Lawsuit: Adjourned bigpappa140 v. .BelatedDragon35 [2023] FCR 63

[Alexander P. Love]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


bigpappa140 (Represented by The Lovely Law Firm)
Plaintiff

v.

.BelatedDragon35
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

The defendant attempted to maliciously set up my client and smear his professional reputation as that of a criminal -- and not just any criminal, a murderer. My client, a successful business owner, happened to cross paths with the defendant when he was asking for someone to kill him. Not only did the defendant consent to being murdered, he was actively asking for it to occur. My client obliges, and that is when the defendant flipped. He began to accuse my client of non-consented murder, even going as far as to file a false report with the Department of Justice. Today I will call a witness that will verify consent occurred and that the report was false. I also provide evidence of such events occurring. The defendant today spent a considerable amount of time in global chat calling my client a murderer and telling the public a false and defaming story -- a slanderous story. This humiliated my client and worried him about how his business would potentially be impacted by the malicious actions of the defendant.


I. PARTIES
1. bigpappa140 (Plaintiff)
2. .BelatedDragon35 (Defendant)
3. xAntho_ny (Plaintiff Witness)

II. FACTS
1. .BelatedDragon35 asked for someone to kill him, thereby providing consent to murder.
2. bigpappa140 lawfully killed .BelatedDragon35 in response to this request.
3. .BelatedDragon35 proceeded to falsely and publicly accuse bigpappa140 of murdering him.
4. The defendant filed a false DOJ report against my client.
5. My client suffered emotional distress at the prospect of being humiliated.
6. My client was humiliated by the defendant's actions.
7. The defendant later admitted he made the claims just to try and make my client go to jail.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The Defamation Act (link) provides that "slander is a false statement which defames another person" which was carried out on server chat.
2. The Defamation Act provides that "the defendant, if proven to have purposefully defamed, will be issued to pay the victim compensation."

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. The Legal Damages Act (link) provides that intentional infliction of emotional distress is subject to legal compensation, and thus the Plaintiff will be requesting $5,000 in consequential damages.
2. The Legal Damages Act provides that "situations in which a person has been disgraced, belittled or made to look foolish" are subject to legal compensation, and thus the Plaintiff will be requesting an additional $10,000 in consequential damages.
3. The Legal Damages Act provides that "punitive damages are damages awarded against a person to punish them for their outrageous conduct and to deter them and others like them from similar conduct in the future". Because the blatantly false accusations were outrageous in conduct, the Plaintiff will be requesting $5,000 in punitive damages.
4. The Legal Damages Act provides that legal fees are subject to compensation up to 20% of the value of the case, and given the total value of this case is $20,000, the plaintiff will be requesting $4,000 in legal fees which would otherwise be charged to the Plaintiff.
5. In total, the Plaintiff requests $24,000 in damages.

V. CONSENT TO REPRESENTATION

VI. EVIDENCE OF SLANDER

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 tenth day of July, 2023

 

[Banana]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
WRIT OF SUMMONS

The Defendant is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of bigpappa140 v. .BelatedDragon35 [2023] FCR 63.

Failure to appear within 48 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.​

 

[Dartanboy]

Your honor,

I wish to file an Amicus brief, as a third party who had a conversation with the defendant.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Your honor, respectfully, this is a civil slander case and not a landmark Supreme Court case. If the third party wishes to provide insight, he should testify. I request his brief be denied by the Court.

 

[Dartanboy]

Your honor,

I believe it is of utmost importance that my request be approved, even if the Defendant fails to appear. This is regarding IRL circumstances of the Defendant.

 

[Banana]

Your honor,

I believe it is of utmost importance that my request be approved, even if the Defendant fails to appear. This is regarding IRL circumstances of the Defendant.

Dartanman is hereby held in contempt of court. You may not speak out of turn in court cases you have not been summoned to. I order that they be punished by the DOJ as appropriate, and their out-of-line comment will be struck.

I will allow the amicus brief, but I am instructing you to keep it concise. This is not a case that warrants a multiple-page brief.

 

[Dartanboy]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
AMICUS BRIEF

.BelatedDragon35 informed me that they are only 11 years old. I am happy to produce my chat log to prove this.

I believe this is important, because per the terms of the DemocracyCraft website, you must be 13 years old to make an account, making it  impossible for him to appear in this courtroom.

Furthermore, Discord similarly requires its users to be 13 years or older.

Notably, Minecraft does not have the same requirement, and only requires parental permission. Thus, the Defendant can play on the server.

The Defendant is a citizen of Redmont and deserves all the same rights as anyone else, including the right to an attorney and equal treatment under the law.

I believe that, given the extraordinary circumstances that prevent the Defendant from attending to this lawsuit, they should be appointed a public defender in their place.

Thank you.

 

[Banana]

Given these real-life circumstances, I understand that it is impossible for the Defendant to appear in court, and thus I am requesting a public defender to advocate for the Defendant. The public defender may respond with the standard Answer to Complaint, Motion to Dismiss, or both.

 

[Bibsfi4a]

Your honor, I'm the public defender that will represent the Defendant

Hence I request 24 - 48 hours to familiarize myself with the case

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Motion to Reconsider

Your honor, public defenders are for criminal court only. This is a civil matter, and I believe the facts have been presented. Thus, I motion for immediate default judgment.

 

[Bibsfi4a]

Your honor, may I respond to the motion ?

 

[Banana]

No, you do not need to respond. The motion to reconsider is denied. The Save The Public Defender Program Act specifies that the Judicial arm of the government shall maintain a Public Defender program to provide the assistance of legal counsel. I believe that the Defendant needs a Public Defender, or they would be forced to be without counsel, only owing to irl circumstances beyond their control. I will grant a 24 hour extension from this point for the Public Defender to make their response.

 

[Bibsfi4a]

Your honor, I regret to say that I have to ask for more time to my extension. A mere 15 hours is all I need added. I have been caught up irl, and given the difficulty attempting to communicate with the defendant which has hindered my ability to get completely up to speed with the case, I can only present a half finished response. I do not want to cause the defendant any further harm or stress, as they are already facing a pretty significant $24,000 lawsuit, so I hope you can grant my extension.

I really apologize and I would have posted it if I could. I hope you can understand my difficult situation

 

[Banana]

I will grant the extension for 15 hours from this point. I ask that you have a response by then.

 

[Bibsfi4a]

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

bigpappa140
Plaintiff

v.

.BelatedDragon35 (Public Defender bibsfi4a representing)
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

1. BelatedDragon35 asked for someone to kill him, thereby providing consent to murder.

The Defence affirms this fact.

2. bigpappa140 lawfully killed .BelatedDragon35 in response to this request.

The Defence disputes this fact.

3. .BelatedDragon35 proceeded to falsely and publicly accuse bigpappa140 of murdering him.

The Defence Disputes this fact

4. The defendant filed a false DOJ report against my client.

The Defence affirms this fact, but disputes the damages claimed by this action.

5. My client suffered emotional distress at the prospect of being humiliated.

The defense strongly disputes this fact.

6. My client was humiliated by the defendant's actions.

A bit of repetition here, but again disputed by the defense strongly.

7. The defendant later admitted he made the claims just to try and make my client go to jail.

The Defence Affirms this fact.

1. The defense affirms .BelatedDragon35 asked for someone to kill him, thereby providing consent to murder.
2. The defense disputes bigpappa140 lawfully killed .BelatedDragon35 in response to this request.
3. .BelatedDragon35 proceeded to falsely and publicly accuse bigpappa140 of murdering him.
4. The defendant filed a false DOJ report against my client.
5. My client suffered emotional distress at the prospect of being humiliated.
6. My client was humiliated by the defendant's actions.
7. The defendant later admitted he made the claims just to try and make my client go to jail.



II. DEFENCES

Your honor in this filing, I am gonna provide reasoning to all the disputes done to the fact.

ON THE MATTER OF CONSENT

Your honor, as shown in the plaintiffs evidence, the defendant did indeed ask to be killed. However, we cannot be sure whether this gave full consent for the plaintiff to kill the defendant, as the evidence does not paint a clear picture. This case seems to be built on shaky evidence at best. Without a clear picture of what went down, how can the plaintiff adequately assess the extent of the damages? Therefore while we believe there was consent provided, we also strongly suggest that given the lack of evidence we cannot with certainty conclude that the plaintiff had direct and clear consent given.

ON THE MATTER OF SLANDER

Slander requires a false statement to be stated. This did not occur. The defendant was killed, and was killed by the plaintiff. This is factual, and even the plaintiff points this out as factual in their facts. What the plaintiff is trying to claim is that the defendant was calling the plaintiff a murderer, which is not the case. The evidence provided by the plaintiff clearly shows that the word murderer was not used. Murder is defined as the unlawful killing of another human without justification or valid excuse, whereas killing is defined as the act of causing death, especially deliberately.
Given these definitions and facts, it is truthful for the defendant to state the plaintiff killed them, and given the defendant didn’t use the word murder, there was no suggestion of illegal killing.

It can’t be slander if it's true, and it is obviously true that the plaintiff killed the defendant.

ON THE MATTER OF DAMAGES

These damages requested are a joke of this court and the legal system. $24,000 in damages, including $4,000 in legal fees, for the defendant making a few statements the plaintiff didn’t like. In reality there are no real damages, nor has the plaintiff provided a crumb of evidence to support their $24,000 claim. Let's break down these absurd claims for damages:

$5,000 for emotional distress. A laughable claim, there has been no proof provided that the plaintiff experienced any emotional distress whatsoever, let alone $5,000 WORTH of emotional damages! The only emotional distress that is present in this courtroom is that of what the public and I experienced reading over the complaint filed by the plaintiff.

$10,000 for "situations in which a person has been disgraced, belittled or made to look foolish." If the previous claim was laughable, then this claim is just a disgrace. The claim proves this case is nothing but a cash grab against a player who was only 3 days old on the server at the time of the filing. My client is nothing more than a baby turtle trying to make its way to the ocean, while avoiding attacks from greedy vultures like the plaintiff.

$5,000 for punitive damages. This is a baseless claim. First of all, we have shown that the defendant never actually slandered the plaintiff; therefore my client is not liable for outrageous false accusations. Secondly, is the previous $15,000 not enough of a punishment in the plaintiffs eyes; does the plaintiff really need to add another $5,000? I thought this was redmont, a place where new players are accepted and helped instead of being taken advantage of. This is not Stratham, where the new player has no rights; my client deserves the same chance at a good start on this server that all of us had, where they can learn and grow as a person and not be ruined by a $24,000 lawsuit.

Finally, we come to the most bad claim of them all. The $4,000 in legal fees. Alexanderlove expects my client, who has $-0.06 to their name, to pay $4,000 in legal fees on top of the $20,000 they are already being hit with? Alexanderlove told his own client that he could waive a small $250 legal payment (if they lose this case) in the event it was TOO MUCH for his client. He believes $250 is too much for his client, but $4,000 is perfectly reasonable to ask of a brand new player with not a dollar to his name.

Your honor, for the plaintiff to come after my client for saying a few truthful words that the plaintiff didn’t like, is a total attempt at a miscarriage of justice. There was both no slander nor damages to the plaintiff. There is a gross lack of evidence to support the claims for relief. Hence, I believe paying so much in damages will be unfair and Injustice towards a brand new player.

OUR OWN EVIDENCE

Your honor, to follow up the breakdown of the requested relief for damages, we have evidence that sheds a damning light upon this lawsuit. Following the actions of the defendant, the plaintiff made a joke about how they are “ruined” as a result of the defendants actions. The plaintiff very publicly stated they were just kidding about being ruined. This is evidence that the plaintiff acknowledged themselves that they were not greatly harmed by the defendant. Despite their own admission that the actions of the defendant did not ruin them, the plaintiff is here in this courtroom seeking $24,000 for claims that the defendant made “blatantly false accusations” that were “outrageous,” and the plaintiff even goes as far to claim they were “humiliated.”

As you can see in the screenshot below, the conversation begins with the plaintiff considering a lawsuit, and ends with the plaintiff sarcastically saying he was ruined, quickly responding with “jk” and “legal reasons this is a joke”. He has explicitly stated for legal reasons he was only joking about being ruined by the actions of the defendant.

Therefore given the fact that the plaintiff cannot provide proof of any harm as a result of the defendants actions, and the plaintiff even states publicly that he isn’t ruined by the defendants actions, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the plaintiff does not really feel humiliated or hurt, but really just sees an opportunity to make a quick dollar from a player who can access forums or discord.

The plaintiff cannot say one thing publicly and something else in this courtroom just so that they can be eligible to get a lot more money. I believe the DOJ should investigate this case for perjury, and potential fraud by both the plaintiff and their lawyer. This case was purposefully constructed to win as much money as possible regardless of the facts or evidence, and the truth was twisted to get a monetary gain.

ON THE MATTER OF MAKING A DOJ TICKET

Your honor, the defendant like any other citizen has the right to be protected by the DOJ and the laws of the land. The defendant may have been wrong to try to report the plaintiff, but in the plaintiff's own evidence, the defendant owned up to their actions not long after the initial statement of being killed. The defendant recognised they perhaps shouldn't have reported it; they certainly don’t deserve this lawsuit.

Lastly, I would like to thank Honourable Justice Banana to give us an extension.

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: 23rd Day of July 2023

 

[Banana]

Thank you. The Plaintiff may now present their opening statements.

 

[Bibsfi4a]

Your honor 48 hours have passed and as per precedent set the case should be dismissed in my opinion.

 

[Banana]

The case will not be dismissed, however we will move on without the Plaintiff's opening statements. The Defense may now present their opening arguments.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

The case will not be dismissed, however we will move on without the Plaintiff's opening statements. The Defense may now present their opening arguments.

Your honor, I did not receive notifications on this thread for some reason. We request 24 hours to post an opening statement because of this.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

The thread is set on "Watched" for me which is why I did not know there was activity here. I usually expect a notification.

 

[Banana]

I think "watched" means notifications are made. In either case, we will still be moving on. The Defense may now present their opening statements.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

I think "watched" means notifications are made. In either case, we will still be moving on. The Defense may now present their opening statements.

Yes. I had it on watched and it still did not give notifications. I motion for reconsideration.

 

[Banana]

Upon reconsideration, I will grant an extension to post your opening statement. I do expect that if you need another extension you will ask before the deadline is up, though.

 

[Dartanboy]

Upon reconsideration, I will grant an extension to post your opening statement. I do expect that if you need another extension you will ask before the deadline is up, though.

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

Your honor, while notifications are very helpful, it is still a lawyer's responsibility to check up on the case even without notifications.

 

[Banana]

I understand that it is a lawyer's responsibility to keep up to date with their cases. However, as I historically have, I can be slightly lenient with deadlines. I have already made it clear to the Plaintiff that this is the only time I will allow lateness in this case. The motion to reconsider is rejected, but it is noted.

 

[Dartanboy]

I understand that it is a lawyer's responsibility to keep up to date with their cases. However, as I historically have, I can be slightly lenient with deadlines. I have already made it clear to the Plaintiff that this is the only time I will allow lateness in this case. The motion to reconsider is rejected, but it is noted.

Your honor,

First of all, I wish to apologize. I got this case confused with another and I have no reason to be filing such a Motion.

If you find it reasonable, I understand if I am charged with contempt.

Again, I deeply apologize, and I will not be responding to this case again.

 

[Banana]

I actually didn't notice that you weren't Defense counsel on this case. I'll strike both the motion to reconsider and my response, no contempt of court charges needed. We will move on, and the Plaintiff may still present their opening arguments.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT


May it please the Court,

Your honor, opposing counsel, and those gathered today to bear witness to this case, this is a case of fines for fairness. My client was unduly slandered, disrespected, and had his reputation dragged through the mud in global chat. My client was unfairly subjected to having to deal with a murder report, because the defendant today filed a false and slanderous police report against my client. .BelatedDragon35 asked the Plaintiff to kill him, which gives consent for murder. The Plaintiff obliged, and that is when the defendant turned on him. The defendant made these remarks and the false police report, claiming he was murdered without consent.

bigpappa140, a respected businessman and Representative, was made to suffer emotional distress and humiliation. Having to endure a public war of fact versus fiction shortly before an important election as well as a potential Department of Justice inquiry is quite stressful, stress that my client did not deserve. This is stress that the defendant intentionally and maliciously placed on my client for no better reason than his childish amusement. The defense and their allies will argue the defendant gets an excuse due to his real-life age. I say the law is to be applied fairly to all citizens, even if it would not benefit them. In fact, the Constitution mandates equal treatment under the law, and equal treatment goes both ways.

The defense affirms the fact that the defendant asked bigpappa140 to kill him. The defense yet contradictorily argues that this is not a full picture. A reasonable person would believe that person A asking person B to kill them gives explicit permission for person B to kill person A. The defense has thus far affirmed this part to be true. Somehow, the defense then concludes that this does not give person B the legal right to kill person A. The murder law states murder is not applicable when there is consent. The defense has affirmed there was consent, so therefore the killing was not murder. Given there are no other outlaw provisions on this specific act, the absence of murder creates a legal right for the Plaintiff to kill the defendant.

The defense claims that the defendant did not tell a lie to harm my client's reputation. While the word "murder" was not explicitly used, the defendant's comments were phrased in a manner that a reasonable person would believe to be equated to murder. The defendant also admitted to making the comments explicitly to harm my client. The defense also affirms a false police report was filed by the defendant in an effort to allege an illegal killing occurred. There exists mens rea in this case that is provable beyond a reasonable doubt that is sufficient to prove that my client made comments with the intention of giving the general public and the police a false and damaging impression of my client.

To justify the damages, the emotional distress was hinted at earlier in my statement. The defendant's slanderous comments coincided with an impending election season and caused my client to worry about his chances of election. Elections are a big deal that impact quality of gameplay when won or lost as well as an incalculable value for the prestige of the position. The position also pays a large paycheck. The risk of losing all of that makes $5,000 seem small. Throw in the false police report and you get quite a stressful situation that was totally not deserved by my client. The plaintiff will testify today to reinforce the accuracy of these claims as he, and he alone, can accurately tell the world how he felt in the moment. The definition of humiliation has been met, as the Legal Damages Act says the damages can be awarded for the situation itself, and not necessarily the direct effects of such a situation.

situations in which a person has been disgraced, belittled or made to look foolish.

The defense agrees that humiliation damages are to be awarded for the situation itself. My client was made to look foolish even for just a moment, and my client was belittled by the defendant. The punitive damages are to teach a lesson that deliberately attempting to defame people based on lies is wrong and outrageous, but the Plaintiff is willing to forego the punitive damages as a sign of good will if all other damages are granted in full. The legal fees exist because I simply cannot and do not work for free. The part about the $250 is if I lose the case, which is unlikely and a simple business policy. Just because my client has more money than the defendant does not mean my client should have to bear the burden of legal costs as a result of the defendant's outrageous actions.

My client said he was ruined as a way of using humor to get over the damages. Additionally, sarcasm and hyperbole is a common linguistic practice at least in the United States. The fact my client was not actually "ruined" does not absolve the fact my client was indeed harmed as a result of the defendant's conduct. Given all of these facts in consideration, we have established my client was unfairly hurt by the defendant's gross actions. The defendant must be found liable of slander, and must be punished accordingly. Thank you.

 

[Banana]

The Defense may now present their opening statements.

 

[Bibsfi4a]

Your honor, I request an 24 extension (so that date of submission is 3:29 AM IST) due to the enormous size of the case, and providing rebuttals to the enormous claims of relief, as well as researching on laws and validating evidences.
If done earlier, ill try my best to post this in the next 12-15 hours.
I hope you grant this extension to post the best legal argument.

 

[Banana]

The extension is granted.

 

[Bibsfi4a]

MOTION TO STRIKE

Your honor, I would like to motion to strike the following evidence from the court records-

for the following reasons-

Your honor, according to the motions guide (https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/motions-guide.11455/)-

A party may request a motion to strike if the language being removed from the record is redundant, vague, scandalous, immaterial, or impertinent.

The evidence shows .BelatedDragon35 saying "can you kill me."
The defence is using to argue the claim of slander. However this statement is very vague. We for sure do not know if this is .BelatedDragon35 giving consent to bigpappa or is it someone else. Due to the statement being vague, we believe this is not admissible evidence and should be removed from court records or either be replaced with a more clear statement (like .BelatedDragon35 giving consent to bigpappa140 for killing him and not using indirect words like "you"). Also your honor, this evidence is cropped, so there is a possibility that this statement was meant for someone else but the plaintiff is using this for their advantage. In my opinion , a full image should be provided for evidences, making this another reason to strike from court records.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

MOTION TO STRIKE

Your honor, I would like to motion to strike the following evidence from the court records-

View attachment 35899
for the following reasons-

Your honor, according to the motions guide (https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/motions-guide.11455/)-

A party may request a motion to strike if the language being removed from the record is redundant, vague, scandalous, immaterial, or impertinent.

The evidence shows .BelatedDragon35 saying "can you kill me."
The defence is using to argue the claim of slander. However this statement is very vague. We for sure do not know if this is .BelatedDragon35 giving consent to bigpappa or is it someone else. Due to the statement being vague, we believe this is not admissible evidence and should be removed from court records or either be replaced with a more clear statement (like .BelatedDragon35 giving consent to bigpappa140 for killing him and not using indirect words like "you"). Also your honor, this evidence is cropped, so there is a possibility that this statement was meant for someone else but the plaintiff is using this for their advantage. In my opinion , a full image should be provided for evidences, making this another reason to strike from court records.

Response, your honor?

 

[Bibsfi4a]

The extension is granted.

Your honor , I thank you for granting the extension, however I have another request.
I want permission to post my opening statement after the motion to strike is either accepted / denied. If this evidence is struck from court records, there will be a major change in my opening statement, and this lawsuit could take a different turn.

Your honor, hence I request some more time (around 12-24 hours) to post my opening statement after the acceptance / denial of the motion to strike.

 

[wetc]

dog this fr all over 24k? y’all gotta get your bread up if you typing this much for 24k

 

[Banana]

wetc is hereby found in contempt of court. Their comments will be struck, and I order that the DOJ punish them accordingly. You may not speak in cases you have not been summoned to.

 

[Banana]

MOTION TO STRIKE

The Motion to Strike is denied. The evidence is not going to be struck from the record for being vague, or because it is cropped. I would prefer if Plaintiff's counsel could provide this statement in context of the conversation, however as it is, it is not inadmissible.

Your honor , I thank you for granting the extension, however I have another request.
I want permission to post my opening statement after the motion to strike is either accepted / denied. If this evidence is struck from court records, there will be a major change in my opening statement, and this lawsuit could take a different turn.

Your honor, hence I request some more time (around 12-24 hours) to post my opening statement after the acceptance / denial of the motion to strike.

The request for an extension is denied, but seeing as I have not been able to reply to this case until now, and there have been pending motions, I will be reasonable about a short delay. Please post your opening statements at your earliest convenience, counselor.

 

[Bibsfi4a]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF REDMONT
MOTION TO RECONSIDER

Your honor, I request a motion to reconsider, as the motions guide says that vague statements cannot be admissible evidence clearly. We also don't know if the screenshot is true due to the fact it is cropped.

Also as the precedent set by previous cases-

Lawsuit: Dismissed - BlueladderConstruction.INC vs HingedMoon (Quackify) FCR 104

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT CIVIL ACTION BlueladderConstruction.INC (bibsfi4a representing) Plaintiff v. HingedMoon Defendant COMPLAINT The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows: -A breach of contract was done -Defendant was a employee at...

www.democracycraft.net

(cropped screenshot struck ^)

Lawsuit: Dismissed - zLost v. Desconfiada [2023] DCR 16

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT CIVIL ACTION zLost Plaintiff v. Desconfiada Defendant COMPLAINT The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows: The Defendant knowingly attempted to defame the Plaintiff of an act which was not committed and was impossible to...

www.democracycraft.net

(case dismissed due to false and cropped screenshot ^)

Your honor, it's your choice to strike this from the court records or not (even though I believe you should)
I think you should atleast request the plaintiff to send a more clear statement rather than a vague one.
Your honor, also I believe you should elaborate on your reasoning on why the original motion was denied (despite it being a valid reason as per in motions guide, as to set a precedent for future cases and situations like this.)

 

[Bibsfi4a]

The Motion to Strike is denied. The evidence is not going to be struck from the record for being vague, or because it is cropped. I would prefer if Plaintiff's counsel could provide this statement in context of the conversation, however as it is, it is not inadmissible.

The request for an extension is denied, but seeing as I have not been able to reply to this case until now, and there have been pending motions, I will be reasonable about a short delay. Please post your opening statements at your earliest convenience, counselor.

Your honor, my opening statement is ready, I will post it once the motion to reconsider is denied / accepted

 

[Banana]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF REDMONT
MOTION TO RECONSIDER

Motion to Reconsider is denied. The precedents provided are not similar to this situation, and I believe that the evidence is admissible. The Plaintiff has already been informed that it would be preferable to continue with a statement in context, however I am not of the opinion that the evidence is beyond consideration. You may now post your opening statement.

 

[Bibsfi4a]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

Respectfully your honor, the defence will stand on the fact that this case is complete joke and a attempt to steal huge piles of cash from a new and inexperienced player.
In this filing, I will try my best to prove it.

This filing will be divided into two parts- Rebuttals and Opening Statement.

I. REBUTTALS

Plaintiff says (1)-

Your honor, opposing counsel, and those gathered today to bear witness to this case, this is a case of fines for fairness. My client was unduly slandered, disrespected, and had his reputation dragged through the mud in global chat. My client was unfairly subjected to having to deal with a murder report, because the defendant today filed a false and slanderous police report against my client. .BelatedDragon35 asked the Plaintiff to kill him, which gives consent for murder. The Plaintiff obliged, and that is when the defendant turned on him. The defendant made these remarks and the false police report, claiming he was murdered without consent.

Defendant Rebuttal (1)-

Your honor, fines for fairness?
If this case gets ruled in the favour of plaintiff, its equivalent of robbing in the daylight. Defendant did nothing wrong and was just saying TRUE facts. How was the plaintiff slandered when the fact that defendant was TRUE about the plaintiff killing him (which will be proved by me in the next upcoming rebuttals) Your honor, if speaking true facts is slander, every other statement could be considered slandered. The Plaintiff is trying to bend the true meaning of slander. Bigpappa was not unfairly subjected to having to deal with a murder report, because its fair. Your honor it is the right of every citizen to contact the DOJ and make a murder report and its a part of the legal process for the person who killed (bigpappa) to be involved. Your honor, even if it was a false report, there are no laws preventing belated from making a doj ticket to reconfirm and validate the murder. Also your honor, the defendant never asked bigpappa to kill him. He used the word “can you kill me.” Your honor , the validity of the proof and consent given to bigpappa could not be confirmed due to the cropped screenshot.

Plaintiff says (2)-

bigpappa140, a respected businessman and Representative, was made to suffer emotional distress and humiliation. Having to endure a public war of fact versus fiction shortly before an important election as well as a potential Department of Justice inquiry is quite stressful, stress that my client did not deserve. This is stress that the defendant intentionally and maliciously placed on my client for no better reason than his childish amusement. The defense and their allies will argue the defendant gets an excuse due to his real-life age. I say the law is to be applied fairly to all citizens, even if it would not benefit them. In fact, the Constitution mandates equal treatment under the law, and equal treatment goes both ways.

Defendant Rebuttal (2)-

Your honor, like said before, inquiry is a part of the legal process. There should be no stress in part-taking in a legal process and helping in providing justice. Your honor, its like suing someone because they called the cops on you and you suffered “stress” due to the inquiry of the cops. Like said before, no stress was put on my the defendant and he just spoke true facts that the plaintiff killed them. We all can agree, saying facts is not slander and does not cause any amount of stress. The defense however agrees to the fact that law is to be applied fairly to all citizens. Thats why your honor, I dont see a reason how a “legal process” caused stress to the plaintiff.

Plaintiff says (3)-

The defense affirms the fact that the defendant asked bigpappa140 to kill him. The defense yet contradictorily argues that this is not a full picture. A reasonable person would believe that person A asking person B to kill them gives explicit permission for person B to kill person A. The defense has thus far affirmed this part to be true. Somehow, the defense then concludes that this does not give person B the legal right to kill person A. The murder law states murder is not applicable when there is consent. The defense has affirmed there was consent, so therefore the killing was not murder. Given there are no other outlaw provisions on this specific act, the absence of murder creates a legal right for the Plaintiff to kill the defendant.

Defendant Rebuttal (3)-

Your honor, I believe the plaintiff did not read the answer to complaint properly.
The Defence affirms the fact that BelatedDragon35 asked for someone to kill him.
He specifically did not mention the name. We did not affirm to bigpappa killing defendant but to the fact that defendant did ask to get killed. But we dont know if he referred to bigpappa or someone else from the word “you.” This is no contradiction. According to plaintiff, A reasonable person would believe that person A asking person B to kill them gives explicit permission for person B to kill person A. This is completely true. But the point is, person A (belated dragon) did not ask person B (bigpappa) to kill them, and even if he did there is no evidence of that as the screenshot mentions the word “you.” So in my opinion it is not suggestable for the court to assume things and should post verdict on the facts presented, and the fact is that the word “you” was used.
So we are NOT sure that belated gave permission to bigpappa to kill him.

Plaintiff says (4)-

The defense claims that the defendant did not tell a lie to harm my client's reputation. While the word "murder" was not explicitly used, the defendant's comments were phrased in a manner that a reasonable person would believe to be equated to murder. The defendant also admitted to making the comments explicitly to harm my client. The defense also affirms a false police report was filed by the defendant in an effort to allege an illegal killing occurred. There exists mens rea in this case that is provable beyond a reasonable doubt that is sufficient to prove that my client made comments with the intention of giving the general public and the police a false and damaging impression of my client.

Defendant Rebuttal (4)-

Your honor, plaintiff says that a reasonable person would believe to be equated to murder. But your honor, in the court of law , like said before , decision has to be made based on the FACTS and Evidences presented, and the statement that a reasonable person would believe , is itself wrong and it forces me to repeat myself that the court cannot assume things without proper evidence. The Fact is that the word “murder” was not used. Eventough my client made a false police report (according to plaintiff) , its his constitutional right to make one. Lets suppose the killing was legal. In this case my client has the right to ask DOJ employees why it was legal and question and inquire the DOJ employees, which is probably what was done. Also your honor, the plaintiff is completely contradicting himself. He did accept the fact that bigpappa killed BelatedDragon (and there is no proof of consent, rather than a cropped screenshot, which has a high chance to be fake / not related to this case)
There exists mens rea, true but that is for the plaintiff. Plaintiff bigpappa, without consent killed bigpappa. We all can agree that speaking facts is not insulting or damaging impression. My client just spoke a fact that bigpappa was killed (regardless consent was provided or not.) How could this be deemed as slander and a statement damaging impression of my client. ?

Plaintiff says (5)-

To justify the damages, the emotional distress was hinted at earlier in my statement. The defendant's slanderous comments coincided with an impending election season and caused my client to worry about his chances of election. Elections are a big deal that impact quality of gameplay when won or lost as well as an incalculable value for the prestige of the position. The position also pays a large paycheck. The risk of losing all of that makes $5,000 seem small. Throw in the false police report and you get quite a stressful situation that was totally not deserved by my client. The plaintiff will testify today to reinforce the accuracy of these claims as he, and he alone, can accurately tell the world how he felt in the moment. The definition of humiliation has been met, as the Legal Damages Act says the damages can be awarded for the situation itself, and not necessarily the direct effects of such a situation.

Defendant Rebuttal (5)-

Your honor, elections are not related with this statement. Elections are solely based on a person policies and campaigning strength (as well as support from their party)
How can a small statement, speaking a fact result in impact in this election?
Your honor, the plaintiff was not even accused of the fact. How can a 3 word statement bring emotional distress to anyone or impact the election?
Like argued before, the defendant had the right to make a ticket and inquire about the legality of the murder. A legal process is not a stressful situation. Your honor, if you are speaking the truth , there is nothing to worry about and a stressful situation could have not been made. Your honor, this logic applied by the plaintiff is a clear joke, like this lawsuit. Your honor, if same logic applied, I can sue the DOJ for putting me in jail because it was a “stressful situation” for me or a counter-claim could be made by my client that this lawsuit resulted in a stressful situation from him. If the plaintiff plans to testify, I will be looking forward to cross-examine them.
Your honor, I still wonder and laugh at the fact that how a 3 word statement from a new player can bring humiliation.

Plaintiff says (6)-

My client said he was ruined as a way of using humor to get over the damages. Additionally, sarcasm and hyperbole is a common linguistic practice at least in the United States. The fact my client was not actually "ruined" does not absolve the fact my client was indeed harmed as a result of the defendant's conduct. Given all of these facts in consideration, we have established my client was unfairly hurt by the defendant's gross actions. The defendant must be found liable of slander, and must be punished accordingly. Thank you.

Defendant rebuttals (6)-

Your honor, sarcasm or not, even in the US , its a law that everything said will be used against you in the court of law. Sarcasm is just a unlawful statement for the plaintiff to get out of this situation. Like said multiple times before, court needs to judge on the basis of facts presented and there should be no place for “jokes” in legal matter.

II. OPENING STATEMENT

Your honor I would like to summarrize everything in this opening statement-

ON THE MATTER OF SLANDER

-Slander means using false statement to defame a person.
-My client belated dragon said that bigpappa had killed him.
-Plaintiff argues that consent was provided, but he does agree to the fact that his client killed the defendant.
-Hence (regardless of consent provided or not) it is a true statement that bigpappa killed him.
-Due to this being a true statement, my client is not liable for slander

ON THE MATTER OF MAKING A DOJ TICKET

-My client had the right to make a DOJ ticket and inquire
-It was not a false report, and even if it was, no real legal action can be taken.
-No stress should have been caused in a legal process and just speaking true facts.

ON THE MATTER OF LEGAL DAMAGES

-Your honor, 3 word statement cannot cause stress and neither can a DOJ ticket
-There was no relation of this statement from the election.
-Elections cant be affected by a statement which is just a person speaking facts.

ON THE MATTER OF CONSENT

-A cropped screenshot was provided, which has a high chance of being false or unrelated
-The word “you” was used.
-The word “you” can have been used for any person present in the server and not specifically bigpappa. Maybe he was demanding to be killed by someone else near him but bigpappa without confirmation or second approval killed my client.
-bigpappa killed my client without consent hence.
-Hence, the screenshot is very vague and we cant determine anything.
-Like said in rebuttals, court should not assume things and make their decision on the facts present.
-I will try my best to get a statement from belated-dragon regarding this matter.

ON THE MATTER OF SARCASM

-Everything said can be used against you in the court of law
-There should be no place in courts for sarcasm or jokes.
-In this way the plaintiff is disrespecting the court.
-The word sarcasm is just a escape route for the plaintiff.

I am sorry if I missed anything, it can be derived from the rebuttals if not included in the opening statement.
Like said before, I will stick on my statement that this case is a joke and is just some people taking advantage of a statement and then over-exxagrating it.
I hope a harmful precedent is not set and proper justice will be delivered.
Finally, I am sorry for the delay in presenting the opening statement as this was a result of many factors like IRL stuff, my sickness and due to my mental health issues.

This concludes the defense opening statement.

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: 3rd Day of July 2023

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Also your honor, the defendant never asked bigpappa to kill him.

Objection, Your Honor
Perjury. The defense has already affirmed in the response to this case that the defendant asked the Plaintiff to kill him. The defense is now going back on this. One statement or the other is a lie, and therefore there is perjury and obstruction at play here.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Like said before, no stress was put on my the defendant and he just spoke true facts that the plaintiff killed them.

Objection, Your Honor
Speculation. The defense is testifying to my client's emotional state. The defense cannot affirm nor deny what my client felt at the present moment. My client will later testify to the fact they indeed felt stressed.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

So in my opinion it is not suggestable for the court to assume things and should post verdict on the facts presented

Objection, Your Honor
Counsel is providing a straight up opinion rather than providing facts and analyzing said facts.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

its his constitutional right to make one

Objection, Your Honor
Assumes facts not in evidence. Reporting a person to the police is not a Constitutional right.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

In this case my client has the right to ask DOJ employees why it was legal and question and inquire the DOJ employees, which is probably what was done

Objection, Your Honor
Speculation. The word "probably" is used indicating this statement is straight-up speculation.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

A legal process is not a stressful situation.

Objection, Your Honor
Assumes facts not in evidence.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

If the plaintiff plans to testify, I will be looking forward to cross-examine them.
Your honor, I still wonder and laugh at the fact that how a 3 word statement from a new player can bring humiliation.

Objection, Your Honor
Relevance.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Sarcasm is just a unlawful statement for the plaintiff to get out of this situation.

Objection, Your Honor
Assumes facts not in evidence. No law outlaws sarcasm nor jokes.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

It was not a false report, and even if it was, no real legal action can be taken.

Objection, Your Honor
Perjury. The defense has previously affirmed both earlier in their opening statement AND in the response to the lawsuit that a false report was filed by the defendant. Therefore, the defense is lying by making the statement above and obstructing the operations of this court.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Elections cant be affected by a statement which is just a person speaking facts.

Objection, Your Honor
Assumes facts not in evidence. This statement is wholly untrue as elections are popularity contests. The defense has no evidence to substantiate this claim.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

A cropped screenshot was provided, which has a high chance of being false or unrelated

Objection, Your Honor
Inflammatory. This statement is highly prejudicial.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Maybe he was demanding to be killed by someone else near him but bigpappa without confirmation or second approval killed my client.

Objection, Your Honor
Speculation.

 

[Banana]

For future reference, please put your objections into one post if possible.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

I will try my best to get a statement from belated-dragon regarding this matter.

Objection, Your Honor
Relevance

 

[Alexander P. Love]

In this way the plaintiff is disrespecting the court.

Objection, Your Honor
Inflammatory.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

I am sorry if I missed anything, it can be derived from the rebuttals if not included in the opening statement.
Like said before, I will stick on my statement that this case is a joke and is just some people taking advantage of a statement and then over-exxagrating it.
I hope a harmful precedent is not set and proper justice will be delivered.

Objection, Your Honor
Relevance.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

For future reference, please put your objections into one post if possible.

I apologize, your honor. I will note this for the future.

 

[Banana]

In response to the objections:

Objection, Your Honor
Perjury. The defense has already affirmed in the response to this case that the defendant asked the Plaintiff to kill him. The defense is now going back on this. One statement or the other is a lie, and therefore there is perjury and obstruction at play here.

Overruled. The Defense affirmed that the Defendant gave consent for "someone" to kill them.

Objection, Your Honor
Speculation. The defense is testifying to my client's emotional state. The defense cannot affirm nor deny what my client felt at the present moment. My client will later testify to the fact they indeed felt stressed.

Overruled. Nobody is testifying to anything, and this is a piece of the Defense's argument.

Objection, Your Honor
Counsel is providing a straight up opinion rather than providing facts and analyzing said facts.

Overruled. I think it is plainly obvious that phrases like "in my opinion" are acceptable for argumentation.

Objection, Your Honor
Assumes facts not in evidence. Reporting a person to the police is not a Constitutional right.

Overruled. This could be true, but assuming facts not in evidence is a witness testimony objection. Argue this in your statements, not with objections.

Objection, Your Honor
Speculation. The word "probably" is used indicating this statement is straight-up speculation.

Overruled. This is the Defense's argumentation, as I've explained above, not witness testimony.

Objection, Your Honor
Assumes facts not in evidence.

Overruled. Argument.

Objection, Your Honor
Relevance.

Overruled. This is an opening statement. Statements regarding the case are permissible, and this is part of the Defense arguing against the Plaintiff's claims.

Objection, Your Honor
Assumes facts not in evidence. No law outlaws sarcasm nor jokes.

Overruled. Argument.

Objection, Your Honor
Perjury. The defense has previously affirmed both earlier in their opening statement AND in the response to the lawsuit that a false report was filed by the defendant. Therefore, the defense is lying by making the statement above and obstructing the operations of this court.

The Defense may respond to this objection if they wish, before I make a ruling on it.

Objection, Your Honor
Assumes facts not in evidence. This statement is wholly untrue as elections are popularity contests. The defense has no evidence to substantiate this claim.

Overruled. Argument.

Objection, Your Honor
Inflammatory. This statement is highly prejudicial.

Overruled. Prejudicial to what witness? This is argument.

Objection, Your Honor
Speculation.

Overruled. Argument.

Objection, Your Honor
Relevance

Overruled. This is related to the case.

Objection, Your Honor
Inflammatory.

Overruled, but keep it civil, both sides.

Objection, Your Honor
Inflammatory.

Overruled, but again, keep it professional.

Objection, Your Honor
Relevance.

Overruled. Argument.

The Defense may now make a response to the objection I mentioned above.
(Edited to add heading)

 

[Bibsfi4a]

Objection, Your Honor
Perjury. The defense has previously affirmed both earlier in their opening statement AND in the response to the lawsuit that a false report was filed by the defendant. Therefore, the defense is lying by making the statement above and obstructing the operations of this court.

Your honor, no perjury taken place as I have mentioned the word "even if it was."
This means we do not confirm or deny the fact that a false DOJ ticket was made.
There is no real definition for a false report and I might have made a mistake on this one, as I had no contact with the defendant, however I request you pause this objection until the testifying of bigpappa and Anthony has been done.

 

[Banana]

I will consider the perjury allegations further, and I will have a decision soon. The case may continue in the meantime, and both parties may present a list of witnesses they have to call, or declare that they have none.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

The plaintiff will be testifying as a witness in this matter. Furthermore, the plaintiff wishes to call xAntho_ny.

 

[Bibsfi4a]

The Defendant has no witnesses to call

 

[Banana]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
WRIT OF SUMMONS

@bigpappa140 and @Anthony are required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of bigpappa140 v. .BelatedDragon as witnesses.

Please familiarize yourself with the case as it stands at present. You will receive questions and may also be cross-examined.

I ask that all questions be provided to witnesses in a single post. If some questions need to be withheld as they depend on answers given to earlier questions, that is also considered reasonable. Once all witnesses have declared themselves present, the Plaintiff may begin with questions to their witnesses.

I am hereby informing each witness to ensure they are aware of the provisions of the law of perjury and its severity. Giving knowingly false testimony is highly illegal. Witnesses are required to tell the truth in their testimonies, subject to the penalties of perjury.​

 

[Anthony]

present

 

[Bibsfi4a]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION BREACH OF PROCEDURE

Your honor, a party in the case (bigpappa140) has breached court procedures. He failed to familiarize themselves with the case. The Court procedure "Response Times" according to which , a party in a court has to respond to a summon/ subpoena in 48 hours which the defendant has failed to do so.
Hence, I request Bigpappa be charged appropriate fines and shall not be able to testify in the case.

Relevant Screenshosts / Evidences-

Breach of Procedure-
As per specified in Guide - Objections Guide

Response times-
As per specified in Information - Court Rules and Procedures

 

[Alexander P. Love]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION BREACH OF PROCEDURE

Your honor, a party in the case (bigpappa140) has breached court procedures. He failed to familiarize themselves with the case. The Court procedure "Response Times" according to which , a party in a court has to respond to a summon/ subpoena in 48 hours which the defendant has failed to do so.
Hence, I request Bigpappa be charged appropriate fines and shall not be able to testify in the case.

Relevant Screenshosts / Evidences-

Breach of Procedure-
As per specified in Guide - Objections Guide
View attachment 36212


Response times-
As per specified in Information - Court Rules and Procedures

View attachment 36213

Your honor, while a contempt charge may be suitable, we have to ask Anthony questions separately anyways. I say we move on with his questioning and then bring bigpappa in whenever he gets here. Late or not, this court seeks the WHOLE truth and therefore shouldn't exclude testimony. I will personally remind the witness to appear.

 

[Bibsfi4a]

Your honor, while a contempt charge may be suitable, we have to ask Anthony questions separately anyways. I say we move on with his questioning and then bring bigpappa in whenever he gets here. Late or not, this court seeks the WHOLE truth and therefore shouldn't exclude testimony. I will personally remind the witness to appear.

Your honor, the plaintiff is not following prescribed court procedures. If bigpappa was really interested in telling thee truth, he would have been particular to the case.
Your honor, don't let a harmful precedent be set.
Bigpappa's testimony shall be excluded but I agree to Anthony testifying.

 

[bigpappa140]

present

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Your honor, the plaintiff is not following prescribed court procedures. If bigpappa was really interested in telling thee truth, he would have been particular to the case.
Your honor, don't let a harmful precedent be set.
Bigpappa's testimony shall be excluded but I agree to Anthony testifying.

Objection, Your Honor
The defense is speaking out of turn, as only ONE response to objection is permitted, and rebuttal is not authorized. The defense has issued a rebuttal to my permitted response, and is therefore speaking out of turn. I motion to strike his statement from the record.

 

[Banana]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION BREACH OF PROCEDURE

Your honor, a party in the case (bigpappa140) has breached court procedures.

Objection is overruled. I will give bigpappa140 a contempt of court charge, and I order that they be punished by the DOJ accordingly, but I will not strike their testimony.

Objection, Your Honor
The defense is speaking out of turn, as only ONE response to objection is permitted, and rebuttal is not authorized. The defense has issued a rebuttal to my permitted response, and is therefore speaking out of turn. I motion to strike his statement from the record.

Objection is sustained. This court needs to be orderly, and I will not allow undue arguing. I will not strike comments from the record, but this is the warning to both parties that a response is allowed but further rebuttals need to be requested.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Objection is overruled. I will give bigpappa140 a contempt of court charge, and I order that they be punished by the DOJ accordingly, but I will not strike their testimony.


Objection is sustained. This court needs to be orderly, and I will not allow undue arguing. I will not strike comments from the record, but this is the warning to both parties that a response is allowed but further rebuttals need to be requested.

May I proceed with the direct examination of my witness, your honor?

 

[Banana]

Yes, you may.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

@Anthony

1. Did you witness .BelatedDragon35 making remarks that reflect poorly on bigpappa140's reputation?
2. Did the defendant make a ticket where he falsely reported bigpappa140 for murder, to your knowledge?
3. If so, what happened in there?

@bigpappa140

1. Did you kill .BelatedDragon35?
2. Did .BelatedDragon35 ask you to kill him?
3. Did you witness .BelatedDragon35 making remarks that reflect poorly on your reputation?
4. How did you feel when these remarks were being made?
   1. Did you feel scared for your reputation and livelihood?
   2. Did these comments stress you out?
5. Were you running for public office at the time the comments were made?
   1. Were you nervous that these comments would hurt your chances of running for office?
   2. If you answer yes to the previous question, did that stress you out?

 

[Anthony]

1. Did you witness .BelatedDragon35 making remarks that reflect poorly on bigpappa140's reputation?
2. Did the defendant make a ticket where he falsely reported bigpappa140 for murder,

1. Yes I did.
2. No they did not

 

[bigpappa140]

@Anthony

1. Did you witness .BelatedDragon35 making remarks that reflect poorly on bigpappa140's reputation?
2. Did the defendant make a ticket where he falsely reported bigpappa140 for murder, to your knowledge?
3. If so, what happened in there?

@bigpappa140

1. Did you kill .BelatedDragon35?
2. Did .BelatedDragon35 ask you to kill him?
3. Did you witness .BelatedDragon35 making remarks that reflect poorly on your reputation?
4. How did you feel when these remarks were being made?
   1. Did you feel scared for your reputation and livelihood?
   2. Did these comments stress you out?
5. Were you running for public office at the time the comments were made?
   1. Were you nervous that these comments would hurt your chances of running for office?
   2. If you answer yes to the previous question, did that stress you out?

1. Yes
2. Yes
3. Yes
4. Not very good. I felt like these remarks would hurt my reputation in DC and these comments stressed me out because I believed my reputation was removed.
5. It was very early in the term and I believed these comments would disappoint my voters and ruin my chances of being in Congress again.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

1. Yes I did.
2. No they did not

Did you answer no for two because you did not witness it?

The event indeed happened by admission of the defendant.

 

[Anthony]

Did you answer no for two because you did not witness it?

The event indeed happened by admission of the defendant.

They did not open a DOJ ticket on discord, they don't even have discord.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

They did not open a DOJ ticket on discord, they don't even have discord.

Did they file a false report with the police in some manner?

 

[Anthony]

Did they file a false report with the police in some manner?

Yes, they did /complaint when the defendant asked the plaintiff to kill them.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Thank you. Your honor, defendant's witnesses.

 

[Banana]

The Defense may cross-examine if they wish.

 

[Milkcrack]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Banana has left the court and is therefore no longer the presiding justice. I have been assigned as the presiding judge for the remainder of the proceedings. As the defence failed to respond within 48 hours to cross-examine the witnesses, we will move on to the closing statement. The plaintiff has 48 hours to present their closing statements.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Banana has left the court and is therefore no longer the presiding justice. I have been assigned as the presiding judge for the remainder of the proceedings. As the defence failed to respond within 48 hours to cross-examine the witnesses, we will move on to the closing statement. The plaintiff has 48 hours to present their closing statements.

Your honor, I motion to move on as the defense has had plenty of time to conduct cross examination even before Justice Banana left the bench.

 

[Milkcrack]

I have previously, and explicitly, stated that we are moving on to closing statements which you as the plaintiff will be required to file first. Consequently, the motion in question is out of order and irrelevant to the current proceedings.

Reading back it has become apparent that there are motions and objections presented in this court case that appear to be for no other purpose then interrupt the flow of this trial. The court's time is a valuable resource, and it is crucial that motions, responses, and statements are filed in a timely manner, are relevant to the case at hand, and are well-supported by legal arguments. I want to make it clear that I will not hesitate to take approriate action against any party that fails to comply with the court's rules and be minful of it's time.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

I have previously, and explicitly, stated that we are moving on to closing statements which you as the plaintiff will be required to file first. Consequently, the motion in question is out of order and irrelevant to the current proceedings.

Reading back it has become apparent that there are motions and objections presented in this court case that appear to be for no other purpose then interrupt the flow of this trial. The court's time is a valuable resource, and it is crucial that motions, responses, and statements are filed in a timely manner, are relevant to the case at hand, and are well-supported by legal arguments. I want to make it clear that I will not hesitate to take approriate action against any party that fails to comply with the court's rules and be minful of it's time.

Your honor, I apologize as I misread what you said. That motion is out of place.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

May it please the Court,

Your honor, opposing counsel, it is clear that slanderous remarks occurred today which served to cause my client undue distress during an election period, where image is important. It further caused my client unnecessary humiliation, as many were aware of the comments being made and not everyone knew my client was innocent. .BelatedDragon35 both intentionally and maliciously, as proven by his comments, harmed my clients image and also opened a false police inquiry to get my client in further legal trouble. All in all, BelatedDragon must pay for his unacceptable conduct. I ask the Court to grant a full prayer for relief in this matter. Thank you.

 

[Milkcrack]

The defence has 48 hours to present their closing statement

 

[Bibsfi4a]

Your honor
I have the statement ready but I ask for around 24 hours to post if as it is late night in my country and i won't be available the next morning due to irl reasons and exam.

I am sorry it look long to prepare the statement as I had to research some facts and confirm some things with the DOJ
Hope you can understand

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Your honor, if the statement really was ready, why didn't he post it rather than asking for an extension? The plaintiff requests the Court to deny the defense's request.

 

[Bibsfi4a]

Your honor, if the statement really was ready, why didn't he post it rather than asking for an extension? The plaintiff requests the Court to deny the defense's request.

Your honor may I respond and give a reasoning?

 

[Milkcrack]

Apologies for the long delay. Please post the closing statements within 24 hours.

 

[Bibsfi4a]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Closing statement.

Your honor, I would like to keep the closing statement short and precise.

Your honor, the plaintiff has yet to prove any real damages. The plaintiff merely stating they felt humiliated is not enough in a court of law. Defamation is only designed to protect someones reputation, not their feelings; the plaintiff has shown no evidence of their reputation being damaged, and we have provided proof that the statements made by the defendant weren't defamatory in the first place.

We have shown in a previous screenshot that the plaintiff initially stated they were not harmed by the comments made by the defendant, and joked about it. This is an attempted cash grab from a new player, and is shameful. We ask this case is dismissed, deemed frivolous, and that the Attorney General look into this case to see if there was any possible perjury and fraud throughout it.

Screenshots prove that bigpappa admitted to not being harmed to the comments made by the defendant and joked about it, hence indirectly bigpappa admitted to not loosing any reputation, and took it as a joke.
When the plaintiff takes it as a joke, what are the damages for?

Hence your honor, the case does not stand a chance when there is No real legal damage occuring.

 

[Matthew100x]

I have been assigned to this case since the honorable Chief Justice has resigned. I see that both sides have submitted their closing arguments. I will be placing this case into recess to review and formulate a verdict.

 

[Matthew100x]

Verdict

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT
bigpappa140 v. .BelatedDragon35 [2023] FCR 63

I. PLAINTIFF'S POSITION
1. The plaintiff killed someone who had provided consent, then became slandered by that same person who took back their consent.
2. The defendant falsely filed a police report using /claim.
3. The defendant made up claims to make the plaintiff goes to jail.
4. As a result, he was humiliated and suffered emotional distress as consequential damages. The plaintiff also alleges that this behavior is "outrageous conduct" and demands punitive damages.

II. DEFENDANT'S POSITION
1. Defendant did acknowledge that he asked for someone to kill him but disputes whether or not the plaintiff lawfully killed the defendant in relation to this request.
2. The defendant acknowledges filing a false police report against the plaintiff.
3. The defendant affirms that they were making up the report to send the plaintiff to jail.
4. Defendant denies any and all claims of damages made against themselves.

III. THE COURT OPINION
This is a long case with a lot of relevent information, so this court will be breaking down the review with a style more akin to how the Supreme Court operates.

In order to properly understand the case, first an analysis must be conducted regarding the standards of slander. Given that the facts, the requirements of slander are not as stringent as required under Krix & xLayzur v. Politico where the plaintiff is required to overcome constitutional defenses (see Lawsuit: Adjourned - xLayzur & Krix v. Politico [2023] FCR 62). Instead, the plaintiff, must prove a balance of probabilities. They rely on the legal definition of slander, "a false statement which defames another person.In the form of spoken communication. For Minecraft purposes and realism we include regular Minecraft text in the server (General Chat) and discord chat as spoken communication." in addition to the common law set by several cases.

Olisaurus123 Vs. GoldenDiamonds4 [2022] DCR 17, it is the plaintiff’s burden of proof that damages occurred in order to collect an award. Keegan7om v. FriedPotaters [2021] DCR 21, the question is whether or not the defendant intended to cause harm to the reputation. Lord_Donuticus v. FriedPotaters [2021] FCR 22, where there must be a sufficient explanation for statements made by the defendant to prove that the accusations were not slander (See Lawsuit: Adjourned - Olisaurus123 Vs. GoldenDiamonds4 [2022] DCR 17, Lawsuit: Adjourned - Keegan7om v. FriedPotaters [2021] DCR 21 and Lawsuit: Adjourned - Lord_Donuticus v. FriedPotaters [2021] FCR 22 respectively). In accordance with the common law, the plaintiff must prove three things for a statement to be considered slandered. 1. The statement must be published. 2. The statement must be false. 3. The statement must have caused damage.

While Slander does not a published statement, it is clear that Slander is written and created in the form of written text as provided by the statute. Within that context, it can be understood that "publishing" is to type and circulate otherwise untrue statements in either Minecraft chats or discord chats. The defendant affirms that they indeed lied and made a misstatement against the plaintiff.

The next question this court must ask is whether or not this statement was false. While the defendant plainly states that they did not intend for the plaintiff the kill them, they openly in local chat, within earshot of the plaintiff, which the defendant acknowledges they did, of someone to kill them. When the plaintiff killed the defendant, they then filed a police report which they acknowledged was false in their Answer to Complaint.

Finally, the court must find whether the statement caused damage to the plaintiff's reputation. In accordance with the Legal Damages Act, there are two different damages being requested by the plaintiff, consequential damages via emotional distress and humiliation as well as punitive damages.

In assessing consequential damages, a justice must review the available evidence and deny awards that do not have sufficient proof. Statements to attorneys do not count as evidence towards consequential damages. It is proven that the defendant made a false statement against the plaintiff. This court will cycle back to consequential damages momentarily.

In assessing Punitive Damages, the justice can properly consider the character of the defendant's act, the nature and extent of the harm to the plaintiff that the defendant caused or intended to cause and the wealth of the defendant. The defendant clearly caused harm to the plaintiff's reputation by filing a false police report against the defendant. It is clear to this court that the behavior fits the legal standard of "outrageous conduct". This caused them harm in being made to be a criminal, having a criminal report, and requiring a lawyer to sort through a legal issue created by said false report. I took a review of the defendant's wealth at the time of writing and found -0.6 cents and could not find any properties. Subsuquently this court cannot award a very high punitive damage. If there is additional assets available that this court does not know about, it is the plaintiff's burden to work in conjunction with the DOJ to discover that balance.

Returning to consequential damages, since punitive damages are available in this instance due to "outrageous conduct", the Legal Damages Act allows for consequential damages with "no cap". Given that evidence sufficiently proves "outrageous conduct", it is logical to assume correlated consequential damages from the behavior of the defendant. However, due to lack of other proof, it is hard to assess whether or not the damages are as high as the plaintiff requests.
Given all the above, this court moves in favor of the plaintiff in this case.

IV. DECISION
The Federal Court hereby rules in favor of the Plaintiff, and grants a modified Prayer for Relief.

The Federal Court orders the Department of Justice to fine the Defendant $1,500 in Consequential Damages for emotional distress and unfine the Plaintiff the same amount.

The Federal Court orders the Department of Justice to fine the Defendant $7,500 in Consequential Damages for humiliation and unfine the Plaintiff the same amount.

The Federal Court orders the Department of Justice to fine the Defendant $1,000 in Punitive Damages for "outrageous conduct" and unfine the Plaintiff the same amount.

The Federal Court orders the Department of Justice to fine the Defendant $2,000 in Legal Fees and unfine the Plaintiff the same amount.

The Federal Court thanks all involved.