Lawsuit: Adjourned Bardiya_King v. CrackedAmeoba1 [2024] DCR 29

[IncompleteRiver]

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

CIVIL ACTION

Bardiya_King, Plaintiff
v.
CrackedAmoeba1, Defendant

COMPLAINT

The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

I. PARTIES​

1. Bardiya_King, Plaintiff
2. CrackedAmoeba1, Defendant
3. The Town of Oakridge

II. FACTS​

1. On 7/24/2024, CrackedAmoeba1 posted a message in the Oakridge #campaign Discord titled “channel making statements about Bardiya_King. (See P-001)
2. These statements included accusations that Bardiya_King: (See P-001)
   • Was fired from the council for toxic behavior.
   • Burned Oakridge records.
   • Made threats to Oakridge and past mayors.
   • Petitioned to terminate Oakridge.
   • Abused their power in the council seat in Willow.
3. The defendant has not provided any evidence to support these claims. (See P-002)
4. The plaintiff denies the allegations made in the post. (See P-003)

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF​

1. The defendant made and published false statements about the plaintiff.
2. These statements were made to third parties, including members of the Oakridge Discord channel.
3. The statements were defamatory as they falsely accused the plaintiff of committing crimes and engaging in unethical behavior.
4. The plaintiff has suffered damages as a result of these false statements, including harm to reputation and emotional distress.

IV. SUBPOENA REQUEST​

The Plaintiff respectfully requests that the court issue a subpoena for the following:

1. All messages and records from the Oakridge Discord channels relevant to the claims made by the defendant.
2. Any and all documents or records that the defendant claims to have that support their accusations against the plaintiff.

V. PRAYER FOR RELIEF​

The Plaintiff seeks the following from the defendant.

1. A public retraction and apology clearly stating that the statements were false and without basis.
2. A removal of the original posting from the Oakridge discord.
3. To cease any and all future defamatory statements against Bardiya_King.
4. Compensatory damages of $10000 for the harm caused by the defendant’s defamatory statements.
5. Legal fees of $5000.

VI. EVIDENCE

P-001:

P-002:

P-003:

Retainer:

Respectfully submitted,

IncompleteRiver, Senior Associate

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 29th day of July 2024

 

[Anthony]

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
WRIT OF SUMMONS
@CrackedAmoeba1 is required to appear before the District Court in the case of Bardiya_King v. CrackedAmeoba1. Failure to appear within 72 hours of this summons will result in a default judgement based on the known facts of the case. Both parties should make themselves aware of the Court Rules and Procedures, including the option of an in-game trial should both parties request one.​

 

[Alexander P. Love]

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

Bardiya_King
Plaintiff

v.

CrackedAmoeba1
Defendant

MOTION TO DISMISS
Defendant move that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:
1. The defense moves to dismiss under rule 5.9, collateral estoppel. In case Bardiya_King & JustaDumpling v. CrackedAmoeba1 (link), the case and its fact set was dismissed with prejudice. The claims provided in the previous case are identical or practically identical, rendering the fact set incredibly similar. Given the ruling of dismissal with prejudice was already handed out for that case, it should be handed out for this case as well. The statements made by the defendant in both cases are true, which is why the original dismissal was granted. It is time for this plaintiff to stop harassing the defendant.
2. The defense moves to dismiss under rule 5.5, lack of claim. The plaintiff has failed to provide evidence that the claims are false, and plenty of evidence that the claims are in fact true will be provided in the answer to complaint. Furthermore, there are no provable damages as a result of the declarant's statements. With two critical elements of actionable defamation being dismantled, this case has no leg to stand on and must be dismissed.


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 31st day of July, 2024.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

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

Bardiya_King
Plaintiff

v.

CrackedAmoeba1
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. The defense DOES NOT DISPUTE that "On 7/24/2024, CrackedAmoeba1 posted a message in the Oakridge #campaign Discord titled 'channel making statements about Bardiya_King.'"
2. The defense AFFIRMS that "These statements included accusations [about] Bardiya_King", noting that these accusations are 100% true.
3. The defense DISPUTES that "The defendant has not provided any evidence to support these claims." The evidence of these claims will be posted as evidence in this answer to complaint as well.
4. The defense DOES NOT DISPUTE that "The plaintiff denies the allegations made in the post."

II. DEFENSES
1. The defense asserts the plaintiff lacks evidence that the claims are false and that the claims have provable damages. Without both of these elements, the defendant cannot be found liable in a Court of Law of defamation.

III. EVIDENCE

Spoiler: Exhibit D-001

Spoiler: Exhibit D-002

Spoiler: Exhibit D-003

Spoiler: Exhibit D-004

Spoiler: Exhibit D-005

Spoiler: Proof of Representation

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 31st day of July, 2024.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


CrackedAmoeba1
Counterplaintiff

v.

Bardiya_King
Counterdefendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:
The plaintiff in this case lodged a frivolous suit against the defendant, causing him to have to hire an attorney to represent him.


I. PARTIES
1. CrackedAmoeba1 (Counterplaintiff)
2. Bardiya_King (Counterdefendant

II. FACTS
1. The counterdefendant sued the counterplaintiff.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The Legal Damages Act entitles the prevailing party to 30% of the value of the case or $5,000, whichever is higher, for legal fees. The fee structure as the law requires is in evidence in a previous post.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. $5,000 in legal fees from the plaintiff for filing this frivolous case.


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 31st day of July, 2024.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

P-003:

Objection
Hearsay

This is an out-of-court statement that cannot be cross examined, and the witness should testify to this in Court. A very similar piece of evidence in a related case was struck under hearsay (link).

 

[Alexander P. Love]

The defendant has not provided any evidence to support these claims.

Objection
Perjury

The plaintiff made a false claim. It is clear in P-001 that evidence was attached to the original post. It matches evidence we filed in Court today.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

IV. SUBPOENA REQUEST

The defense requests a response to this motion, your Honor.

 

[IncompleteRiver]

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

Bardiya_King
Plaintiff

v.

CrackedAmoeba1
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. The defense DOES NOT DISPUTE that "On 7/24/2024, CrackedAmoeba1 posted a message in the Oakridge #campaign Discord titled 'channel making statements about Bardiya_King.'"
2. The defense AFFIRMS that "These statements included accusations [about] Bardiya_King", noting that these accusations are 100% true.
3. The defense DISPUTES that "The defendant has not provided any evidence to support these claims." The evidence of these claims will be posted as evidence in this answer to complaint as well.
4. The defense DOES NOT DISPUTE that "The plaintiff denies the allegations made in the post."

II. DEFENSES
1. The defense asserts the plaintiff lacks evidence that the claims are false and that the claims have provable damages. Without both of these elements, the defendant cannot be found liable in a Court of Law of defamation.

III. EVIDENCE

Spoiler: Exhibit D-001

View attachment 46008

Spoiler: Exhibit D-002

View attachment 46009

Spoiler: Exhibit D-003

View attachment 46010

Spoiler: Exhibit D-004

View attachment 46011

Spoiler: Exhibit D-005

View attachment 46012

Spoiler: Proof of Representation

View attachment 46007

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 31st day of July, 2024.

OBJECTION

Relevance.

The improperly labeled evidence provided by the defendant titled Exhibit D-003 does not constitute relevance to this case.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

OBJECTION

Relevance and Hearsay

OBJECTION

Relevance.

The improperly labeled evidence provided by the defendant titled Exhibit D-003 does not constitute relevance to this case.

Your honor, it goes toward proving the claims that Bardiya_King was corrupt and abused powers in Willow as true. It therefore is entirely relevant.

 

[IncompleteRiver]

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

Bardiya_King
Plaintiff

v.

CrackedAmoeba1
Defendant

MOTION TO DISMISS
Defendant move that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:
1. The defense moves to dismiss under rule 5.9, collateral estoppel. In case Bardiya_King & JustaDumpling v. CrackedAmoeba1 (link), the case and its fact set was dismissed with prejudice. The claims provided in the previous case are identical or practically identical, rendering the fact set incredibly similar. Given the ruling of dismissal with prejudice was already handed out for that case, it should be handed out for this case as well. The statements made by the defendant in both cases are true, which is why the original dismissal was granted. It is time for this plaintiff to stop harassing the defendant.
2. The defense moves to dismiss under rule 5.5, lack of claim. The plaintiff has failed to provide evidence that the claims are false, and plenty of evidence that the claims are in fact true will be provided in the answer to complaint. Furthermore, there are no provable damages as a result of the declarant's statements. With two critical elements of actionable defamation being dismantled, this case has no leg to stand on and must be dismissed.


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 31st day of July, 2024.

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

Bardiya_King
Plaintiff

v.

CrackedAmoeba1
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. The defense DOES NOT DISPUTE that "On 7/24/2024, CrackedAmoeba1 posted a message in the Oakridge #campaign Discord titled 'channel making statements about Bardiya_King.'"
2. The defense AFFIRMS that "These statements included accusations [about] Bardiya_King", noting that these accusations are 100% true.
3. The defense DISPUTES that "The defendant has not provided any evidence to support these claims." The evidence of these claims will be posted as evidence in this answer to complaint as well.
4. The defense DOES NOT DISPUTE that "The plaintiff denies the allegations made in the post."

II. DEFENSES
1. The defense asserts the plaintiff lacks evidence that the claims are false and that the claims have provable damages. Without both of these elements, the defendant cannot be found liable in a Court of Law of defamation.

III. EVIDENCE

Spoiler: Exhibit D-001

View attachment 46008

Spoiler: Exhibit D-002

View attachment 46009

Spoiler: Exhibit D-003

View attachment 46010

Spoiler: Exhibit D-004

View attachment 46011

Spoiler: Exhibit D-005

View attachment 46012

Spoiler: Proof of Representation

View attachment 46007

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 31st day of July, 2024.

OBJECTION

Hearsay

D-003 is an out-of-court statement that cannot be cross-examined. The witness should testify to this in court.

 

[IncompleteRiver]

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

Bardiya_King
Plaintiff

v.

CrackedAmoeba1
Defendant

MOTION TO DISMISS
Defendant move that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:
1. The defense moves to dismiss under rule 5.9, collateral estoppel. In case Bardiya_King & JustaDumpling v. CrackedAmoeba1 (link), the case and its fact set was dismissed with prejudice. The claims provided in the previous case are identical or practically identical, rendering the fact set incredibly similar. Given the ruling of dismissal with prejudice was already handed out for that case, it should be handed out for this case as well. The statements made by the defendant in both cases are true, which is why the original dismissal was granted. It is time for this plaintiff to stop harassing the defendant.
2. The defense moves to dismiss under rule 5.5, lack of claim. The plaintiff has failed to provide evidence that the claims are false, and plenty of evidence that the claims are in fact true will be provided in the answer to complaint. Furthermore, there are no provable damages as a result of the declarant's statements. With two critical elements of actionable defamation being dismantled, this case has no leg to stand on and must be dismissed.


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 31st day of July, 2024.

RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS

The Plaintiff respectfully requests the Court to deny the Motion to Dismiss on the grounds that the Defendant's arguments are fundamentally flawed and unsupported by the applicable laws and facts of the case.

The Defendant argues that the current case should be dismissed under Rule 5.9, collateral estoppel, claiming that a prior case, Bardiya_King & JustaDumpling v. CrackedAmoeba1, was dismissed with prejudice. However, the facts and claims in the present case differ from the previous case, thus collateral estoppel does not apply.

1. In the previous case, the claims and the factual circumstances differed from those in the current case. The prior case focused on the Defendant's statements made by a third party entity, while the current case addresses public statements made by an individual. Collateral estoppel applies only when the issues previously litigated are identical to those currently presented. Here, the factual bases and legal claims are sufficiently different to warrant a new litigation.
2. The Defendant’s reliance on collateral estoppel is a misinterpretation of the legal principle. Collateral estoppel prevents re-litigation of specific issues that were actually litigated and decided in a prior case. The issues in the present case were not decided in the prior litigation, and thus, collateral estoppel does not bar the Plaintiff from pursuing this new claim.

The Defendant also moves to dismiss the case under Rule 5.5, claiming the Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for relief and provide evidence of damages.

1. The Plaintiff has clearly stated a claim for defamation under the Defamation Act 2020. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant made false and unprivileged statements that negatively impacted the Plaintiff's reputation, which is a valid claim under the act.
2. The Plaintiff has provided sufficient evidence to support the claim that the Defendant’s statements caused reputational harm and damages. The claim includes evidence of the intent to harm the Plaintiff’s reputation, which is necessary for a defamation claim under the law.
3. The Defamation Act 2020 requires proof of harm and intent to harm. The Plaintiff has met this burden by presenting evidence showing both the harm suffered and the Defendant’s intent to defame.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS

The Plaintiff respectfully requests the Court to deny the Motion to Dismiss on the grounds that the Defendant's arguments are fundamentally flawed and unsupported by the applicable laws and facts of the case.

The Defendant argues that the current case should be dismissed under Rule 5.9, collateral estoppel, claiming that a prior case, Bardiya_King & JustaDumpling v. CrackedAmoeba1, was dismissed with prejudice. However, the facts and claims in the present case differ from the previous case, thus collateral estoppel does not apply.

1. In the previous case, the claims and the factual circumstances differed from those in the current case. The prior case focused on the Defendant's statements made by a third party entity, while the current case addresses public statements made by an individual. Collateral estoppel applies only when the issues previously litigated are identical to those currently presented. Here, the factual bases and legal claims are sufficiently different to warrant a new litigation.
2. The Defendant’s reliance on collateral estoppel is a misinterpretation of the legal principle. Collateral estoppel prevents re-litigation of specific issues that were actually litigated and decided in a prior case. The issues in the present case were not decided in the prior litigation, and thus, collateral estoppel does not bar the Plaintiff from pursuing this new claim.

The Defendant also moves to dismiss the case under Rule 5.5, claiming the Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for relief and provide evidence of damages.

1. The Plaintiff has clearly stated a claim for defamation under the Defamation Act 2020. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant made false and unprivileged statements that negatively impacted the Plaintiff's reputation, which is a valid claim under the act.
2. The Plaintiff has provided sufficient evidence to support the claim that the Defendant’s statements caused reputational harm and damages. The claim includes evidence of the intent to harm the Plaintiff’s reputation, which is necessary for a defamation claim under the law.
3. The Defamation Act 2020 requires proof of harm and intent to harm. The Plaintiff has met this burden by presenting evidence showing both the harm suffered and the Defendant’s intent to defame.

Objection
Breach of Procedure

Your honor, a response was not warranted. I therefore motion to strike.

 

[Anthony]

The court is reviewing other motions and objections but I have missed the subpoena request so I will grant the following:

1. All messages and records from the Oakridge Discord channels relevant to the claims made by the defendant.
2. Any and all documents or records that the defendant claims to have that support their accusations against the plaintiff.

 

[Anthony]

Objection
Breach of Procedure

Your honor, a response was not warranted. I therefore motion to strike.

This objection is overruled, the plaintiff was responding to the motion to dismiss.

OBJECTION

Relevance.

The improperly labeled evidence provided by the defendant titled Exhibit D-003 does not constitute relevance to this case.

The objection is overruled, evidence D-003 which was submitted by the court is to prove the defense's argument.

Objection
Hearsay

This is an out-of-court statement that cannot be cross examined, and the witness should testify to this in Court. A very similar piece of evidence in a related case was struck under hearsay (link).

The objection is sustained, P-003 can not be used as evidence.

Objection
Perjury

The plaintiff made a false claim. It is clear in P-001 that evidence was attached to the original post. It matches evidence we filed in Court today.

The objection is overruled, the plaintiff in P-001 is showing the message that the defense has made about the plaintiff.

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

Bardiya_King
Plaintiff

v.

CrackedAmoeba1
Defendant

MOTION TO DISMISS
Defendant move that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:
1. The defense moves to dismiss under rule 5.9, collateral estoppel. In case Bardiya_King & JustaDumpling v. CrackedAmoeba1 (link), the case and its fact set was dismissed with prejudice. The claims provided in the previous case are identical or practically identical, rendering the fact set incredibly similar. Given the ruling of dismissal with prejudice was already handed out for that case, it should be handed out for this case as well. The statements made by the defendant in both cases are true, which is why the original dismissal was granted. It is time for this plaintiff to stop harassing the defendant.
2. The defense moves to dismiss under rule 5.5, lack of claim. The plaintiff has failed to provide evidence that the claims are false, and plenty of evidence that the claims are in fact true will be provided in the answer to complaint. Furthermore, there are no provable damages as a result of the declarant's statements. With two critical elements of actionable defamation being dismantled, this case has no leg to stand on and must be dismissed.


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 31st day of July, 2024.

The motion to dismiss is granted, The plaintiff's complaints/facts are similar to those in Bardiya_King & JustaDumpling v. CrackedAmoeba1 including facts added to both cases, which was filed in April and dismissed by Chief Justice SumoMC in April with prejudice. Since the plaintiff is attempting to bring up the similar complaint again with the same allegations, the case is dismissed with prejudice.

Can the defense still confirm if they would like to go ahead with the countersuit?

 

[Alexander P. Love]

This objection is overruled, the plaintiff was responding to the motion to dismiss.


The objection is overruled, evidence D-003 which was submitted by the court is to prove the defense's argument.


The objection is sustained, P-003 can not be used as evidence.


The objection is overruled, the plaintiff in P-001 is showing the message that the defense has made about the plaintiff.



The motion to dismiss is granted, The plaintiff's complaints/facts are similar to those in Bardiya_King & JustaDumpling v. CrackedAmoeba1 including facts added to both cases, which was filed in April and dismissed by Chief Justice SumoMC in April with prejudice. Since the plaintiff is attempting to bring up the similar complaint again with the same allegations, the case is dismissed with prejudice.

Can the defense still confirm if they would like to go ahead with the countersuit?

The defense requests the $5,000 in legal fees and motions for summary judgment on the issue.

 

[Anthony]

Does the plaintiff agree with the summary judgement?

 

[IncompleteRiver]

The Plaintiff agrees with summary judgement.

 

[Anthony]

This court will be in recess pending a verdict.

 

[Anthony]

Verdict

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT
CrackedAmoeba1 v. Bardiya_King [2024] DCR 29 (countersuit)

I. PLAINTIFF'S POSITION
1. The plaintiff is requesting legal fees for Bardiya_King v. CrackedAmoeba1 v. Bardiya_King [2024] DCR 29

II. DEFENDANT'S POSITION
1. The defense has agreed to a summary judgement.

III. THE COURT OPINION
1. According to the Legal Damages Act "In the event that the plaintiff initiates legal proceedings and such proceedings are dismissed by the court or result in a judgment in favor of the defendant, the prevailing party's legal representatives shall be entitled to recover reasonable legal fees from the plaintiff, capped at $5,000 or 20% of the case's value, whichever is higher."
2. This is the example of [2024] DCR 29, the defendant of the countersuit, has filed a case against the plaintiff of this case. The case was then dismissed, and the plaintiff's lawyer is requesting legal fees.

IV. DECISION
1. The District Court rules in favor of the plaintiff and orders that $5,000 be transferred from the defendant Bardiya_King and transferred to the plaintiff's lawyer AlexanderLove.

The District Court thanks all involved.