned business at the highest level of government... and to respond to defence if I may, in all my experience I can honestly say I have never seen a head of state involve themselves in a civil legal dispute... but that is beside the point. Again, Your Honour, we do not dispute the comments here.

Abuse.
Your Honour you have it in black and white, the defence are heart set on abusing common practice in the global market. If you were to go to a supermarket and make a selection of good, then attend the checkout area only to provide one tenth of the value of the goods, do you think that cashier would reject your legal tender in pursuit for the full amount? Absolutely not, they'd accept the money they'd already received before requesting the remaining debt, by accepting what you've already offered the cashier does not enter into a legally binding payment plan, by accepting what you've already offered the cashier does not telepathically contact you to permit you to do whatever you want with the remaining debt. The statements made by the defence are again, absurd, and a blatant attempt to abuse the system.

Your Honour what's fundamentally important to note is that the defence has not disputed the ten offences against them when given the opportunity to, nor have they provided any counter allegations against the victim or complainant in this case - instead they have used their opportunity in opening statements to demand clarification on points that serve no relevance to the case and some of which are certainly not disputed by counsel. All they have done thus far is argue our own points? This, in our eyes, is an acceptance of wilful infringement of the numerous consumer protection legislation in place, acceptance of wilful infringement of our clients business assets, acceptance of irreparable reputation damage to our client and surprisingly accepting that they wilfully..."​

Einar looks over to the defence, a small smirk on her face as she prepares a metaphor.

"...surprisingly accepting that they wilfully drove a bulldozer through one of the most essential articles within the Declaration of Human Rights of which the Republic of France is a signatory state by means of their membership within the Global Assembly. Why would they not take the opportunity to dispute a human rights violation? In our eyes, guilt.

Your Honour the complainant would like to pursue monetary compensation for the aforementioned amount, which has already been agreed by French Military Incorporated, and we would like to pursue an additional $690,000,000.00 in legal costs lost by the victim in this case. I am happy to provide a breakdown to the judge's bench for consideration exclusively. We'd like to request that the court consider the amount to be given in a singular payment with consideration to the fact that pursuing the already reluctant defendant for the full amount over a payment plan period will inevitably result in further disputes and require further undivided attention by the victims legal representation... driving costs up even further.

Thank you"​

Einar returns to her seat, striking out each point raised by the defence in her notepad, eagerly awaiting the response from the defence. Knowing predictably that the defence will now backtrack and attempt to defend the ten allegations against them... the hole as been dug, perhaps it's now time to lay down and accept fate... the gravediggers have started filling...
 

Moe

His Dudeness
Jul 2, 2018
1,433
"Where to begin? Ah, pound the table. Do you need to mention a third or fourth time that FCI is a internationally recognized trading company?

Counselor DuPont shrugs his shoulders.

"Deceit?

Yes, I will agree with what Stromberg said. "Your Honour this serves no relevance to the case whatsoever other than showing you that the defence have already attempted to deceive your court into thinking this was an essential point in our case?"

"But it was Stromberg that brought this to the court's attention. Certainly we did not. The Prosecution goes first does it not? It was Stromberg who first uttered the words "US Dollar" and attached negative connotations to it when it regarded France.

Pound that table, Stromberg.

Manipulation?


Again, this serves no relevance to the case other than providing some substance to our claims that this is a state-owned business at the highest level of government... and to respond to defence if I may, in all my experience I can honestly say I have never seen a head of state involve themselves in a civil legal dispute...

This is coming from a prosecutor, who used a Swedish diplomat to get their foot in the door. And again, if it serves no relevance, why did you bring it up?

Again. You are the Prosecutor. You. Are. The. Prosecutor. You bring up all of the claims first. It is my job to defend my client against the claims YOU made first.

If it served no relevance, then why did you mention it?

Abuse?

The prosecution claims ten rights abuses, even though you were told from the onset only the final two of your list will be conferred over in this court room.

Pound the table.

From the Chief Justice's own mouth,

"A Judicial Board it shall be, then. Mister Åkesson, I've looked over the charges that you've presented to the court. I just wanted to underscore that of then ten charges listed, this court has no jurisdiction over the first eight. I'm sure that you included those for context, but I just wanted to make that clear. Charges nine and ten, however, are within our jurisdiction. Would you still like to move forward, Mister Åkesson?"

Pound the Table.

"France has already shown that Stromberg not only agreed to the payment method, but accepted a first installment of that payment.

Mister Justice and the esteemed Court, France feels we have stated our position clearly enough. If the prosecution would like to go ahead with further He Said/She Said, we have no problem with rearguing our case. But if Stromberg wishes to hear the Court's decision right now, France is willing to accept this."

@Odinson
@Connor
 

Odinson

Moderator
GA Member
World Power
Jul 12, 2018
9,342
"Thank you, counselor" Olhouser said after the French attorney concluded his statement.
"Both of you have made your opening statements and presented your case, and both of you have issued rebuttals. Next you will both be allowed to bring forth witnesses, if you wish. This is not required. And if you do, both sides will be able to question said witness..."

Olhouser turned to the Swedes, "Mrs. Åkesson, do you have any witnesses to call?"

@Connor
@Moe
 

Connor

Kingdom of Sweden
Moderator
GA Member
Jul 23, 2018
4,187
Einar stands from her seat before addressing the court and simply replying "Your Honour we have no witnesses to call in this case" before returning to her seat.
 

Odinson

Moderator
GA Member
World Power
Jul 12, 2018
9,342
"Very well," the Chief Justice said as he turned his head to the French. "Does the Defense have any witnesses to call?" he asked.

@Connor
@Moe
 

Moe

His Dudeness
Jul 2, 2018
1,433
Counselor DuPont stands before addressing the court and simply replying, "Your Honour we have no witnesses to call in this case" before returning to his seat."

@Odinson
@Connor
 

Odinson

Moderator
GA Member
World Power
Jul 12, 2018
9,342
"Alright," Olhouser noted. "So then, there will be no witnesses to call or to be questioned. Now comes the time where the other justices and myself may ask any questions we'd like to both the defense and the plaintiff..."

The Chief Justice looked to his other justices to see if they wished to ask anything.
@John
@Zak
 

John

Legend
GA Member
Jul 1, 2018
1,606
Justice Stevens sat straight up in his chair, before speaking. "Counselor DuPont. In your opening statement, you provided evidence in the form of a 'receipt' from First Choice International. On this receipt, FCI make it clear to their customers that the form is Private and Encrypted in order to protect their privacy. However, you have managed to gain access to it. Can I ask whether FMSI, or the French Government for that matter - have conducted an illegal hacking into FCI servers to obtain this information?"

@Moe
 

Connor

Kingdom of Sweden
Moderator
GA Member
Jul 23, 2018
4,187
Einer darts her eyes from Justice Stevens straight over to the defence, awaiting him to slowly rise from his seat and respond to the incredibly valid question, her index finger slowly circles the words "Deceit. Manipulation. Abuse." in her notepad... a small smirk comes across her face before leaning back in her chair and awaiting response from the defence.
 

Moe

His Dudeness
Jul 2, 2018
1,433
Counselor DuPont would rise and respond.

"I do not recall how that information was obtained.

However, it does clearly show, that Stromberg's accusation that French Military Sales Inc. uses US Dollars as a means of financial transaction makes little sense, considering, that is how the entire world economy works.

Since when did using American dollars as a means of conducting a business transaction become an attack on human rights?

Is this not what Stromberg accused French Military Inc. of? That is why we are here?

Stromberg accused French military Inc. of human rights abuses. And clearly using US dollars is not a human rights abuse.

@John
@Odinson
@Connor
@Zak
 

Connor

Kingdom of Sweden
Moderator
GA Member
Jul 23, 2018
4,187
Einar stands from her seat like a rocket "Objection, Your Honour! Creation of a Material Fact"
 

John

Legend
GA Member
Jul 1, 2018
1,606
"Sustained." Justice Stevens would say, before speaking once again. "Counsellor DuPont, that fact you will not provide us with how it was obtained leads to two options. FMSI, or the French Government had illegally hacker the servers and files of First Choice International, or you have fabricated this evidence. Both of which would find you in contempt of court. Now, would you like to try and find out where this information has came from?"

@Moe
 

Moe

His Dudeness
Jul 2, 2018
1,433
"Contempt of court? With all due respect, contempt of court is essentially seen as a form of disturbance that may impede the functioning of the court. We are not impeding the court. Simply not being able to recall how information was obtained is not contempt.

It is an inability to remember."

He pauses and looks over at the Stromberg legal team.

"Let us all remember why we are here.

We are on trial for human rights abuses that Stromberg has claimed to have occured."

@John
@Odinson
@Connor
@Zak
 

Odinson

Moderator
GA Member
World Power
Jul 12, 2018
9,342
"Counselor," Olhouser said to the Frenchman, "if you can't explain how you got this evidence, and you can't verify that it's authentic, then we're going to throw it out as evidence. Did First Choice give it to you to use for your case?"

@Moe
 

Moe

His Dudeness
Jul 2, 2018
1,433
Counselor DuPont still standing replies, "We have no objection to throwing that evidence out Mister Justice. We have already proven that the charge or complaint of French Defense INC. using US dollars means of conducting international business transactions by Stromberg to ludicrous in the extreme. Especially considering Stromberg itself, as we have already shown does as well and in fact use US dollars for business transactions and accepted US currency from French Defence Inc. And that certainly does not infringe on their human rights."

@John
@Odinson
@Connor
@Zak
 
Last edited:

Odinson

Moderator
GA Member
World Power
Jul 12, 2018
9,342
"Mister DuPont, I'm having trouble following what you're saying about the use of U.S. dollars. All international corporations and all governments use the United States Dollar for transactions. Even international trade between countries is done with the U.S. Dollar. What does the use of American currency have to do with this case, seeing as everyone uses it?" the Chief Justice asked.

@Moe
 

Moe

His Dudeness
Jul 2, 2018
1,433
"It was mentioned in transcript#24, by Stromberg as an offense of French Military INC.. I believe they called it deceit. We are just reiterating that fact. And, I would like to point out, as you did Mister Justice, that it has nothing to do with this case. Stromberg thought it was relevant. Thank you."

With that the Counselor sits down.


@John
@Odinson
@Connor
@Zak
 

Forum statistics

Threads
21,303
Messages
103,800
Members
352
Latest member
darren
Top