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

[BEDROCKJAVA]

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

Exhibit B

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

 

[Matthew100x]

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.​

 

[Dartanboy]

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.

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

Thank you.

 

[Matthew100x]

Granted.

 

[Dartanboy]

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

 

[Matthew100x]

The plaintiff has 48 hours to respond to the motion to dismiss.

 

[BEDROCKJAVA]

Good evening Your Honor,
I am requesting a 24 hour extension, due to irl professional matters.

Thank you.

 

[Matthew100x]

Good evening Your Honor,
I am requesting a 24 hour extension, due to irl professional matters.

Thank you.

Granted.

 

[Dartanboy]

Your honor,

The Plaintiff's time has expired.

 

[Snowy_Heart]

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.

 

[Dartanboy]

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.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

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.

 

[Dartanboy]

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.

 

[itsBlazeX]

Your honor, what is the status of this case?

 

[Matthew100x]

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.

 

[drew_hall]

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.

 

[drew_hall]

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.

 

[Snowy_Heart]

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

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

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.

 

[drew_hall]

Thank you for a timely response.

The Defendant now has 48 hours to present an opening statement to the court.

 

[SumoMC]

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

 

[drew_hall]

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?

 

[SumoMC]

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?

That’s correct your honor

 

[drew_hall]

Alright thank you. The extension request is hereby granted from the original deadline

 

[SumoMC]

Your Honor,

I have to drop this case due to irl obligations, help at the firm has dwindled

 

[drew_hall]

Your Honor,

I have to drop this case due to irl obligations, help at the firm has dwindled

I hate this came so late, but hope everything is going well. You are dismissed from further duties in this case.

 

[drew_hall]

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

 

[drew_hall]

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.

 

[drew_hall]

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.

 

[SumoMC]

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.

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

 

[zLost]

Your Honor, going forward I am representing the Defendant.

 

[drew_hall]

Your Honor, going forward I am representing the Defendant.

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.

 

[drew_hall]

The previous outburst will be stricken from the record, and the contempt charge shall remain.

 

[zLost]

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.

 

[zLost]

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.

 

[drew_hall]

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.

 

[drew_hall]

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.

 

[zLost]

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.

 

[zLost]

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.

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.

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.

Asset Evaluation

July 6, 2023 Re: The Requested Asset Evaluation for Megacorp Acquisition Dear, Souper I hope this letter finds you well. I am writing to provide you with an asset evaluation report regarding the potential acquisition of Megacorp. As the Chief Human Resources Officer (CHRO) of Megacorp, it is...

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.

 

[zLost]

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.

 

[zLost]

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.

 

[zLost]

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.

 

[Snowy_Heart]

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.

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.

 

[drew_hall]

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.

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.

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.

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)

 

[zLost]

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.

 

[Snowy_Heart]

Your Honor,
The plaintiff has no other witnesses to call.
Thank you.

 

[drew_hall]

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.​

 

[Bombaz2005]

I am present, your honor.

 

[Bardiya_King]

I am present, your honor.

 

[drew_hall]

The Defense may begin questioning their witnesses

 

[Snowy_Heart]

The Defense may begin questioning their witnesses

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.

 

[drew_hall]

The objection is overruled

Bardiya_King may be called to the stand, the court would also like to remind them of their fifth right granted to them under the constitution while testifying.

 

[zLost]

Questions for Bombaz2005
1. How did Uffizi Holdings come to the conclusion that Dumby was the one that forged the documents?
2. Was Bardiya_King the one who assessed the value of the company?
3. What is your relation with Bardiya_King on the server?
4. Did Dumby give an offer of $350k, or did they say in fact that it was worth $350k when selling the company?
5. Were Dumby's statements true or false? What is the reasoning for your answer?

Questions for Bardiya_King
1. Did you make the document linked in the opening statement?
2. Did Dumby tell you what the value of the assets were when you made the document, or did you assess the value of the documents independantly?
3. How did you assess the value of the assets in the document?
4. In evidence sent before in the court case, you claimed that Dumby had forged the document. How did Dumby forge the document?
5. What was/were the reason/reasons for Dumby getting fired?
6. What did you think about Megacorp being sold? Did you want it, or not?

 

[Snowy_Heart]

Objection
Relevance

"3. What is your relation with Bardiya_King on the server?"

the relationship between witness and plaintiff on the server has no Relevance to this case.

Objection
Ambiguous

"5. Were Dumby's statements true or false? What is the reasoning for your answer?"

Dumbyhead has made a lot of statements. The defense cousel does not specify which statements. The witness may or may not be eligible to speak on behalf of some statements.

Objection
Compound question

"Did Dumby tell you what the value of the assets were when you made the document, or did you assess the value of the documents independantly?"

This question consists of multiple compound questions. The witness is entitled to answer each questions separately.

Objection
Assumes facts not in evidence

"4. In evidence sent before in the court case, you claimed that Dumby had forged the document. How did Dumby forge the document?"

There is no evidence above where my client states that dumbyhead forged the document. dumbyhead admits himself to forging the documents in all pieces of evidence regarding the matter.

Objection
Calls for a conclusion
"6. What did you think about Megacorp being sold? Did you want it, or not?"

defense counsel asks for the witnesses opinion rather then facts.

Objection
Compound Question

""6. What did you think about Megacorp being sold? Did you want it, or not?""

This question consists of multiple compound questions. The witness is entitled to answer each questions separately.

 

[zLost]

Objection
Relevance

"3. What is your relation with Bardiya_King on the server?"

the relationship between witness and plaintiff on the server has no Relevance to this case.

RESPONSE TO OBJECTION

It is to know if there was any possible bias between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, during the investigation.

Objection
Ambiguous

"5. Were Dumby's statements true or false? What is the reasoning for your answer?"

Dumbyhead has made a lot of statements. The defense cousel does not specify which statements. The witness may or may not be eligible to speak on behalf of some statements.

RESPONSE TO OBJECTION

The case was built upon two main statements, being that Dumby saying that Bardiya "forged" the document, and Dumby claiming that Bardiya was the main reason for Dumby getting fired. The Question is just a general question, meant to ask the defendant if they agree with Dumby or not.

Objection
Compound question

"Did Dumby tell you what the value of the assets were when you made the document, or did you assess the value of the documents independantly?"

This question consists of multiple compound questions. The witness is entitled to answer each questions separately.

RESPONSE TO OBJECTION

The questions are both related to each other, and would be repeating questions if they were asked seperately.

Objection
Assumes facts not in evidence

"4. In evidence sent before in the court case, you claimed that Dumby had forged the document. How did Dumby forge the document?"

There is no evidence above where my client states that dumbyhead forged the document. dumbyhead admits himself to forging the documents in all pieces of evidence regarding the matter.

RESPONSE TO OBJECTION

(sent by the plaintiff in the opening statement)

Objection
Calls for a conclusion
"6. What did you think about Megacorp being sold? Did you want it, or not?"

defense counsel asks for the witnesses opinion rather then facts.

RESPONSE TO OBJECTION

Under Court Policy, in the Objections Guide, it states:
Witnesses are only allowed to testify about their own direct experiences and thoughts.
Thus, the defence can ask what the witness thought.

Objection
Compound Question

""6. What did you think about Megacorp being sold? Did you want it, or not?""

This question consists of multiple compound questions. The witness is entitled to answer each questions separately.

RESPONSE TO OBJECTION

Again, these are both in relation. If asked seperately, it would be questions that are repeating.

 

[drew_hall]

Objection
Relevance

"3. What is your relation with Bardiya_King on the server?"

the relationship between witness and plaintiff on the server has no Relevance to this case.

Overruled, establishes a foundation. Witness may answer

Ambiguous

"5. Were Dumby's statements true or false? What is the reasoning for your answer?"

Dumbyhead has made a lot of statements. The defense cousel does not specify which statements. The witness may or may not be eligible to speak on behalf of some statements.

Sustained, too general for the witness to properly answer. The witness may not answer the question

Objection
Compound question

"Did Dumby tell you what the value of the assets were when you made the document, or did you assess the value of the documents independantly?"

This question consists of multiple compound questions. The witness is entitled to answer each questions separately.

Overruled, the witness may answer

Assumes facts not in evidence

"4. In evidence sent before in the court case, you claimed that Dumby had forged the document. How did Dumby forge the document?"

There is no evidence above where my client states that dumbyhead forged the document. dumbyhead admits himself to forging the documents in all pieces of evidence regarding the matter.

Sustained, witness may not answer the question as its worded

Objection
Calls for a conclusion
"6. What did you think about Megacorp being sold? Did you want it, or not?"

Overruled

Compound Question

"6. What did you think about Megacorp being sold? Did you want it, or not?"

This question consists of multiple compound questions. The witness is entitled to answer each questions separately.

Sustained, the witness may not answer the questions as they are worded.

The Defense will have the opportunity to reword these questions and ask in their follow-up if they need. For now witnesses may begin answering questions however.

Bombaz2005 do not answer question 5.
Bardiya_King do not answer questions 4 and 6.

Witnesses have 24 hours to provide responses to the court

 

[Bombaz2005]

My answers are as follows.

1. How did Uffizi Holdings come to the conclusion that Dumby was the one that forged the documents?

Bardiya had told us, I was skeptical at first, but he provided some evidence that it was likely him. Then, souper (supersuperking) and I agreed that Dumby was responsible for it after some thought and we decided to take action.

2. Was Bardiya_King the one who assessed the value of the company?

Dumby was the one who came to us first with his evaluation of the company after souper and I asked if he was in the market to sell his company, and he broke it down as per what he believed. The negotiations for purchase began between super, dumby, and I, and later dumby asked that Bardiya be added to the discussion. Before then, dumby gave all values. If Bardiya is the one who wrote that document originally I am not sure of, but Dumby gave super and I what he believed was the value of the company both in the early stages of negotiation and up until he sold it to us for $350k.

3. What is your relation with Bardiya_King on the server?

He was an aquaintance to me at the time and later a coworker at the then Omni/Mega (now Hermes Express) and also Axell Construction (now Vulcan Construction). Currently we do not have any relations.

4. Did Dumby give an offer of $350k, or did they say in fact that it was worth $350k when selling the company?

He said that he wanted upwards of $350k a few days after giving us a valuation for roughly $120k. He said that, personally, he believed $350k was a fair value for what Megacorp was worth given the data he provided as justification, such as what each subsidiary was worth, their profits since creation, plots, inventory, brand image, large item orders, and other info that was useful in determining the company's value.

 

[Bardiya_King]

My Answers are as follows.

1: Did you make the document linked in the opening statement?

Yes, It was created from information on our company value sheets, only visible to our CHRO, CFO, and CEO. There was also no active CFO then, so only Me, the CHRO, and Dumby, the CEO.

2: Did Dumby tell you what the value of the assets were when you made the document, or did you assess the value of the documents independantly?

As stated in my previous response, all information on those sheets was added by Dumby; he had tasked me with creating the Valuation Document, which he had approved of before I had submitted it to the Uffizi Prospects.

3: How did you assess the value of the assets in the document?

I valued it based on the information provided by Dumby on our company sheets.

5: What was/were the reason/reasons for Dumby getting fired?

For legal reasons, I cannot disclose that since this trial is open to the general public.

 

[drew_hall]

The defense may now ask any follow up questions they might have, or state they have none

 

[zLost]

Sustained, witness may not answer the question as its worded

MOTION TO RECONSIDER

The reason for the objection was "Assume facts not in evidence". The Defence proved that this was something already stated in evidence, as such the Defence asks to reconsider sustaining the objection.

 

[zLost]

Follow-up Questions

For Bombaz2005:

1. Can you send, or describe the evidence (if you don't have the evidence anymore) sent to you by Bardiya_King?
2. Were you sent the Document linked in the opening statement when you requested the valuation of the company, or was something else sent?
3. To confirm, Dumby gave a value of $120k for MegaCorp, and then asked for $350k for MegaCorp. Is that correct?
4. Was $350k a fair and correct evaluation of the company?

For Bardiya_King:
1. How did Dumby add the information on the sheet?
2. To confirm, you made the document yourself following information given on employee sheets. Is that correct?

 

[drew_hall]

MOTION TO RECONSIDER

The reason for the objection was "Assume facts not in evidence". The Defence proved that this was something already stated in evidence, as such the Defence asks to reconsider sustaining the objection.

I will grant the motion to reconsider. Bardiya_King may answer the original question along with their answers to the follow-ups

 

[Bombaz2005]

Answers are as follows:

1. He sent something else. He claimed that dumby himself changed the numbers in the spreadsheet. There is more information that he told us but I am not sure if I should or can send it due to it being part of a separate deposition.

2. That document was sent later. What was sent was dumby's breakdown of assets, etc. and his valuation of them.

3. No. He started with a *value* of $120k and about a week later changed his *value* to $350k believing it was fair. He *asked* for $350k the second time saying that was the true *value* of the company. He did not *value* it at $120k and then directly *ask* for $350k. (edited this answer for clarity between "value" and "ask", hope that's alright.)

4. No.

 

[drew_hall]

Please provide the court with your answers within the next 24 hours to avoid being held in contempt of court @Bardiya_King

 

[Bardiya_King]

Your Honor I’d like to request a 24 hour extension due to the fact that I have family arriving in approximately 2 hours from this post I g and will not have very minimal time to answer and will try to do the best I can to answer.

 

[drew_hall]

Your Honor I’d like to request a 24 hour extension due to the fact that I have family arriving in approximately 2 hours from this post I g and will not have very minimal time to answer and will try to do the best I can to answer.

You have 24 hours from this post to provide your answers

 

[Bardiya_King]

My Answers are as follows:

Responses to the First Section of Questions:

4: In evidence sent before in the court case, you claimed that Dumby had forged the document. How did Dumby forge the document?

Dumby did not forge the Evaluation document but the general information sheet, as he had changed the information about our company. For example, the inventory value we had was raised from $14,381 to $26,430.

Responses to the Second Section of Questions:

1: How did Dumby add the information on the sheet?

Dumby was given editing access, as well as our CFO and CHRO, and before you ask, the sheet was deleted after the purchase of Megacorp by Uffizi since there was a data storage migration that happened. Bombza can confirm this.

2. To confirm, you made the document yourself following the information given on employee sheets. Is that correct?

Not based on our employee sheets but based on our general information storage sheet. Employee records happened to be a section in the available information storage sheet, and yes, I did make the evaluation document. However, before I sent it to the people at Uffizi, I requested Dumby double-check it for any discrepancies I may have made during my work, and there were discrepancies due to the fact I was using the tainted information Dumby had added, but he approved, and I sent it do the people at Uffizi.

 

[drew_hall]

Alright, does the Defense have any further questions for either witnesses? If so, please list them following this post and ensure they ask your full point, as there will be no further follow-up time given to the Defense after.

 

[drew_hall]

Alright the Plaintiff may begin to cross-examine.

Please post your questions to the witnesses within 24 hours, or inform the court you do not wish to cross-examine

 

[Snowy_Heart]

My questions are as follows:

Bombaz:

1. After you decided dumbyhead was responsible for the forgery of the documents what actions did you take twords him?

Bardiya_King :

1. did dumbyheads accusal affect your enjoyment of the game?

2. Since dumbyheads accusal has your life changed?

3. What impact on your career did dumbyheads accusal have?

 

[zLost]

1. did dumbyheads accusal affect your enjoyment of the game?

2. Since dumbyheads accusal has your life changed?

3. What impact on your career did dumbyheads accusal have?

OBJECTION
Ambiguous

The questions asked by the Plaintiff are not clear and precise enough, as they haven't specified which accusal. According the Plaintiff earlier, Dumbyhead claimed that Bardiya "forged" the documents and also claimed that Bardiya got them fired. There are two accusals, and the Plaintiff has not specified which.

 

[Bombaz2005]

My answer:

1. I was not the one who made the decision to take action afterwards, that was souper's decision. I just notified him and we agreed that action should be taken, he was the one who took the next steps.

 

[drew_hall]

OBJECTION
Ambiguous

The questions asked by the Plaintiff are not clear and precise enough, as they haven't specified which accusal. According the Plaintiff earlier, Dumbyhead claimed that Bardiya "forged" the documents and also claimed that Bardiya got them fired. There are two accusals, and the Plaintiff has not specified which.

Seeing as the Plaintiff has offered no rebuttal to this objection, I will go ahead and rule on it. The motion is sustained and I ask the Plaintiff to re-ask their questions with more detail this time.

 

[Snowy_Heart]

Seeing as the Plaintiff has offered no rebuttal to this objection, I will go ahead and rule on it. The motion is sustained and I ask the Plaintiff to re-ask their questions with more detail this time.

Thank you, your Honor,

Bardiya,

1. When dumbyhead accused you of forging the document, how did that affect your enjoyment of Redmont?

2. Since dumbyhead accused you of forging the document, how has your life changed?

3. How was your career impacted when dumbyhead accused you of forging the document?

 

[drew_hall]

@Bardiya_King Please post your answers to the revised questions within 24 hours or potentially face Contempt of Court charges

 

[Bardiya_King]

Your Honor, I'd like to request a one-week extension due to an untimely emergency surgery.

 

[drew_hall]

Your Honor, I'd like to request a one-week extension due to an untimely emergency surgery.

I will grant the extension. Court will be in recess until this time on November 20th.

 

[Bardiya_King]

Your Honor, I have great news: the surgery was canceled because the complication cleared up itself.

 

[drew_hall]

Your Honor, I have great news: the surgery was canceled because the complication cleared up itself.

Ahh that's good to hear. Knowing this, I will place the court back in session.

Bardiya_King, please provide your answers to the revised questions within the next 24 hours

 

[Bardiya_King]

1. When dumbyhead accused you of forging the document, how did that affect your enjoyment of Redmont?

I frankly was offended at first the. Later after constant berating from other members of the community I began to bring down playtime to not be attacked any more.

2. Since dumbyhead accused you of forging the document, how has your life changed?

I was looked down upon my former colleagues and friends. I was attacked by them even more than other members in the community

3. How was your career impacted when dumbyhead accused you of forging the document?

I’ve lost many Job offers at other companies and I’ve been fired from a few positions.

 

[Snowy_Heart]

Your Honor,
My client and the defendant have come to a settlement outside of court and I would like to request the dismissal of this case. thank you for you and the courts time in the matter.

 

[drew_hall]

Your Honor,
My client and the defendant have come to a settlement outside of court and I would like to request the dismissal of this case. thank you for you and the courts time in the matter.

Does the Defendant concur with this?

 

[drew_hall]

Does the Defendant concur with this?

Will the Defendant please provide an answer to this within the next 12 hours

 

[Snowy_Heart]

Will the Defendant please provide an answer to this within the next 12 hours

Your Honor,
I apologize for apeaking out of turn but V__D has announced today that they quit the server.
Just wanted to bring that to your attention.
Thank you,
Your Honor.

 

[zLost]

Does the Defendant concur with this?

yes

 

[drew_hall]

Thank you for for the reply.

This case has been dismissed at the request of the Plaintiff.

The courts thanks all parties for their time.