Lawsuit: Pending Dearev v. YeetGlazer [2025] DCR 61

[dodrio3]

Case Filing

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


Dearev (Represented by Lex Titanum)
Plaintiff

v.

YeetGlazer
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

On August 3rd, 2025, in case [2025] FCR 76, the Defendant released a statement that senselessly accused the Plaintiff of corruption. In this statement, the Defendant claimed that “The Plaintiff posits that premature eviction also amounts to Corruption as defined by Redmont’s criminal code. A government official commits corruption, under Criminal Code Act Part II, Section 1(a), by “us[ing] a government position to gain an unfair advantage for oneself or another, inconsistent with official duty.” Here, the DCT employee (Dearev) leveraged his official authority to evict the Plaintiff’s land earlier than permitted, which conferred an unfair advantage.”(P-001)

This statement constitutes Libel, defined as “A method of defamation expressed by documents, signs, published media, or any communication embodied in physical form that is injurious to a person's reputation, exposes a person to public hatred, contempt or ridicule, or injures a person in his/her business, profession or organization.” The accusation was based solely on a singular screenshot of Dearev asking to purchase the plot. In reality, Dearev’s only involvement was assigning the plots to the government, and he had no part in reporting the plot or initiating its auction.

Additionally, the Defendant committed Slander, defined as “A false statement, usually made through either discord or in-game messages, which defames another person’s reputation, business, profession, or organization.” In this case, the Defendant repeatedly referred to the Plaintiff as a “Thug” causing further reputational harm. (P-002)

The need to present evidence where the Plaintiff stated “I leave my approval to consider the GER a paramilitary extremist group instead of a party” demonstrates that this is a public political attack on the Plaintiff using false information. This conduct constitutes an intentional and malicious attempt to damage the Plaintiff’s reputation and standing. (P-003)

I. PARTIES
1. Dearev - Plaintiff
2. YeetGlazer - Defendant
3. Lawnsloper - DCT Employee/Witness

II. FACTS
1. On 3rd of August 2025 YeetGlazer Filed [2025] FCR 76
2. Within [2025] FCR 76 YeetGlazer’s Attorney Stated “The Plaintiff posits that premature eviction also amounts to Corruption as defined by Redmont’s criminal code. A government official commits corruption, under Criminal Code Act Part II, Section 1(a), by “us[ing] a government position to gain an unfair advantage for oneself or another, inconsistent with official duty.” Here, the DCT employee (Dearev) leveraged his official authority to evict the Plaintiff’s land earlier than permitted, which conferred an unfair advantage.”
3. From the 3rd of August to the 8th of August YeetGlazer Continuously referred to Dearev as a “Thug”

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. In the No More Defamation Act it states that “(1) Damages caused by defamation, if proven in a civil court of law, shall be paid out as determined by the presiding Judicial Officer.

(a) In addition, the courts may require the tortfeasor of defamation to issue an apology, which may be made public and/or to the parties with which the defamatory communication was made.”

And “(a) Defamation is a false statement and/or communication that injures a third party's reputation. The tort of defamation includes both libel and slander.”

2. The Defendant Suffered emotional damages due to the stress from the statements as he had just been appointed Acting Attorney General.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. $10,000 In Punitive Damages for the Libel Statements Against Dearev
2. $10,000 In Punitive Damages for the Slanderous Statements Against Dearev
3. $15,000 In Emotional Damages for the Loss of Enjoyment in Redmont
4. $15,000 In Consequential Damages for the Humiliation of the Plaintiff
5. 30% of the case’s value in legal fees paid to Lex Titanum.
(Attach evidence and a list of witnesses at the bottom if applicable)

By making this submission, I agree I understand the penalties of lying in court and the fact that I am subject to perjury should I knowingly make a false statement in court.

DATED: This 12 day of August 2025

P-001

P-002

P-003

 

[dodrio3]

Proof of Representation

 

[AmityBlamity]

Writ of Summons

@YeetGlazer is required to appear before the District Court of Redmont in the case of Dearev (Represented by Lex Titanum) v. YeetGlazer.

Failure to appear within 72 hours of this summons will result in a default judgement based on the known facts of the case.

Both parties should make themselves aware of the Court Rules and Procedures, including the option of an in-game trial should both parties request one.

 

[YeetGlazer]

Present.

 

[AmityBlamity]

You have 48 hours to provide your Answer to Complaint.

 

[Franciscus]

Your Honor,

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

Your Honor:

The first Claim for Relief alleges Defamation under Section 5(1) et seq. of the No More Defamation Act. The definition of the tort defamation given in Section 4(1)(a) of the act as:

(a) a false statement and/or communication that injures a third party's reputation.

The law provides two ways in which Defamation can arise - Libel and Slander. But both maintain the same basic requirements:

1. A statement or communication must be false
2. That statement or communication must actually damage the reputation of a third party.

Three numbered factual allegations are made in the Facts section of the Complaint. The first allegation is that the Defendant filed a particular case. The second allegation is merely that the Attorney for YeetGlazer made a particular statement in that case. The third allegation is that the Defendant referred to the Plaintiff as a "thug" on repeated occasion.

Under Rule 5.5 (Lack of Claim), "A Motion to Dismiss may be filed for failure to state a claim for relief, or against an claim for relief that has insufficient evidence to support the civil or criminal charge." As follows from the below, the Plaintiff believes that each claim and (consequently) this case should be dismissed for Lack of Claim.

1. The Complaint's Facts do not Allege that any Statement was False​

In order for the First Claim for Relief (Defamation) to be a plausible claim, the Plaintiff would need to (among other things) actually show that a particular statement or communication was false as a matter of fact. The Complaint's facts do not do that: the facts plainly do not allege any falsity. Absent a fact alleging falsity of a claim, the claim cannot stand even if all of the Plaintiff's facts were accepted as true.

As the first Claim is not concluded even if all the Plaintiff's facts were accepted as true and all evidence present accepted, the first Claim should be dismissed.

2. Emotional Damages are Not a Valid Claim for Relief​

The Second Claim for Relief states that "emotional damages" occurred. The Congress intentionally removed Emotional Damages as a plausible Claim for Relief in passing the Legal Damages Balance Act, which removed Emotional Damages (i.e. when "person suffers psychological harm due to an entity's negligent or intentional actions") from the Legal Damages Act.

As Emotional Damages are no longer recognized in Redmont, the second Claim should be dismissed.

---

On Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPP) and Prejudice​

A Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation occurs when a Plaintiff seeks the result that defendant abandon a criticism succumbs to fear, intimidation, mounting legal costs, or simple exhaustion and abandons the criticism.

The Defense proffers that this case facially contains no valid claims for relief, and for that reason lacks a serious purpose. If your honor believes that this lawsuit serves no serious purpose and may constitute a SLAPP, the Defense would ask that Your Honor’s order of dismissal be with prejudice so as to dissuade such behavior going forward and also that legal fees in the amount of 30% of the value of the case be awarded to the Defense in line with the Legal Damages Act.

Spoiler: Evidence of Consent to Represent

 

[Franciscus]

Your Honor,

The Defense respectfully requests an extension on the filing of the answer to complaint until 24 hours after the above motion is ruled on.

 

[AmityBlamity]

Your Honor,

The Defense respectfully requests an extension on the filing of the answer to complaint until 24 hours after the above motion is ruled on.

Granted. I will be giving the plaintiff the opportunity to respond to the motion in the next 24 hours.

 

[dodrio3]

Granted. I will be giving the plaintiff the opportunity to respond to the motion in the next 24 hours.

The plaitiff request that they be allowed to present additional evidence to aid the response.

 

[dodrio3]

Your Honor,

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

Your Honor:

The first Claim for Relief alleges Defamation under Section 5(1) et seq. of the No More Defamation Act. The definition of the tort defamation given in Section 4(1)(a) of the act as:



The law provides two ways in which Defamation can arise - Libel and Slander. But both maintain the same basic requirements:

1. A statement or communication must be false
2. That statement or communication must actually damage the reputation of a third party.

Three numbered factual allegations are made in the Facts section of the Complaint. The first allegation is that the Defendant filed a particular case. The second allegation is merely that the Attorney for YeetGlazer made a particular statement in that case. The third allegation is that the Defendant referred to the Plaintiff as a "thug" on repeated occasion.

Under Rule 5.5 (Lack of Claim), "A Motion to Dismiss may be filed for failure to state a claim for relief, or against an claim for relief that has insufficient evidence to support the civil or criminal charge." As follows from the below, the Plaintiff believes that each claim and (consequently) this case should be dismissed for Lack of Claim.

1. The Complaint's Facts do not Allege that any Statement was False​

In order for the First Claim for Relief (Defamation) to be a plausible claim, the Plaintiff would need to (among other things) actually show that a particular statement or communication was false as a matter of fact. The Complaint's facts do not do that: the facts plainly do not allege any falsity. Absent a fact alleging falsity of a claim, the claim cannot stand even if all of the Plaintiff's facts were accepted as true.

As the first Claim is not concluded even if all the Plaintiff's facts were accepted as true and all evidence present accepted, the first Claim should be dismissed.

2. Emotional Damages are Not a Valid Claim for Relief​

The Second Claim for Relief states that "emotional damages" occurred. The Congress intentionally removed Emotional Damages as a plausible Claim for Relief in passing the Legal Damages Balance Act, which removed Emotional Damages (i.e. when "person suffers psychological harm due to an entity's negligent or intentional actions") from the Legal Damages Act.

As Emotional Damages are no longer recognized in Redmont, the second Claim should be dismissed.

---

On Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPP) and Prejudice​

A Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation occurs when a Plaintiff seeks the result that defendant abandon a criticism succumbs to fear, intimidation, mounting legal costs, or simple exhaustion and abandons the criticism.

The Defense proffers that this case facially contains no valid claims for relief, and for that reason lacks a serious purpose. If your honor believes that this lawsuit serves no serious purpose and may constitute a SLAPP, the Defense would ask that Your Honor’s order of dismissal be with prejudice so as to dissuade such behavior going forward and also that legal fees in the amount of 30% of the value of the case be awarded to the Defense in line with the Legal Damages Act.

Spoiler: Evidence of Consent to Represent

View attachment 60475

Response

Your Honour,


The Defence has suggested that the Plaintiff must prove the absence of corruption by producing every Discord message he has ever sent, every voice chat he has ever joined, or even game replay recordings. Such an expectation is wholly unreasonable and disproportionate. The burden should not fall on the Plaintiff to disprove vague accusations unsupported by evidence; rather, it is for the Defence to substantiate their claims.


Furthermore, the Defence has labelled the Plaintiff a “thug,” a term defined as “a violent, aggressive person, especially one who is a criminal.” The Plaintiff has not engaged in any violent conduct for over two months and does not deserve to be subjected to such defamatory branding.


While the Defence has raised arguments, they do not amount to grounds for dismissal. The Plaintiff has demonstrated that there is reasonable doubt as to whether harm has occurred. It is the duty of this Court to adjudicate on that question, rather than dismiss the matter on the basis of a single motion.


Finally, the Defence is mistaken in asserting that the Plaintiff’s claim for damages is invalid. The reference to “emotional damages” in the Complaint was a mislabelling. The Plaintiff’s actual claim is for Consequential Damages, specifically Loss of Enjoyment in Redmont under Section 7(1)(a)(III) of the Legal Damages Act. This clarification does not alter the substance of the claim, which remains valid and properly before the Court.

 

[dodrio3]

The plaitiff request that they be allowed to present additional evidence to aid the response.

If requested the plaintiff will provide this evidence. we just didn't want to miss the deadline

 

[AmityBlamity]

The plaitiff request that they be allowed to present additional evidence to aid the response.

You may do so. My apologies for the delay. I'll rule on the motion after the evidence is posted.

 

[dodrio3]

P-004 =

 

[Franciscus]

The Plaintiff has not engaged in any violent conduct for over two months and does not deserve to be subjected to such defamatory branding.

P-004 =
View attachment 60618

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT IN THR COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION — PERJURY

Your Honor,

The Plaintiff’s counsel has stated on 24 August that the Plaintiff has committed no violent crimes in the past two months. This is false, and the counsel knows (or reasonably should know) this.

The Plaintiff’s counsel has submitted a piece of evidence (P-004) that shows the Plaintiff was convicted of assault on or about 6 July. 2 months after that assault record’s date would be 6 September, but it is still August.

P-004 is damning for the Plaintiff’s claim. While it doesn’t show Dearev’s full forums-logged crime record, nor the separate murder log that can be obtained regarding the Plaintiff by running the “/police records” command (either of these have the potential to return more recent dates of violent crimes), it does show is that the Plaintiff’s counsel has made a provably false claim of fact in the response to the Motion to Dismiss, and that the Plaintiff’s counsel presently has the information to know that the claim was provably false. Because this claim of fact is potentially relevant to the third factual claim in the Complaint, I am raising it here in this objection.

As the quoted statement above makes a factual claim that is plainly false, and the Plaintiff’s counsel has all the information in front of them to know this, the Defense asks that:

1. The plainly false text quoted above be stricken in its entirety; and
2. The Plaintiff’s counsel be reminded to not post probably false factual claims in their filings that are made under penalty of perjury.

While there is much else incorrect about the response to the motion to dismiss (such as its attempts to pervert the burden of proof or apparently assertions that the Defense has demanded Discord messages in our Motion to Dismiss when we have not asked for them), I do not need to raise those lawyer tricks here—I trust that Your Honor is aware of them and that confused misstatements on claims of law by the Plaintiff’s counsel has made may not constitute perjury.

 

[dodrio3]

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT IN THR COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION — PERJURY

Your Honor,

The Plaintiff’s counsel has stated on 24 August that the Plaintiff has committed no violent crimes in the past two months. This is false, and the counsel knows (or reasonably should know) this.

The Plaintiff’s counsel has submitted a piece of evidence (P-004) that shows the Plaintiff was convicted of assault on or about 6 July. 2 months after that assault record’s date would be 6 September, but it is still August.

P-004 is damning for the Plaintiff’s claim. While it doesn’t show Dearev’s full forums-logged crime record, nor the separate murder log that can be obtained regarding the Plaintiff by running the “/police records” command (either of these have the potential to return more recent dates of violent crimes), it does show is that the Plaintiff’s counsel has made a provably false claim of fact in the response to the Motion to Dismiss, and that the Plaintiff’s counsel presently has the information to know that the claim was provably false. Because this claim of fact is potentially relevant to the third factual claim in the Complaint, I am raising it here in this objection.

As the quoted statement above makes a factual claim that is plainly false, and the Plaintiff’s counsel has all the information in front of them to know this, the Defense asks that:

1. The plainly false text quoted above be stricken in its entirety; and
2. The Plaintiff’s counsel be reminded to not post probably false factual claims in their filings that are made under penalty of perjury.

While there is much else incorrect about the response to the motion to dismiss (such as its attempts to pervert the burden of proof or apparently assertions that the Defense has demanded Discord messages in our Motion to Dismiss when we have not asked for them), I do not need to raise those lawyer tricks here—I trust that Your Honor is aware of them and that confused misstatements on claims of law by the Plaintiff’s counsel has made may not constitute perjury.

Response

Your Honour,

The Defence has alleged that the Plaintiff’s counsel committed perjury by stating that the Plaintiff has not committed a violent crime in the past two months. This allegation is unfounded.

The Plaintiff’s counsel approximated the timeframe to the nearest month. By that measure, it has been two months since the conviction cited by the Defence (P-004, dated on or about 6 July). It is now late August, and to the nearest month, the passage of time is two months. The Defence’s objection attempts to elevate an immaterial technicality into a claim of perjury, which is both inappropriate and unsupported.

If the Defence requires additional documentation or clarification regarding the Plaintiff’s record, the proper avenue is to file a motion requesting such information, rather than striking records from the court. The claim that the Plaintiff’s counsel has engaged in perjury for only proving a section of a criminal record is baseless.

The Defence has seized upon this single point because it recognises that it is the only potential basis to challenge the case’s validity. However, the statement in question is not perjury, but at most a minor approximation, and it does not alter the substantive legal issues before the Court.

[/response}

 

[dodrio3]

Your Honour,

We are still awaiting a response on the motions.

 

[AmityBlamity]

Your Honour,

We are still awaiting a response on the motions.

I am on LOA until the 8th of September. I shall deal with the motions immediately upon my return. My apologies for the wait.

 

[dodrio3]

I am on LOA until the 8th of September. I shall deal with the motions immediately upon my return. My apologies for the wait.

Are we able to contiue.

 

[AmityBlamity]

Your Honor,

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

Your Honor:

The first Claim for Relief alleges Defamation under Section 5(1) et seq. of the No More Defamation Act. The definition of the tort defamation given in Section 4(1)(a) of the act as:



The law provides two ways in which Defamation can arise - Libel and Slander. But both maintain the same basic requirements:

1. A statement or communication must be false
2. That statement or communication must actually damage the reputation of a third party.

Three numbered factual allegations are made in the Facts section of the Complaint. The first allegation is that the Defendant filed a particular case. The second allegation is merely that the Attorney for YeetGlazer made a particular statement in that case. The third allegation is that the Defendant referred to the Plaintiff as a "thug" on repeated occasion.

Under Rule 5.5 (Lack of Claim), "A Motion to Dismiss may be filed for failure to state a claim for relief, or against an claim for relief that has insufficient evidence to support the civil or criminal charge." As follows from the below, the Plaintiff believes that each claim and (consequently) this case should be dismissed for Lack of Claim.

1. The Complaint's Facts do not Allege that any Statement was False​

In order for the First Claim for Relief (Defamation) to be a plausible claim, the Plaintiff would need to (among other things) actually show that a particular statement or communication was false as a matter of fact. The Complaint's facts do not do that: the facts plainly do not allege any falsity. Absent a fact alleging falsity of a claim, the claim cannot stand even if all of the Plaintiff's facts were accepted as true.

As the first Claim is not concluded even if all the Plaintiff's facts were accepted as true and all evidence present accepted, the first Claim should be dismissed.

2. Emotional Damages are Not a Valid Claim for Relief​

The Second Claim for Relief states that "emotional damages" occurred. The Congress intentionally removed Emotional Damages as a plausible Claim for Relief in passing the Legal Damages Balance Act, which removed Emotional Damages (i.e. when "person suffers psychological harm due to an entity's negligent or intentional actions") from the Legal Damages Act.

As Emotional Damages are no longer recognized in Redmont, the second Claim should be dismissed.

---

On Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPP) and Prejudice​

A Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation occurs when a Plaintiff seeks the result that defendant abandon a criticism succumbs to fear, intimidation, mounting legal costs, or simple exhaustion and abandons the criticism.

The Defense proffers that this case facially contains no valid claims for relief, and for that reason lacks a serious purpose. If your honor believes that this lawsuit serves no serious purpose and may constitute a SLAPP, the Defense would ask that Your Honor’s order of dismissal be with prejudice so as to dissuade such behavior going forward and also that legal fees in the amount of 30% of the value of the case be awarded to the Defense in line with the Legal Damages Act.

Spoiler: Evidence of Consent to Represent

View attachment 60475

Motion to Dismiss is denied at this time. It would be premature for me to throw the case out this early, especially considering whether or not dearev was defamed is not a settled fact.

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT IN THR COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION — PERJURY

Your Honor,

The Plaintiff’s counsel has stated on 24 August that the Plaintiff has committed no violent crimes in the past two months. This is false, and the counsel knows (or reasonably should know) this.

The Plaintiff’s counsel has submitted a piece of evidence (P-004) that shows the Plaintiff was convicted of assault on or about 6 July. 2 months after that assault record’s date would be 6 September, but it is still August.

P-004 is damning for the Plaintiff’s claim. While it doesn’t show Dearev’s full forums-logged crime record, nor the separate murder log that can be obtained regarding the Plaintiff by running the “/police records” command (either of these have the potential to return more recent dates of violent crimes), it does show is that the Plaintiff’s counsel has made a provably false claim of fact in the response to the Motion to Dismiss, and that the Plaintiff’s counsel presently has the information to know that the claim was provably false. Because this claim of fact is potentially relevant to the third factual claim in the Complaint, I am raising it here in this objection.

As the quoted statement above makes a factual claim that is plainly false, and the Plaintiff’s counsel has all the information in front of them to know this, the Defense asks that:

1. The plainly false text quoted above be stricken in its entirety; and
2. The Plaintiff’s counsel be reminded to not post probably false factual claims in their filings that are made under penalty of perjury.

While there is much else incorrect about the response to the motion to dismiss (such as its attempts to pervert the burden of proof or apparently assertions that the Defense has demanded Discord messages in our Motion to Dismiss when we have not asked for them), I do not need to raise those lawyer tricks here—I trust that Your Honor is aware of them and that confused misstatements on claims of law by the Plaintiff’s counsel has made may not constitute perjury.

Objection overruled. While the plaintiff's claim was technically false, I don't believe there was any ill intent behind it. That being said, I urge plaintiff's counsel to ensure their facts are solid, and to avoid approximating where possible.

Defendant has 48 hours to file a Response.

 

[Franciscus]

Answer to Complaint

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

Dearev
Plaintiff

v.

YeetGlazer
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT​

1. Deny, noting that the filing itself was made by YeetGlazer’s counsel rather than YeetGlazer himself. Inasmuch as this fact is alleging that YeetGlazer was the Plaintiff in the referenced case, AFFIRM.
2. AFFIRM that within [2025] FCR 76, Defendant’s attorney submitted a filing that includes the quoted passage.
3. NEITHER AFFIRM NOR DENY that between August 3 and August 8, 2025, the Defendant “continuously” referred to Plaintiff as a “thug”.

Except as expressly admitted above, the Defendant DENIES any remaining implicit or explicit factual allegations of the Complaint.

II. DEFENCES​

1. Failure to State a Claim
The Complaint does not meet the statutory definition of defamation under the No More Defamation Act. Plaintiff must show a false statement of fact, publication, and actual injury. The filings and remarks identified were either true, opinion, or caused no cognizable harm. Courts have consistently dismissed defamation suits lacking allegations of concrete reputational injury. What’s more, the Plaintiff must prove that Defendant actually said each allegedly defamatory statement, which the Plaintiff has not.

2. Truth (Substantial Truth)
Truth is an absolute defense. Plaintiff admits to actions that gave rise to Defendant’s statements, including prematurely processing an eviction in which Plaintiff had a personal interest. The Defendant’s comments accurately described these events. Likewise, the Plaintiff’s criminal record—including but not limited to a conviction for assault—justifies the colloquial description “thug.” Inasmuch as the statements constitute claims of truth (noting the discussion on opinion below), the statements are substantially true, and claim collapses.

3. Opinion and Rhetorical Hyperbole
Redmont precedent recognizes that opinions, rhetorical insults, and political epithets cannot be defamatory. No reasonable reader would interpret “thug” as a literal criminal charge that can be concretely defined. Protected commentary cannot be the basis for liability.

4. Protected Political Speech
The Constitution of Redmont safeguards robust political communication. Plaintiff was a government official, and Defendant’s counsel’s words criticized official conduct. Courts and amicus has emphasized that political speech deserves the broadest protection under the Charter, even when caustic. To permit this case would chill public criticism of government.

5. Lack of Reputational Harm
Defamation requires actual injury to reputation, not subjective offense. Plaintiff has alleged only “humiliation” and “loss of enjoyment,” not that he lost office, employment, or standing in the community. On the contrary, he was appointed Acting Attorney General and later to Magistrate. Without evidence of reputational decline, the claim cannot succeed.

6. No Cognizable “Emotional Damages”
The Legal Damages Act does not authorize free-standing recovery for emotional distress in defamation actions. Plaintiff’s rebranding of this as “loss of enjoyment” is unsubstantiated; we cannot entertain claims that the intent of Congress explicitly prohibit by mere slight-of-hand. Courts have required proof of tangible, consequential harm, which is absent here. This Court should strike or dismiss those claims.

7. Absence of Malice; Good Faith
Defendant acted in good faith, believing statements to be true, and raised concerns through lawful channels (a prior court filing). There is no evidence of malice or reckless disregard. As such, punitive damages are categorically unwarranted.

8. Frivolous and Abusive Litigation (SLAPP)
This suit is retaliatory—an effort to punish and silence political criticism. It lacks a serious legal foundation and fits the pattern of a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP). Frivolous litigation is itself sanctionable under the Criminal Code Act. Dismissal with prejudice and fee-shifting to compensate the defense’s counsel under the Legal Damages Act are appropriate.

9. Reservation of Rights
Defendant reserves the right to raise additional defenses, including but not limited to jurisdictional or procedural objections, as permitted by the Court Rules and Procedures.


By making this submission, I agree I understand the penalties of lying in court and that I am subject to perjury should I knowingly make a false statement in court.

DATED: This 12th day of September, 2025.

 

[Franciscus]

Your Honor:

I am traveling and will be basically only able to contribute via my phone for the whole weekend until I return home Sunday night. I respectfully ask that, should it please the Court, this case be recessed until Monday morning at 00:01 UTC-4 .

 

[dodrio3]

Your Honor:

I am traveling and will be basically only able to contribute via my phone for the whole weekend until I return home Sunday night. I respectfully ask that, should it please the Court, this case be recessed until Monday morning at 00:01 UTC-4 .

The Plaintiff request that we instead extend Discovery to 7 days.