Post by Owen Edwards on Jul 23, 2014 17:24:39 GMT -6
Injunction received below with response following.
"On behalf of
Rexhalistaes Unificheschti per el Monarc'h es els Popuis,
Alexandreu Davinescu,
and Munditenens Tresplet
against
Timothi Asmourescu
Background of the Case
On Monday, July 21st, the verdict in the case Marcianüs v Davinescu et al was released, dismissing the complaint in its entirety. Marcianüs posted a statement on Wittenberg regarding the case, and it was followed by a statement from his attorney, Timothi Asmourescu. Asmourescu denounced the verdict, and in retribution published a private email conversation to which he had been privy when he was a member of the Rexhalistaes Unificheschti per el Monarc'h es els Popuis political party. Besides S:reu Asmourescu and his client, there are at least six other participants in the exchange, none of whom consented to the publication.
When challenged on the matter by the Attorney-General and S:reu Davinescu, S:reu Asmourescu declared that he intended to publish much more private correspondence, in terms that would include at least a dozen more individuals, none of whom have given consent. He stated this clearly: "In any case, I've been reviewing my correspondence from my time with the RUMP. They make for a very interesting read, especially when contrasted with your public statements. To that end, I have decided to publish ALL RUMP correspondence covering December 2013 through June 2014."
If it were not enough that S:reu Asmourescu has violated his ethical obligations as a member of the Royal Talossan Bar, he has also recently founded a new political party, so he would directly gain from the publication of emails that would harm his political rivals.
The release of the conversation already published and the publication of the voluminous amount of other private party discussions is illegal. These discussions took place on a closed discussion group for a political party, and there was a clear expectation of privacy. Their publication, out of spite, would constitute a violation of the correspondents' right to privacy under the Fourth Covenant.
Request for Relief
We request that this court issue an emergency injunction requiring
a) that the defendant delete the private correspondence he has published
b) that the defendant refrain, under penalty of contempt of court, from publishing any further private correspondence until and unless he has obtained the consent of the parties involved"
Injunction refused. XIX.4 evidently has in mind governmental searches rather than private action; furthermore the correspondance has not been "searched" for or "seized" - the emails were sent to the defendant. As to the question of copyright, it seems to us that the defendant has not breached fair use - and given the alleged proof of criminal conduct in some of the leaks public interest seems to the case here. Even if there were no criminal allegation the fact that these are leaks from the inner circle of a major political movement discussing current affairs and other citizens is arguably in the public interest to know.
"On behalf of
Rexhalistaes Unificheschti per el Monarc'h es els Popuis,
Alexandreu Davinescu,
and Munditenens Tresplet
against
Timothi Asmourescu
Background of the Case
On Monday, July 21st, the verdict in the case Marcianüs v Davinescu et al was released, dismissing the complaint in its entirety. Marcianüs posted a statement on Wittenberg regarding the case, and it was followed by a statement from his attorney, Timothi Asmourescu. Asmourescu denounced the verdict, and in retribution published a private email conversation to which he had been privy when he was a member of the Rexhalistaes Unificheschti per el Monarc'h es els Popuis political party. Besides S:reu Asmourescu and his client, there are at least six other participants in the exchange, none of whom consented to the publication.
When challenged on the matter by the Attorney-General and S:reu Davinescu, S:reu Asmourescu declared that he intended to publish much more private correspondence, in terms that would include at least a dozen more individuals, none of whom have given consent. He stated this clearly: "In any case, I've been reviewing my correspondence from my time with the RUMP. They make for a very interesting read, especially when contrasted with your public statements. To that end, I have decided to publish ALL RUMP correspondence covering December 2013 through June 2014."
If it were not enough that S:reu Asmourescu has violated his ethical obligations as a member of the Royal Talossan Bar, he has also recently founded a new political party, so he would directly gain from the publication of emails that would harm his political rivals.
The release of the conversation already published and the publication of the voluminous amount of other private party discussions is illegal. These discussions took place on a closed discussion group for a political party, and there was a clear expectation of privacy. Their publication, out of spite, would constitute a violation of the correspondents' right to privacy under the Fourth Covenant.
Request for Relief
We request that this court issue an emergency injunction requiring
a) that the defendant delete the private correspondence he has published
b) that the defendant refrain, under penalty of contempt of court, from publishing any further private correspondence until and unless he has obtained the consent of the parties involved"
Injunction refused. XIX.4 evidently has in mind governmental searches rather than private action; furthermore the correspondance has not been "searched" for or "seized" - the emails were sent to the defendant. As to the question of copyright, it seems to us that the defendant has not breached fair use - and given the alleged proof of criminal conduct in some of the leaks public interest seems to the case here. Even if there were no criminal allegation the fact that these are leaks from the inner circle of a major political movement discussing current affairs and other citizens is arguably in the public interest to know.