Lawsuit: In Session pricelessAgrari v. MysticPhunky [2025] DCR 48

The defense is present your honor. Justita Legal Group will be representing.

POOLNOODLE said:

The defense is present your honor. Justita Legal Group will be representing.

Click to expand...

Please provide proof of representation.

Your Honor,
The image of the agreement by the Defendant to be represented by Justita Legal Group can be found below.

POOLNOODLE said:

Your Honor,
The image of the agreement by the Defendant to be represented by Justita Legal Group can be found below.

Click to expand...

Thank you. You have 48 hours to provide an Answer to Complaint.

Case Filing​

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


pricelessAgrari
Plaintiff

v.

MysticPhunky
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. Defendant admits that Plaintiff arrested them on July 12, 2025, for 1x murder but denies that the arrest was lawful or properly verified as it is a Violation of Section 32(14) of the Constitution which states that "Every citizen has the right to life, liberty, and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice."
2. Defendant admits stating that they had a dispute ticket open, but asserts that the ticket was under review or being prepared, and denies any intent to deceive.
3. Defendant denies that their comments in chat were defamatory, and asserts that said comments were expressions of frustration and opinion, not false factual statements.
4. Defendant admits to stating “priceless just threatened me on Discord” in International chat, but asserts that the statement was true and based on the Plaintiff’s own message threatening legal action unless Defendant retracted their public comments.
5. Defendant denies that the Plaintiff has suffered any legal damages and denies all allegations of slander or humiliation that rise to the standard set under Redmont law.


II. COUNTERCLAIM FOR FALSE ARREST & EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
Defendant (Counterclaimant) MysticPhunky brings the following Counterclaim:
A. Parties
Counterclaimant: MysticPhunky

Counter-Defendant: pricelessAgrari

B. Facts
1) On July 12, 2025, the Counter-Defendant arrested Counterclaimant for a murder charge.
2) The arrest was conducted despite the Counterclaimant raising a dispute over the record, which was either pending or misunderstood.
3) Counter-Defendant failed to verify the ticket’s status or check with relevant authorities before proceeding.
4) The arrest was made without proper cause or procedure, constituting false arrest.
5) Following the incident, Counter-Defendant issued a coercive Discord message:
6) “I will let you have one chance to take back everything you said or I will sue you.”
7) Counterclaimant publicly referenced this message, triggering this retaliatory lawsuit.
8) As a result of the arrest and ongoing legal harassment, Counterclaimant suffered stress, embarrassment, and public backlash.


C. Claims for Relief
-False Arrest

-Emotional Distress

-Abuse of Legal Process


III. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Defendant respectfully requests that the Court:
1) Dismiss the Plaintiff’s Complaint in full;
2) Award the Defendant:
$10,000 for false arrest;
$5,000 for emotional distress;
3) Declare that the Plaintiff’s use of the legal system was retaliatory and improper;
4) $500 in compensatory damages under Standardized Criminal Code Act §4(2)(c), which entitles the Plaintiff to $50 per minute spent in prison falsely.
5) Grant such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.
6) Legal fees: 20% of case value.

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 14th day of July 2025

We will now enter discovery. Discovery shall last 5 days, unless both parties consent to ending it early.

Ediyto1 said:

Case Filing​

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


pricelessAgrari
Plaintiff

v.

MysticPhunky
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. Defendant admits that Plaintiff arrested them on July 12, 2025, for 1x murder but denies that the arrest was lawful or properly verified as it is a Violation of Section 32(14) of the Constitution which states that "Every citizen has the right to life, liberty, and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice."
2. Defendant admits stating that they had a dispute ticket open, but asserts that the ticket was under review or being prepared, and denies any intent to deceive.
3. Defendant denies that their comments in chat were defamatory, and asserts that said comments were expressions of frustration and opinion, not false factual statements.
4. Defendant admits to stating “priceless just threatened me on Discord” in International chat, but asserts that the statement was true and based on the Plaintiff’s own message threatening legal action unless Defendant retracted their public comments.
5. Defendant denies that the Plaintiff has suffered any legal damages and denies all allegations of slander or humiliation that rise to the standard set under Redmont law.


II. COUNTERCLAIM FOR FALSE ARREST & EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
Defendant (Counterclaimant) MysticPhunky brings the following Counterclaim:
A. Parties
Counterclaimant: MysticPhunky

Counter-Defendant: pricelessAgrari

B. Facts
1) On July 12, 2025, the Counter-Defendant arrested Counterclaimant for a murder charge.
2) The arrest was conducted despite the Counterclaimant raising a dispute over the record, which was either pending or misunderstood.
3) Counter-Defendant failed to verify the ticket’s status or check with relevant authorities before proceeding.
4) The arrest was made without proper cause or procedure, constituting false arrest.
5) Following the incident, Counter-Defendant issued a coercive Discord message:
6) “I will let you have one chance to take back everything you said or I will sue you.”
7) Counterclaimant publicly referenced this message, triggering this retaliatory lawsuit.
8) As a result of the arrest and ongoing legal harassment, Counterclaimant suffered stress, embarrassment, and public backlash.


C. Claims for Relief
-False Arrest

-Emotional Distress

-Abuse of Legal Process


III. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Defendant respectfully requests that the Court:
1) Dismiss the Plaintiff’s Complaint in full;
2) Award the Defendant:
$10,000 for false arrest;
$5,000 for emotional distress;
3) Declare that the Plaintiff’s use of the legal system was retaliatory and improper;
4) $500 in compensatory damages under Standardized Criminal Code Act §4(2)(c), which entitles the Plaintiff to $50 per minute spent in prison falsely.
5) Grant such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.
6) Legal fees: 20% of case value.

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 14th day of July 2025

Click to expand...

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

The plaintiff moves to dismiss the countersuit under Rule 5.11 (Immunity Protection), and in support therefore respectfully alleges:

1. The defendant has filed a countersuit for a false arrest by the plaintiff, an official law enforcement officer of the Commonwealth of Redmont.

2. During all points of the arrest and afterwards, I was acting within my official scope of duties with a warrant record (probable cause).

3. Rule 5.11 states, "A Motion to Dismiss may be submitted if the defendant is statutorily or constitutionally immune from being sued."

4. Considering I was within my official scope of duties and committing an arrest with probable cause, I am constitutionally immune from being sued directly. Instead, the defendant should take it up with the Commonwealth of Redmont.

May the defense respond your honor

.

Ediyto1 said:

May the defense respond your honor

Click to expand...

You may. You have 24 hours.

pricelessAgrari said:

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

The plaintiff moves to dismiss the countersuit under Rule 5.11 (Immunity Protection), and in support therefore respectfully alleges:

1. The defendant has filed a countersuit for a false arrest by the plaintiff, an official law enforcement officer of the Commonwealth of Redmont.

2. During all points of the arrest and afterwards, I was acting within my official scope of duties with a warrant record (probable cause).

3. Rule 5.11 states, "A Motion to Dismiss may be submitted if the defendant is statutorily or constitutionally immune from being sued."

4. Considering I was within my official scope of duties and committing an arrest with probable cause, I am constitutionally immune from being sued directly. Instead, the defendant should take it up with the Commonwealth of Redmont.

Click to expand...

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

MysticPhunky, Defendant/Counterclaimant
v.
pricelessAgrari, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant

RESPONSE TO THE MOTION TO DISMISS.

Defendant MysticPhunky respectfully opposes Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss the Counterclaim under Rule 5.11 and states the following:

1. While the Plaintiff acted under color of law as a law enforcement officer, their arrest was conducted without proper verification of a dispute ticket, despite being informed of its existence.

2. Immunity under Rule 5.11 does not shield officers who act outside the bounds of reasonable and standard procedure, or whose actions amount to retaliation or procedural misconduct.

3. Defendant contends that the arrest was not made in good faith and resulted in humiliation, reputational harm, and stress, especially given that the Plaintiff later used the incident to initiate a retaliatory lawsuit.

4. The Counterclaim stands not only as a challenge to the Plaintiff’s conduct, but also raises questions of systemic failure, and Defendant is willing to amend the filing to include the Commonwealth of Redmont if necessary.

Wherefore, Defendant respectfully requests that the Court deny the Motion to Dismiss, or alternatively grant leave to amend the Counterclaim to include the proper liable party if deemed appropriate under Rule 5.11.

I will be allowing the Counterclaim, providing that the Defendant amends the Counterclaim to include the proper party. The Plaintiff is correct that in order to pursue a case against a law enforcement officer, then you must sue the Commonwealth. However, I will not be outright dismissing the Counterclaim for a simple administrative error. The questions raised by the Counterclaim deserve a fair and true examination, and will receive such over the duration of this court case.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

MysticPhunky, Defendant/Counterclaimant
v.
The Commonwealth of Redmont, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant

RESPONSE TO THE MOTION TO DISMISS.

Defendant MysticPhunky respectfully opposes Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss the Counterclaim under Rule 5.11 and states the following:

1. While the Plaintiff acted under color of law as a law enforcement officer, their arrest was conducted without proper verification of a dispute ticket, despite being informed of its existence.

2. Immunity under Rule 5.11 does not shield officers who act outside the bounds of reasonable and standard procedure, or whose actions amount to retaliation or procedural misconduct.

3. Defendant contends that the arrest was not made in good faith and resulted in humiliation, reputational harm, and stress, especially given that the Plaintiff later used the incident to initiate a retaliatory lawsuit.

4. The Counterclaim stands not only as a challenge to the Plaintiff’s conduct, but also raises questions of systemic failure, and Defendant is willing to amend the filing to include the Commonwealth of Redmont if necessary.

Wherefore, Defendant respectfully requests that the Court deny the Motion to Dismiss, or alternatively grant leave to amend the Counterclaim to include the proper liable party if deemed appropriate under Rule 5.11.

Ediyto1 said:

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

MysticPhunky, Defendant/Counterclaimant
v.
The Commonwealth of Redmont, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant

RESPONSE TO THE MOTION TO DISMISS.

Defendant MysticPhunky respectfully opposes Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss the Counterclaim under Rule 5.11 and states the following:

1. While the Plaintiff acted under color of law as a law enforcement officer, their arrest was conducted without proper verification of a dispute ticket, despite being informed of its existence.

2. Immunity under Rule 5.11 does not shield officers who act outside the bounds of reasonable and standard procedure, or whose actions amount to retaliation or procedural misconduct.

3. Defendant contends that the arrest was not made in good faith and resulted in humiliation, reputational harm, and stress, especially given that the Plaintiff later used the incident to initiate a retaliatory lawsuit.

4. The Counterclaim stands not only as a challenge to the Plaintiff’s conduct, but also raises questions of systemic failure, and Defendant is willing to amend the filing to include the Commonwealth of Redmont if necessary.

Wherefore, Defendant respectfully requests that the Court deny the Motion to Dismiss, or alternatively grant leave to amend the Counterclaim to include the proper liable party if deemed appropriate under Rule 5.11.

Click to expand...

This is not a valid counterclaim. You appear to have reposted your response to the Motion to Dismiss.

AMENDED COUNTERCLAIM

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

Civil Action

MysticPhunky – Defendant / Counterclaimant
v.
Commonwealth of Redmont – Counter-Defendant

I. INTRODUCTION

Pursuant to the Court’s ruling, Defendant MysticPhunky submits this Amended Counterclaim to include the proper party, the The Commonwealth of Redmont, as the respondent to the claims of false arrest and emotional distress. This action arises from an incident involving a government agent acting in an official capacity whose actions constituted an unlawful deprivation of liberty and triggered reputational harm.

II. PARTIES

Counterclaimant: MysticPhunky, Defendant in the original action.
Counter-Defendant: The Commonwealth of Redmont, on behalf of its law enforcement personnel acting under color of authority.

III. STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. On or around July 12, 2025, MysticPhunky was arrested in game by a law enforcement officer of the Commonwealth of Redmont on suspicion of 1x murder.
2. At the time of arrest, MysticPhunky informed the officer that the criminal record was under dispute via ticket, or was to be disputed imminently.
3. The officer failed to confirm whether a ticket had been reviewed or was still open, yet proceeded with the arrest without verifying with Department of Homeland Security or relevant authorities.
4. Thus, it is a Violation of Section 32(14) of the Constitution which states that "Every citizen has the right to life, liberty, and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice."
5. The Criminal Code Act states that all legal action must align with common law principles and natural justice . An arrest made without verifying a dispute ticket, or without giving you proper notice or opportunity to respond, is a violation of these foundational rights.
6. This arrest was carried out despite the Defendant not posing an active threat or being subject to verified adjudicated guilt.
7. Section 32 Clause 9: Right to a Speedy and Fair Trail states the following “Any citizen, criminal or otherwise, has the right to a speedy and fair trial presided over by an impartial Judicial Officer, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, and to be confronted with the evidence against them, and to have the assistance of legally qualified counsel for their defence.”
8. The arrest caused unnecessary stress, embarrassment, and reputational damage, and was executed without proper legal cause, violating the Defendant's right to due process.
9. Section 33(15) Protection from Unreasonable Seizure states the following, “Every citizen has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.” The premature arrest, especially amid a disputed ticket, amounts to unreasonable seizure.
10. The Commonwealth of Redmont, as the employer and governing entity of the arresting officer, bears responsibility for the actions of its agents under standard principles of vicarious liability.
11. Common Law Respondeat Superior, this doctrine holds employers responsible for wrongful acts their employees commit within their scope of employment, even if unauthorized. When a law enforcement officer unlawfully arrests someone while performing duties, Commonwealth acting as employer may also be liable.


IV. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

A. False Arrest

The Defendant was unlawfully arrested without sufficient verification or cause. This constitutes a wrongful detention and a violation of legal rights. As stated in Section 33, Clauses 14-15 of the Constitution of Redmont state, “Every citizen has the right to life, liberty, and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice[; e]very citizen has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.”

B. Emotional Distress

The unjustified arrest led to stress, public embarrassment, and reputational damage, further exacerbated by the retaliatory lawsuit originally filed.


V. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

The Defendant and Counterclaimant respectfully requests that the Court:

1. Find that the Commonwealth of Redmont, through its agent, unlawfully arrested the Defendant without proper verification.
2. Award the Defendant:

-$10,000 in damages for false arrest, based on the violation of constitutional rights (Sections 33(9), 33(15), and 33(17)) and the arrest being executed without proper verification or finalized adjudication.

-$15,000 in emotional distress damages, for the mental and reputational harm caused by the premature and unlawful arrest, consistent with prior case awards (Dr_Eksplosive v. Commonwealth, RaiTheGuy07 v. Commonwealth).

-$5,000 in reputational damages, resulting from public embarrassment, including in global and departmental chats, where the Plaintiff questioned the Defendant’s credentials and made public accusations.


3. Declare that law enforcement must follow proper protocol before initiating arrests based on disputed records.
4. Grant such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
5. Legal fees: 20% of case value.


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 19th day of July 2025

The counterclaim is recognized, and will be considered during the case's verdict.

As discovery is now over, the plaintiff has 72 hours to provide their Opening Statement.

Opening Statement​

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

Your Honor,

The evidence provided clearly shows slanderous and humiliating comments. Any reasonable person could infer that being ridiculed in a public chat, as shown in the screenshots above, is embarrassing, and believing otherwise would be essentially disregarding common sense.

After legally performing my duties as a police officer and a doctor, I was slandered in three different public chats that basically said that 'There is no way that pricelessAgrari is a trained doctor' and 'pricelessAgrari threatened me on Discord'. The latter is a statement that claims that I threatened him, but I just told him that I was going to sue him if he didn't take back his comments. This was an attempt to let him know that I was serious about suing him, but he decided to announce to both DC and SC that I tried to threaten him.

Due to the fact that I did nothing wrong, as I arrested MysticPhunky because he had a wanted point, and he said his ticket got closed (Tickets only get closed if they have been resolved. Considering the fact that he still had a wanted point, it is reasonable to assume that his reasoning for the wanted point was not considered valid by the ticket reviewer on Discord, even if he never actually opened a ticket), the arrest was, in every way, lawful.

Through these facts, I find these criminal comments satisfactory in their definitions in their respective acts.

I wish that the court would weigh the facts of this case and reach the only true and just conclusion, which is that the comments were slanderous and humiliating.

Thank you. The Defendant has 72 hours to post their Opening Statement.

AmityBlamity said:

Thank you. The Defendant has 72 hours to post their Opening Statement.

Click to expand...

OPENING STATEMENT

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
DEFENDANT’S OPENING STATEMENT

Submitted on behalf of the Defendant, MysticPhunky

Your Honor,
Counsel for the Defendant respectfully submits this opening statement in response to the Plaintiff’s claim of defamation and humiliation. We assert that this claim is without legal merit, and in fact, arises from the Plaintiff’s own improper conduct during the course of an arrest that was procedurally and constitutionally questionable.

The facts will show that the Plaintiff, acting in an official capacity as a Department of Homeland Security officer, arrested the Defendant for murder despite the Defendant’s clear communication that the charge was under dispute. The Plaintiff failed to verify whether a ticket had ever been opened or resolved. The arrest proceeded without: Confirmation of adjudicated guilt, Any immediate threat posed by the Defendant, and Any effort to confirm the outcome of the dispute process. This conduct directly implicates several constitutional protections, including:
Section 32(9): the right to a fair and speedy trial, and to be informed of the charges and evidence; Section 32(15): the right to liberty and security of the person, absent fundamental justice;
Section 32(17): the right to be informed of the reason for one’s detention or arrest. We will argue that the arrest, carried out in these circumstances, constitutes a violation of the Defendant’s due process rights.

The statements cited by the Plaintiff including “priceless are you even trained” and “priceless just threatened me on Discord” were made in the heat of a disputed arrest, in public chats. These were not targeted acts of malicious defamation, but rather expressions of concern and frustration following what the Defendant believed to be an abuse of official authority.
“The phrase ‘are you even trained?" is a rhetorical question not a factual assertion. As such, it does not constitute a false statement capable of defamation. It expresses skepticism or opinion, not a verifiable claim of fact, and therefore cannot be slanderous under the No More Defamation Act, which requires a false statement of fact as a threshold element.”
On top of that, the so-called “threat” referenced by the Defendant was a direct quotation of the Plaintiff’s own Discord message: “I will let you have one chance to take back everything you said or I will sue you.”
At no point did the Defendant fabricate this interaction or present false information. Sharing one’s interpretation of such a message particularly when it follows a contested government action is protected under Section 32(2) of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of opinion and expression.

Under the No More Defamation Act, to establish defamation, a plaintiff must show:A false statement of fact,
Malicious intent or reckless disregard for the truth, and Tangible damage to their reputation. The Defendant’s statements were: Truthful or clearly opinion-based, Made without malice, and Not shown to have caused measurable reputational harm. The Plaintiff bears the burden of proving these elements, and we intend to demonstrate that the evidence does not support such a finding.

The Court has already permitted the Defendant’s Counterclaim to proceed with good reason. We contend that the Plaintiff’s conduct, as an agent of the Commonwealth, constitutes:False arrest, Violation of constitutional rights, and Emotional and reputational harm consistent with established case law, including Munkler v. Commonwealth, AlexanderLove v. Commonwealth, and RaiTheGuy07 v. Commonwealth.
We will seek compensation for these harms in the amount of $30,000, as detailed in our pleadings.

Your Honor, this is not a case of defamation. This is a case about the misuse of authority and the right of individuals to speak freely in response to unjust treatment. The Plaintiff seeks to silence legitimate criticism and deflect accountability by labeling it slander. We respectfully request that the Court dismiss the Plaintiff’s claims and consider the merits of
the Defendant’s Counterclaim in full.

Thank you. As no witnesses have been called, the Plaintiff has 72 hours to file their Closing Statement.

Previous order is rescinded. Please refrain from posting Closing Statements at this time.

Your honor,

May it please the court, I humbly request to file an amicus brief regarding the legality of a countersuit against a party who has not been summoned to a particular case.

Franciscus said:

Your honor,

May it please the court, I humbly request to file an amicus brief regarding the legality of a countersuit against a party who has not been summoned to a particular case.

Click to expand...

There will be no need for the amicus brief.

Firstly, my apologies in the delay in this case. After further reflection, I am dismissing the Counterclaim Sua Sponte. I overlooked two key details when initially allowing it, namely:

• The Counterclaim deals with questions of Constitutionality. Specifically, allegations of a violation of Section 32.14 which states that "Every citizen has the right to life, liberty, and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice." The District Court does not have original jurisdiction over questions of Constitutionality. That sacred duty rests with the Federal Court. Thus, it is entirely improper for the District Court to hear this case.
• More importantly however, a lawsuit against a law enforcement agent must be made against the Commonwealth of Redmont. However, the initial suit was between pricelessAgrari, the plaintiff, and MysticPhunky, the defendant. To sue the Commonwealth would necessitate the appearance of the Attorney General or someone acting under their authority. However, this would lead to a situation where we essentially have two different court cases taking place simultaneously. Furthermore, having not summoned the Attorney General to allow them to defend their case, this would be a horrific violation of constitutional rights.

The counterclaim is dismissed without prejudice, in case the defendant wishes to refile. My deepest apologies to all parties concerned with this case. This was a mistake born purely from inexperience, as I am a relatively new Magistrate. If the defendant wishes to pursue their claim, I suggest they file with the Federal Court of Redmont.

In order to allow a fair continuation of the case, I hereby offer the plaintiff 48 hours to amend their Opening Statement should they so wish. Following this deadline, or if the plaintiff signal a willingness to end the deadline earlier, I will be offering the defendant 48 hours to amend their Opening Statement as well.

Your honor,
I would not like to amend my opening statement. Therefore, I signal to end the deadline early.

pricelessAgrari said:

Your honor,
I would not like to amend my opening statement. Therefore, I signal to end the deadline early.

Click to expand...

Thank you for the prompt reply. The defendant has 48 hours to amend their opening statement should they so wish.

AmityBlamity said:

Thank you for the prompt reply. The defendant has 48 hours to amend their opening statement should they so wish.

Click to expand...

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT​

AMENDED OPENING STATEMENT


Your Honor,

As counsel for the Defendant, MysticPhunky, I appreciate the Court's clarification regarding jurisdiction and the dismissal of the counterclaim. We understand the constitutional limitations outlined and acknowledge that any future legal action relating to the lawfulness of the arrest must proceed through the appropriate venue namely, the Federal Court of Redmont.

That said, the Plaintiff now seeks to recover damages for alleged slander and humiliation, based on comments made by the Defendant in public and departmental chat channels following a disputed arrest. We respectfully assert that these comments do not meet the legal threshold for either claim.


Specifically:

The statement “are you even trained?” is a question, not a declarative falsehood. It expresses skepticism or concern, which, while perhaps sharp in tone, is protected opinion — not slander under §4.a of the No More Defamation Act.

The Defendant’s statement that “priceless just threatened me on Discord” is a paraphrase of an actual message received:

"I will let you have one chance to take back everything you said or I will sue you."

Click to expand...

This was reasonably interpreted as a legal threat. The Defendant’s decision to share this experience was not malicious or fabricated; it was a subjective reaction to an intimidating interaction, not a willful lie.


Furthermore, the Plaintiff is a public servant acting in an official capacity. Criticism even blunt must be weighed against the higher standard for public accountability. The law should not be used to chill speech or punish disagreement, especially when no measurable harm or reputational loss has been demonstrated.

In conclusion, Your Honor, the Defendant’s words were not slanderous, nor did they rise to the level of actionable humiliation. They were reactive expressions during a moment of genuine frustration, made in public forums where conversations are casual, unfiltered, and fast paced.

We respectfully ask the Court to weigh these facts and determine that no defamation or compensable harm occurred.

Thank you for the prompt answer. As no witnesses have been called, the plaintiff has 72 hours to post their Closing Statement.

Closing Statement​

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT

Your Honor,

Throughout this case, I have consistently demonstrated that the Defendant, MysticPhunky, made multiple false and damaging statements in public channels. These slanderous comments were not meant as jokes or opinions- they were made to purposely belittle me. The Defendant claims that the requirements were not fulfilled, but I argue they were. The reason for this conclusion is mainly based on three main factors.

1. The comments were made in two different publicly accessible channels and a channel relating to my profession that was being tarnished. This proves that I could have been made to look foolish, unlike if it were in a private chat or a local with just the two of us.

2. The comments misrepresented facts to make me look bad. Specifically, in the statement in International chat, “priceless just threatened me on Discord”, I am mentioned by name. I simply made a firm statement on Discord, trying to exhaust all measures before taking legal action against the Defendant. This statement is a clear example of slander because it tarnishes my reputation.

3. The statements questioning my legitimacy harmed my profession. The statements "priceless are you even trained" and "priceless are you even a trained doctor btw", especially with the first one being made in the doctor chat (DoH). The Defendant tried to question my legitimacy in public chats to cause people to lose trust in me as a doctor.

The Defendant claims that these were 'reactive expressions during a moment of genuine frustration'; however, this does not matter due to the fact that harm was still done, and I felt belittled. He also alleges that public forums conversations are 'casual, unfiltered, and fast paced'. Similar to my other point, it is not unfiltered because slanderous comments are not allowed.

I respectfully present these facts to the court for consideration, and I hope that the court weighs these facts in the conclusion of this case. Thank you for your time and patience.

The Defendant has 72 hours to post their Closing Statement.

AmityBlamity said:

The Defendant has 72 hours to post their Closing Statement.

Click to expand...

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT​

DEFENDANT’S CLOSING STATEMENT


Your Honor,


I appear before this Court as counsel for the Defendant, MysticPhunky, and respectfully submit this closing statement in defense of my client.

This case concerns the Plaintiff’s claim that MysticPhunky made defamatory and humiliating comments in public channels. However, the record shows that these remarks were made in reaction to a disputed arrest and were neither malicious nor false in nature.

The three statements cited by the Plaintiff are:

1. “priceless are you even trained” (in DoH chat)
2. “priceless are you even a trained doctor btw” (in Global chat)
3. “priceless just threatened me on Discord” (in International chat)

Each of these should be examined in proper context:


- The first two statements were rhetorical questions, not assertions of false fact. They were posed in the midst of confusion and frustration following an arrest that my client believed to be procedurally flawed. As a licensed doctor himself, MysticPhunky had every right to question the qualifications of someone treating others in the Department of Health. At the time, the Plaintiff was a trainee doctor, so the question was not only contextually appropriate but factually grounded.

- The third statement was a reaction to a Discord message sent by the Plaintiff:
“I will let you have one chance to take back everything you said or I will sue you.”
Any reasonable person could interpret this as a legal threat. My client shared his interpretation publicly, which is not a false claim it is an honest reaction to what he perceived as intimidation. It was not defamatory, nor was it made with malice.


The Plaintiff has provided no evidence of actual damage no demotion, no loss of professional standing, and no proof that trust in him was compromised. Public officials, especially those in training, must be prepared for scrutiny and questions. Hurt feelings do not meet the legal threshold for slander or humiliation. My client’s comments were lawful, contextually justified, and made in good faith, especially given his own medical background and the unverified authority of the Plaintiff at the time.

For these reasons, on behalf of my client, I respectfully request that the Court deny the Plaintiff’s claims in full, and affirm that the Defendant’s comments were lawful, context driven, and constitutionally protected.

Thank you, Your Honor.

Court is now in recess pending verdict.

Your Honor,
May I request permission to object to the Defendant's closing statement on the grounds of factual misrepresentation?

pricelessAgrari said:

Your Honor,
May I request permission to object to the Defendant's closing statement on the grounds of factual misrepresentation?

Click to expand...

Recess is paused. I will allow the objection.

Ediyto1 said:

- The first two statements were rhetorical questions, not assertions of false fact. They were posed in the midst of confusion and frustration following an arrest that my client believed to be procedurally flawed. As a licensed doctor himself, MysticPhunky had every right to question the qualifications of someone treating others in the Department of Health. At the time, the Plaintiff was a trainee doctor, so the question was not only contextually appropriate but factually grounded.

Click to expand...

Your Honor,
I would like to move the court to strike from the record the section that implies that I was a trainee doctor at the time.
At the time of the comment, “priceless are you even trained”, I was indeed trained, and I could have been proven to be by simply looking at my Government Job, something that is not hard to do.

Your Honor,

May I respectfully request permission to respond to the Plaintiff’s recent filing?

Ediyto1 said:

Your Honor,

May I respectfully request permission to respond to the Plaintiff’s recent filing?

Click to expand...

You may.

AmityBlamity said:

You may.

Click to expand...

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
RESPONSE TO MOTION TO STRIKE


Your Honor,

The Defense respectfully opposes the Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike the reference suggesting the Plaintiff was a "trainee doctor" at the time of the incident in question.

New evidence, including a changelog entry from July 20, 2025, clearly confirms that prior to that date, a bug existed in the /about menu system whereby individuals who were officially Doctors also appeared as Trainees. This bug caused role confusion and gave the impression that individuals still held trainee status even if they had technically been promoted.

From the changelog:

“Doctors no longer inherit Trainee Doctor permissions... If you are a Doctor, you shouldn't also see Trainee Doctor in your /about menu.”
— DemocracyCraft Changelog, July 20, 2025

Click to expand...

Further context from a conversation with server staff confirms that this visual bug was misleading, and that players relying on the /about menu would have seen someone with the Trainee role displayed even after promotion. That is precisely the source of the Defendant's comment a genuine and reasonable misunderstanding based on the faulty display system, not intentional slander or fabrication.

Therefore, the Defense maintains that the Defendant’s question “are you even trained?” was made in good faith under the circumstances. It reflected a real-time interpretation of misleading in game data, now acknowledged as a known issue.

Accordingly, we respectfully request that the Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike be denied, as the disputed statement was contextually accurate and reasonably based on how the Plaintiff appeared in game during the time of the incident.

pricelessAgrari said:

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO STRIKE​

Your Honor,
I would like to move the court to strike from the record the section that implies that I was a trainee doctor at the time.
At the time of the comment, “priceless are you even trained”, I was indeed trained, and I could have been proven to be by simply looking at my Government Job, something that is not hard to do.

Click to expand...

I will be granting the Motion to Strike.

Although there isn't concrete evidence to prove that the plaintiff was a full doctor at the time, both the plaintiff and the defendant (in their response) do not dispute this fact.

Court is once again in recess pending verdict.