Lawsuit: Dismissed JamesTheSlay v. RealImza [2025] DCR 62

asexualdinosaur said:

Motion

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

The defense moves that the Emotional Damages Prayer for relief in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof,

1. Legal Damages Balance Act - Removed emotional damages from the law and should not be rewarded.

Click to expand...

asexualdinosaur said:

Answer to Complaint

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

JamesTheSlay
Plaintiff

v.

RealImza
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. Deny
2. Affirm

II. DEFENCES
1. No More Defamation Act - Defamation requires that the third party’s reputation be injured.
2. Claims for relief aren’t actual claims for the relief.
3. bigpappa140 v. .BelatedDragon35 [2023] FCR 63 & Vernicia v. RylandW [2025] FCR 5 upholds that the court must find whether the statement caused damage to the plaintiff’s reputation.

Witnesses:
JamesTheSlay

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 18th day of August 2025

Motion

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

The defense moves that the Emotional Damages Prayer for relief in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof,

1. Legal Damages Balance Act - Removed emotional damages from the law and should not be rewarded.

Spoiler: Proof of Representation

View attachment 59973

Click to expand...

James said:

your honour,
May the defendant show where they heard that I was Harassing kat

Click to expand...

Muggy21 said:

Your Honour,

The Redmont Civil Liberties Union is extremely concerned about the characterization of speech in the Commonwealth. May the RCLU file an amicus curiae brief in this case for your consideration?

We have no interest in either party, nor am I apprised of any privileged information.

Click to expand...

Muggy21 said:

Brief

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
AMICUS BRIEF by the Redmont Civil Liberties Union for JamesTheSlay v. RealImza [2025] DCR 62


1. COMPLAINT FAILS DEFAMATION STANDARD UNDER LAW

1. The No More Defamation Act (“NMD Act”) is the controlling statute for any defamation claim.
2. NMD Act § 4(1)(a) defines defamation as “a false statement and/or communication that injures a third party.” Notably, the Act makes no distinction between libel and slander, and therefore the operative inquiry is whether an actual injury has been demonstrated.
3. The operative word in this statutory definition is “injured.” The Plaintiff must do more than allege offense or displeasure; he must demonstrate to this Honourable Court that the phrase, viewed in full context, rises to the statutory threshold of injury.
4. Even if the Plaintiff’s claims were viewed in the most charitable light, the Complaint fails as a matter of law. The Plaintiff has not performed the most basic due diligence to explain why or how the alleged statement was injurious. Defamation requires a showing of actual harm, not a conclusory allegation that one’s feelings have been bruised.
5. With respect to “reputational damages,” the RCLU submits that actionable harm must consist of demonstrable losses flowing from commercial or transactional consequences: the halting of a monetary transaction, business relationship, or contractual engagement as a direct result of the alleged statement. Moreover, the Plaintiff must establish that such harm reflects a significant deviation in his reputation within the community of Redmont at large, not merely a personal sense of embarrassment.
6. One cannot simply declare aloud that one’s reputation has been harmed; without tangible proof of injury, a defamation claim collapses into nothing more than rhetoric.

2. CONSTITUTIONAL ROADBLOCK

1. As the Court is well aware, the Constitution affords the right to protected political communication. Const. Part IV § 32 (6).
2. Although not entered into evidence, the messages at issue were spoken in the chat of a political party. (This brief declines to reproduce them; the RCLU leaves that burden to the Respondent.)
3. Political communications are entitled to the broadest constitutional protection, and the Court should not disturb this safeguard by entertaining a suit that is facially defective.
4. While styled as “defamatory” or “harassment”, the Plaintiff’s theory of liability collapses absolutely if the underlying conduct was for political expression. (The Plaintiff ran a political campaign earlier, this is a significant possibility).
5. Constitutional protection does not yield merely because the Plaintiff wishes to re-label speech as offensive.
6. The Court must therefore hold that political communication, even when unpleasant or unwelcome, cannot be judicially re-cast as actionable harassment without eviscerating the guarantees of Const. Part IV § 32 (6).

I'd like to be known to the Court that the Plaintiff reached out to the author inquiring as to the content of this brief. He attempted to argue his case and brought up a client of the RCLU (I don't know why...)


Respectfully submitted for the Court's consideration, the RCLU prays for prompt dismissal.

Click to expand...

James said:

Motion

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

The Plaintiff moves that the defense provide proof of someone Kat or Anybody else telling them I harrased Kat

Click to expand...

Muggy21 said:

Brief

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
AMICUS BRIEF by the Redmont Civil Liberties Union for JamesTheSlay v. RealImza [2025] DCR 62


1. COMPLAINT FAILS DEFAMATION STANDARD UNDER LAW

1. The No More Defamation Act (“NMD Act”) is the controlling statute for any defamation claim.
2. NMD Act § 4(1)(a) defines defamation as “a false statement and/or communication that injures a third party.” Notably, the Act makes no distinction between libel and slander, and therefore the operative inquiry is whether an actual injury has been demonstrated.
3. The operative word in this statutory definition is “injured.” The Plaintiff must do more than allege offense or displeasure; he must demonstrate to this Honourable Court that the phrase, viewed in full context, rises to the statutory threshold of injury.
4. Even if the Plaintiff’s claims were viewed in the most charitable light, the Complaint fails as a matter of law. The Plaintiff has not performed the most basic due diligence to explain why or how the alleged statement was injurious. Defamation requires a showing of actual harm, not a conclusory allegation that one’s feelings have been bruised.
5. With respect to “reputational damages,” the RCLU submits that actionable harm must consist of demonstrable losses flowing from commercial or transactional consequences: the halting of a monetary transaction, business relationship, or contractual engagement as a direct result of the alleged statement. Moreover, the Plaintiff must establish that such harm reflects a significant deviation in his reputation within the community of Redmont at large, not merely a personal sense of embarrassment.
6. One cannot simply declare aloud that one’s reputation has been harmed; without tangible proof of injury, a defamation claim collapses into nothing more than rhetoric.

2. CONSTITUTIONAL ROADBLOCK

1. As the Court is well aware, the Constitution affords the right to protected political communication. Const. Part IV § 32 (6).
2. Although not entered into evidence, the messages at issue were spoken in the chat of a political party. (This brief declines to reproduce them; the RCLU leaves that burden to the Respondent.)
3. Political communications are entitled to the broadest constitutional protection, and the Court should not disturb this safeguard by entertaining a suit that is facially defective.
4. While styled as “defamatory” or “harassment”, the Plaintiff’s theory of liability collapses absolutely if the underlying conduct was for political expression. (The Plaintiff ran a political campaign earlier, this is a significant possibility).
5. Constitutional protection does not yield merely because the Plaintiff wishes to re-label speech as offensive.
6. The Court must therefore hold that political communication, even when unpleasant or unwelcome, cannot be judicially re-cast as actionable harassment without eviscerating the guarantees of Const. Part IV § 32 (6).

I'd like to be known to the Court that the Plaintiff reached out to the author inquiring as to the content of this brief. He attempted to argue his case and brought up a client of the RCLU (I don't know why...)


Respectfully submitted for the Court's consideration, the RCLU prays for prompt dismissal.

Click to expand...