Appeal: Denied [2025] DCR 30 - Appeal

[Ethan]

Username: Ethamn

I am representing myself

What Case are you Appealing?: [2025] DCR 30

Link to the Original Case: Lawsuit: Adjourned - Ethamn v Faldorix [2025] DCR 30

Basis for Appeal: Though the District Court was correct in ruling in favour of the plaintiff, His Honor made serious and profound errors of law in his decision. I am a licensed attorney and this is a self-represented case.

1. Counsel for the defendant made the inexplicable argument that a self-represented plaintiff must call himself as a witness in order to adduce evidence to prove humiliation damage (defense closing at para 6). This argument was incorrectly accepted by the District Court (at III, para 5). Rather, I submit that the correct test does not include a self represented litigant calling himself as a witness, but whether, on the balance of probabilities, a reasonable person would be humiliated.

2. His Honor held that the defendant in pursuing the plaintiff off-game and posting his severed head publicly in the DC Discord Server is not actionable because the "head is the defendant's personal property" (III, at para 5). We submit that the relevant question is not whether a head is personal property, but whether, on the balance of probabilities, the action of displaying it caused humiliation.

3. His Honour dismissed the consequential damages of loss of enjoyment on the basis that "the plaintiff has not outlined any action in which they were prevented to participate in" (III, at para 6). As defense counsel correctly pointed out, the correct stanadard found in [2023] FCR 88 is whether the plaintiff "produced...evidence that there are any activities in Redmont that they can no longer enjoy in the same way as before these actions occurred." This bar was met tritely in the Statement of Claim.

Supporting Evidence:

 

[Nim]

Has it been 3 days yet?

 

[ameslap]

Username: Ethamn

I am representing myself

What Case are you Appealing?: [2025] DCR 30

Link to the Original Case: Lawsuit: Adjourned - Ethamn v Faldorix [2025] DCR 30

Basis for Appeal: Though the District Court was correct in ruling in favour of the plaintiff, His Honor made serious and profound errors of law in his decision. I am a licensed attorney and this is a self-represented case.

1. Counsel for the defendant made the inexplicable argument that a self-represented plaintiff must call himself as a witness in order to adduce evidence to prove humiliation damage (defense closing at para 6). This argument was incorrectly accepted by the District Court (at III, para 5). Rather, I submit that the correct test does not include a self represented litigant calling himself as a witness, but whether, on the balance of probabilities, a reasonable person would be humiliated.

2. His Honor held that the defendant in pursuing the plaintiff off-game and posting his severed head publicly in the DC Discord Server is not actionable because the "head is the defendant's personal property" (III, at para 5). We submit that the relevant question is not whether a head is personal property, but whether, on the balance of probabilities, the action of displaying it caused humiliation.

3. His Honour dismissed the consequential damages of loss of enjoyment on the basis that "the plaintiff has not outlined any action in which they were prevented to participate in" (III, at para 6). As defense counsel correctly pointed out, the correct stanadard found in [2023] FCR 88 is whether the plaintiff "produced...evidence that there are any activities in Redmont that they can no longer enjoy in the same way as before these actions occurred." This bar was met tritely in the Statement of Claim.

Supporting Evidence:

Verdict

View attachment 47873
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

Following careful deliberation, the Federal Court has decided to deny this appeal.

On the points brought up:
The District court ruled "no witness or other evidence was submitted to support the humiliating aspect." This court agrees that a litigant should not have to call themselves as a witness, but they still need to provide evidence that there was humiliation.

This court disagrees with the lower court that just because a person owns the head of another, it entitles them to show it off in any maner. There may in fact be situations where the display does rise to the level of humiliation (or other offense). However; this court agrees that this situation does not rise to humiliation as the lower court has said "The plaintiff's head in this scenario wasn't even singled out which makes the possibility for humiliation even less so."

This court agrees with the lower court. Merely stating that you lost enjoyment or were disrupted is not substantial enough to deem it so.

Thank you for your patience.

​