Let me know if this is fine by you.

Hello, Chloe.

I'm Adjutant Oscar Bancroft, and with the Commander on leave I'll take over these negotiations for the time-being. Naturally, this will only be put in force on his return on the 28th of this month, and only after mutual assent is confirmed.

Let's go point by point, shall we?

Your first suggestion makes logical sense. The quadrant would in effect belong to you, therefore it should be defined as yours. The reason this is not the case though is optics. It would be counterproductive for a fledgling state that just secured some semblance of territorial integrity to start consigning away entire tracts of the said territory to other parties. Especially so if it began acknowledging claims for sovereignty within those borders. So while this would make sense, it would undermine the LFR's hard fought victory by signing away a portion of the system. This is why, I personally believe, that the best compromise is in fact the independent designation. You would remain in defacto control, have assured rights, and the Alliance Militia is barred from entry unless and until you request it to restore normalcy.

Two. I can respect and even fully endorse being reasonable with your fellow man. But the fact of the matter is that the way this point would operate is to allow Militia forces to proactively engage Hackers or other elements who have proven to act with ill intent. Such as by already engaging the Militia or its allies on other occasions. This clause does not in fact permit the Militia to simply eject people who are in spiritual opposition to the Pact while being in technical compliance. I hope this makes sense, but I can elaborate with illustrations if necessary.

Regarding your third point, may I please request that you furnish us a list of your current suppliers? This way I can accurately determine the associated difficulty and risks of enforcing restraint on combat patrols. Alliance Militia pilots have an enshrined right to on-duty discretion, unless and until a commanding authority overrides this discretion with enacted policy.

Your fourth point requires no response. We can incorporate this easily enough, provided you give us the right to issue counterclaims and seek redressal.

And lastly, I believe the issue in your fifth point can be resolved by introducing explicitly particular instances where such activities would be considered detrimental to the LFR's integrity. Such as the trade of activated artifacts. Which although rare and unlikely could result in situations worse than Dublin, as you rightly pointed out as being the consequences of ignorance.

May I proceed accordingly or do you have objections?

Hello again, Chloe. I hope you're doing well?

I've reviewed your pointers and brought them up with the Commander for discussion. So I can report back as follows:

Your first comment is noted and warrants no specific response.

With regard to your second, we understand, and foresee no difficulty in enforcing a degree of restraint upon militia pilots assigned to patrol duty across Ontario. You fought alongside these men, and this is not so easily forgotten.

To your third, while the Zoners, Freelancers, and even the people of Malta would prove not so problematic to exclude from prejudice by patrols, the Junkers, Hogosha, and ALG would not fall under such a category.

Even if the Commander was to agree to this, the Free Council most assuredly wouldn't. There are active conflicts with these parties which preclude any form of detente. I'm afraid I have to disappoint you here by admitting that there is no compromise that I'm authorized to present on this subject. You would naturally not be prohibited from continuing to rely on these parties for shipments. But if they are caught, then interdiction and ejection are likely.

The remaining two will be subject to appropriate and relevant provision. I'll get back to you shortly with the revised draft, at this stage though and given what's been stated do you have any objections?