Lawsuit: Dismissed Bardiya_King v. Dumbyhead1234 [2023] FCR 80

Status
Not open for further replies.
BEDROCKJAVA

BEDROCKJAVA

Citizen
Redmont Bar Assoc.
Irongolem_lawyer
Irongolem_lawyer
attorney
Joined
Sep 3, 2021
Messages
3
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


Bardiya_King (Represented by The Lovely Law Firm)
Plaintiff

v.

Dumbyhead1234
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

The defendant willingly and knowingly smeared the Plaintiff’s reputation by claiming Bardiya_King “forged the doc” (see Exhibit A), The document the defendant is referring to, is MegaCorp’s valuation. These claims were unfounded and were used to slander the plaintiff.

Following these accusations, the defendant accused the plaintiff of being the primary reason for their dismissal from the position of CEO. (See Exhibit B)

Both of these accusations caused humiliation.


I. PARTIES
1. Bardiya_King (Plaintiff)
2. Dumbyhead1234 (Defendant)


II. FACTS
1. Dumbyhead1234 claims Bardiya_King forged the valuation documents by inflating the value of MegaCorp
2. Dumbyhead1234 is accused of falsely valuating MegaCorp and agrees to settle.
3. Dumbyhead123 claims Bardiya_Kings was the main reason they were dismissed from the position of MegaCorp CEO


III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The Defamation Act 2020 (link) defines slander as the following: “Slander is a false statement which defames another person.” The statements made by the defendant clearly fit the definition set by this Act.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. Humiliation damages in the amount of 25,000 Redmont dollars
2. A public apology from the defendant recusing themselves and apologizing for the false statements.
3. Legal fees in the amount of 5,000 Redmont dollars

V. EVIDENCE
Exhibit A
1694819111346.png

Exhibit B
1694819166685.png



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 16th day of September 2023
 
PwFVDhr.png



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

The defendant is required to appear before the court in the case of the Bardiya_King v. Dumbyhead1234. Failure to appear within 48 hours of this summons will result in a default judgment in favour of the plaintiff.

I'd also like to remind both parties to be aware of the Court Rules and Procedures, including the option of an in-game trial should both parties request one.​
 
Good morning, your honor.

The Defendant has hired Solid Law Firm, of which I am the sole employee at the moment, to represent him in this case.

Screenshot_20230919_080117_Discord.jpg


I am requesting an extra 24 hours due to IRL job interviews today and an exam tomorrow.

Thank you.
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

Bardiya_King
Plaintiff

v.

Dumbyhead1234
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. DENY Dumbyhead1234 claims Bardiya_King forged the valuation documents by inflating the value of MegaCorp
2.  AFFIRM Dumbyhead1234 was accused of falsely valuating MegaCorp and agreed to settle out-of-court.
3. DENY Dumbyhead123 claims Bardiya_Kings was the main reason they were dismissed from the position of MegaCorp CEO

II. DEFENSES
1. The Defense wishes to remind the court of the Legal Damages Act saying "In assessing a consequential damage award, the magistrate/judge/justice must review the available evidence and deny awards that do not have sufficient proof."

and defines Humiliation as "Situations in which a person has been disgraced, belittled or made to look foolish."

Humiliation is a Consequential Damage, according to the Legal Damage Act. Thus, unless sufficient proof is provided that $25,000 in humiliation occurred, there can be no award given.

2. It is important to note that "forged" (in quotes) is different from forged (not in quotes). This could have meant anything, and didn't necessarily mean literal forging of documents.

3. While Dumbyhead1234 did claim that Bardiya_King inflated the value of MegaCorp, there has been no evidence submitted to suggest that he did not do so. The burden of proof falls onto the Plaintiff, so unless such evidence is presented, it cannot be proven that this is false.

4. Dumbyhead1234 said "I know you got me fired" but that doesn't necessarily mean they were the main reason they were dismissed from the position of MegaCorp CEO.

III. MOTION TO DISMISS
The Defense believes that this case should be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

1. Even assuming every single "fact" presented by the Plaintiff is true, there is no allegation of falsehood and no allegation of damage.

This is not lack of evidence, but a lack of alleging components of Slander/Defamation.

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 21st day of September 2023
 
The plaintiff has 48 hours to respond to the motion to dismiss.
 
Good evening Your Honor,
I am requesting a 24 hour extension, due to irl professional matters.

Thank you.
 
Your honor,

The Plaintiff's time has expired.
 
Your Honor,
On behalf of my plaintiff's counsel, I apologize for our tardiness.

We oppose the defense's motion to dismiss on the grounds of:

1. The defense argues that there was no allegation of falsehood, however, we allege that a falsehood has been committed. Whether the term "forged" was in quotations or not, in relation to the defense's comments, is irrelevant. It is apparent in evidence A that the term "forged" was being used to falsely describe my clients' valuation as illegal or unethical. Therefore would be considered a falsehood.

2. The defense also argues that there was no allegation of damages. However, we allege that the comments made by the defendant damaged the perception of the plaintiff by his community of peers. By claiming our client evaluated his business in an unethical way, our client has been confronted, interrogated, and harassed by his coworkers and peers, which Damaged his reputation and standing on the server.

Thank you, your honor.
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO STRIKE

The Plaintiff's counsel was already given an extension and still failed to respond in time.

We ask that their response be struck.
 
Your honor,

Irongolem completely disappeared off the face of the planet so we had to prepare something. We had no communication from him whatsoever and he will be dismissed from Lovely Law, so that this does not occur again.
 
As I am now a Justice on the Supreme Court, Solid Law Firm will no longer be representing the Defendant.

I hope you will allow the Defendant 48 hours to find new counsel.
 
Your honor, what is the status of this case?
 
I am unable to respond to the motion to dismiss due to the ongoing impeachment. I will be placing this case into recess until such a time when the impeachment is over.
 
I will be presiding over this case moving forward. There are a few orders of business to attend to in order to move forward with this. I will address them in order below.

The Motion to Dismiss is hereby denied.
The case brought before the court has standing, and as such will be heard.

The Motion to Strike is hereby denied.
My reasoning for the denial on the Motion to Strike is simply that the Judiciary has failed to give adequate responses as well, and no expectation should be put on any party that is not expected of the court also. To act otherwise would be in violation of individual rights. As such, the motion to strike is hereby denied.

Having ruled on these motions, I now call on the Plaintiff to file their opening statement.

The Plaintiff will be given 48 hours from now to provide the court with an opening statement.
 
I also am informing all parties that, moving forward, court will be on time. Please be mindful of this. Extensions will no longer be granted unless absolutely necessary. Due to the amount of time in recess, I see no reason as to why either side should not have arguments ready at this time.
 
Opening Statements

Your Honor,
May it please the court.

I. Introduction
We can all agree in the world of finance, trust is everything. The money we make on this server is fragile. It's hard to make but oh so easy to lose. When we entrust others to take care of it and evaluate it properly, we put our livelihoods in someone else's hands. That requires a whole lot of trust. Trust is not quickly gained and is impossible to gain back once lost. The lies fabricated by the defendant about our client did just that. II. Rebuttal When Dumbyhead falsely claimed that Bardiya forged the evaluation of his company, it sent ripples through the financial sector, causing his peers to lose faith in our client and question their decisions, causing massive humiliation to our client that damages his standing in his field.

II. Rebuttal
The defense correctly states, "In assessing a consequential damage award, the magistrate/judge/justice must review the available evidence and deny awards that do not have sufficient proof."

They define humiliation as "Situations in which a person has been disgraced, belittled or made to look foolish."
As we can see in this conversation our client had with his coworker
1697518675885.png
1697518700727.png


because of the defendant's statement, many of his peers and customers have unjustly questioned his honesty and integrity, leading to our client's public embarrassment and humiliation.

The defense argues that "It is important to note that "forged" (in quotes) is different from forged (not in quotes). This could have meant anything and didn't necessarily mean literal forging of documents." However, as we can see from the evidence above, it didn't matter whether the word "forged" was in quotes; it still had the same effect on my client's reputation. The term "forged " was used to draw suspicion to my client purposefully and slander his name among his peers.

The defense also argues that "While Dumbyhead1234 did claim that Bardiya_King inflated the value of MegaCorp, there has been no evidence submitted to suggest that he did not do so. The burden of proof falls onto the Plaintiff, so unless such evidence is presented, it cannot be proven that this is false." However, as set in precedent by KP56 v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2022] DCR 20 and The Commonwealth of Redmont v. Fieldmarshall [2021] FCR 61, Those accused of a crime in the eyes of the court are innocent until proven guilty. Therefore, if the defendant's intentions were to blame my client for inflating his assets and not to defame my client, then the burden of proof would be on the defendant. We can also see by this screenshot
1697518802257.png
1697518915223.png
1697518944641.png



that after an internal investigation, the defendant admitted to and settled for inflating the valuation himself and not my client.

Finally, the defense argues, " Dumbyhead1234 said "I know you got me fired," but that doesn't necessarily mean they were the main reason they were dismissed from the position of MegaCorp CEO." I do agree with the defense on this point. Our client was not the main reason or responsible for the defendant's termination. The reason why the defendant was fired, as seen in the evidence above, was for inflating the valuation of his company. We argue that by the defendant saying, "I know you got me fired," the defendant is indeed "claiming" that our client is the main reason they got fired.

Thank you for your time and dedication,
your Honor.
 
Last edited:
Thank you for a timely response.

The Defendant now has 48 hours to present an opening statement to the court.
 
Your Honor, the Redmont Law Firm has been retained in this case and will be needing time to get adjusted and a formulate a defense, i would ask the court for 72 hour extension from the original deadline due to IRL obligations. Thank you
Screenshot 2023-10-17 222610.png
 
I don't see it clarified anywhere on the court record, but I am assuming Dumbyhead1234 has changed their username to v__d since this lawsuit was filed?
 
drew_hall said:
I don't see it clarified anywhere on the court record, but I am assuming Dumbyhead1234 has changed their username to v__d since this lawsuit was filed?
Click to expand...
That’s correct your honor
 
Alright thank you. The extension request is hereby granted from the original deadline
 
Your Honor,

I have to drop this case due to irl obligations, help at the firm has dwindled
 
SumoMC said:
Your Honor,

I have to drop this case due to irl obligations, help at the firm has dwindled
Click to expand...
I hate this came so late, but hope everything is going well. You are dismissed from further duties in this case.
 
The defendant will be given a 72 hour extension to find new counsel, and once found they must announce themselves here along with affirmation of representation for the defendant. From there we will move forward
 
I have since noticed that the lawyer who previously relieved himself from this case has now submitted a new lawsuit, specifically Lawsuit: Pending - UnityMaster, SumoMC & CopTop_YT v. The Commonwealth of Redmont.

This is a major disrespect to this court, and one which will not go unnoticed. SumoMC is now held in contempt of court, and I order the DOJ to fine/jail them appropriately.

Sumo you have an ethical duty to represent your client moving forward, it is clear that no IRL circumstances stand in the way of that, and if they may, make me aware. I am beyond disappointed that I relieved you of your duties to only see a new lawsuit filed hours later.
 
I expect a filing for the opening statement from the Defendant within 48 hours moving forward, filed by Sumo or an appropriate employee of his firm.
 
drew_hall said:
I have since noticed that the lawyer who previously relieved himself from this case has now submitted a new lawsuit, specifically Lawsuit: Pending - UnityMaster, SumoMC & CopTop_YT v. The Commonwealth of Redmont.

This is a major disrespect to this court, and one which will not go unnoticed. SumoMC is now held in contempt of court, and I order the DOJ to fine/jail them appropriately.

Sumo you have an ethical duty to represent your client moving forward, it is clear that no IRL circumstances stand in the way of that, and if they may, make me aware. I am beyond disappointed that I relieved you of your duties to only see a new lawsuit filed hours later.
Click to expand...
Your Honor,

This is extremely unprofessional of you to even begin to bring up. I very much have irl obligations that have made me unable to take on the work load of the cases I had at the time. It is not your place to judge this nor is it your place to decide who I represent and who I don’t. Your extreme unprofessionalism won’t be going unnoticed either.

For the record, I have a real job and work 16 hours shifts, the only reason I even filed the case I currently did is because I two am a named party in the case. You will also notice is the only case I assessed legal fee’s in as well.

So to wrap things up, I will not be taking this case as it is at MY discretion which cases I take and which cases I don’t.

Thank you
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Your Honor, going forward I am representing the Defendant.
 

Attachments

  • 1698003209090.png
    1698003209090.png
    11.5 KB · Views: 45
  • 1698003271418.png
    1698003271418.png
    9.5 KB · Views: 47
zLost said:
Your Honor, going forward I am representing the Defendant.
Click to expand...
Thank you for the clarification on representation moving forward. As this case was filed prior to the Supreme Court's meeting which amended court policies on October 17, 2023, we will continue moving on a 48 hour timeline rather than the new 72 hour one.

As such, the Defendant has 48 hours from now to present an opening statement to the court.
 
The previous outburst will be stricken from the record, and the contempt charge shall remain.
 
Your Honor, the Defence has some evidence which has been messaged to you in the forums. We want to know if this case should continue in a closed court, as the information is possibly confidential.
 
Your Honor, we request that our time to post an opening statement is paused until we know if we can use this evidence or not, as a large part of our argument is related to that evidence.
 
I will come to a decision shortly on how to proceed further. Your time to post an opening statement will be paused in the meantime however.
 
After reviewing the evidence, it is clear that it does not obtain any classified information, and as such will be fine to move forward in open court.

Given that the defense sent the evidence about 24 hours after the original call for their opening statement to be submitted, I am extending the deadline for their opening statement by 24 hours.

I now ask the defense to please submit their opening statement within 24 hours from now.
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF REDMONT
MOTION TO STRIKE

The Plaintiff provided new evidence in the opening statement, for which they did not ask permission for. As such, the Defence motions to strike all new evidence in the Plaintiff's opening statement.
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

The Plaintiff states:
The defense correctly states, "In assessing a consequential damage award, the magistrate/judge/justice must review the available evidence and deny awards that do not have sufficient proof."

They define humiliation as "Situations in which a person has been disgraced, belittled or made to look foolish."
As we can see in this conversation our client had with his coworker

The Defence agrees with the Plaintiff on that humiliation is a situation in which a person has been disgraced, belittled, or made to look foolish. Let's see if the Defence has met one of these requirements, to be able to be rewarded humiliation damages.

1. Disgraced
Disgraced is defined as: "having lost the respect of people, usually meaning you have also lost a position of power", according to the Oxford Dictionary.

The Plaintiff has not provided evidence of anyone losing respect of someone, and has only shown someone asking about the document, not actually showing loss of respect. Your Honor, if an interviewer asked someone "What is your opinion on the allegations of you committing corruption?", the person being interviewed wouldn't have lost any respect, and might have gained it (as they were able to talk about what happened, and "defend" themselves), as it is just an inquiry.

2. Belittled
Belittled is defined as: "to make someone or the things that someone does seem unimportant", according to the Oxford Dictionary.

This does not apply here at all, as Bardiya has not lost any importance from the conversation, and has actually gained it.

3. Foolish
Foolish is defined as: "not showing good sense or judgement", according to the Oxford Dictionary.

Now, your honor, in order for Punitive Damages to be awarded, it has to be authorized by a statue, so if we can prove that Slander didn't occur, this will not apply here at all.

Slander, according to the Defamation Act 2020, is defined as: "a false statement which defames another person”.

Let's check if Dumby's actions meet all conditions of slander.

a. False Statement
Dumby states that Bardiya over valued the company, which is why he was being sued. This is not a false statement. Bardiya_King was the one who made the document which stated the value of the company (linked at the end). They admitted in the document themselves saying: "it is my responsibility to assess the company's assets, human capital, and associated risks to facilitate informed decision-making". Meaning that they independently assessed the company's value.
1698263123912.png

Along with this, Dumby physically couldn't have forged the document after Bardiya made it, as they didn't even have any perms on it.
1698263262015.png



b. Defames someone else
As we said before, Dumby's statement was true, which means that his statements weren't defaming.

There is another factor which is not mentioned in the definition of slander, but is mentioned in the Defamation Act 2020. The Defamation Act 2020 states:
(1) A person may sue for defamation, however, damages from slander and libel are not presumed and must be proven in a court of law.
(2) On Top of proving harm, the Plaintiff must present evidence for intent to harm reputation.

c. Damages from slander and libel
We've already argued this in the start of the opening statement.

d. Intention to ruin reputation
Your Honor, Dumby was not shown to have any intentions to ruin Bardiya's reputation. They were simply giving their side of the story to someone who was curious about the story, and answering the questions in their own opinion.

docs.google.com

Asset Evaluation

docs.google.com docs.google.com

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF REDMONT
MOTION TO STRIKE

Your Honor, the plaintiff motions to strike Fact 3 in Facts of the case and Exhibit B evidence in the original filing of the lawsuit, as well as the statements listed here below:
1. Dumbyhead1234 said "I know you got me fired" but that doesn't necessarily mean they were the main reason they were dismissed from the position of MegaCorp CEO.
2. Finally, the defense argues, " Dumbyhead1234 said "I know you got me fired," but that doesn't necessarily mean they were the main reason they were dismissed from the position of MegaCorp CEO." I do agree with the defense on this point. Our client was not the main reason or responsible for the defendant's termination. The reason why the defendant was fired, as seen in the evidence above, was for inflating the valuation of his company. We argue that by the defendant saying, "I know you got me fired," the defendant is indeed "claiming" that our client is the main reason they got fired.

The reason for this is because Statute of Limitations has applied as these statements were made more than 2 months ago when the case was originally filed.
 
Your Honor, I edited the opening statement to include the link of the document, as when I posted it, I forgot to add it to the opening statement.
 
I apologize, Your Honor. I missed an amendment to the Standardized Criminal Code, and was not aware that the Statute of Limitations was changed. Because of this, the Defence retracts the motion to strike. This was an oversight on my part and I should have re-checked the law before making the motion to strike.
 
OBJECTION
Perjury
Snowy_Heart said:
many of his peers and customers have unjustly questioned his honesty and integrity, leading to our client's public embarrassment and humiliation.
Click to expand...
Your Honor, the Plaintiff's evidence only shows one person who has questioned them. Along with this, that one person was neither a peer nor a customer.
 
zLost said:
OBJECTION
Perjury

Your Honor, the Plaintiff's evidence only shows one person who has questioned them. Along with this, that one person was neither a peer nor a customer.
Click to expand...
Your Honor,
If the defense cousel wishes to play the defenitions game I will oblige.

A peer is defined as in the oxford dictionary: a person who is the same age or who has the same social status as you. As memebers of the same server we are all of the same broad "social status" and are eachothers peers and equivalents.

The evidance is simply to show the affects the defendents words have on the community at large. If their words were enough to spark zlost to question my clients motives and integrity (as shown in the evidance above) then it would not be unreasonable to assume it would spark the same thought process and judgements in other players of the server including future potential customers.
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF REDMONT
MOTION TO STRIKE

The Plaintiff provided new evidence in the opening statement, for which they did not ask permission for. As such, the Defence motions to strike all new evidence in the Plaintiff's opening statement.
Click to expand...
Denied
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF REDMONT
MOTION TO STRIKE

Your Honor, the plaintiff motions to strike Fact 3 in Facts of the case and Exhibit B evidence in the original filing of the lawsuit, as well as the statements listed here below:
1. Dumbyhead1234 said "I know you got me fired" but that doesn't necessarily mean they were the main reason they were dismissed from the position of MegaCorp CEO.
2. Finally, the defense argues, " Dumbyhead1234 said "I know you got me fired," but that doesn't necessarily mean they were the main reason they were dismissed from the position of MegaCorp CEO." I do agree with the defense on this point. Our client was not the main reason or responsible for the defendant's termination. The reason why the defendant was fired, as seen in the evidence above, was for inflating the valuation of his company. We argue that by the defendant saying, "I know you got me fired," the defendant is indeed "claiming" that our client is the main reason they got fired.

The reason for this is because Statute of Limitations has applied as these statements were made more than 2 months ago when the case was originally filed.
Click to expand...
Denied
OBJECTION
Perjury
"many of his peers and customers have unjustly questioned his honesty and integrity, leading to our client's public embarrassment and humiliation."
Your Honor, the Plaintiff's evidence only shows one person who has questioned them. Along with this, that one person was neither a peer nor a customer.
Click to expand...
Overruled

Having ruled on those motions and objection, we will move forward in the trial.


Both parties have 24 hours to provide a witness list to the court, as well as the reason for calling their witness(es)
 
The Defence would like to call Bardiya_King and Bombaz2005
Bardiya_King: Is involved in the case heavily, as they were the one that made the document with the value of Megacorp.
Bombaz2005: Owner of Uffizi Holdings, company that bought Megacorp.
 
Your Honor,
The plaintiff has no other witnesses to call.
Thank you.
 
1698442475761.png

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

@Bardiya_King & @Bombaz2005 are required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of Bardiya_King v. Dumbyhead1234 as a witness.

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 the witness has declared themselves present, the Plaintiff may resume 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.

The Witness is to identify themselves in this case thread in the next 48 hours. Failure to comply with this summons may result in being held in Contempt of Court.​
 
I am present, your honor.
 
The Defense may begin questioning their witnesses
 
drew_hall said:
The Defense may begin questioning their witnesses
Click to expand...
Objection
 breach of procedure

Your Honor,

Since Bardiya_King is the plaintiff, it would be improper for the defense to directly examine the witness.

I request that the plaintiff testifies for the plaintiff cousel instead.

Thank your,
Your Honor.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top