Lawsuit: Adjourned bigpappa140 v. .BelatedDragon35 [2023] FCR 63

[Alexander P. Love]

Elections cant be affected by a statement which is just a person speaking facts.

Objection, Your Honor
Assumes facts not in evidence. This statement is wholly untrue as elections are popularity contests. The defense has no evidence to substantiate this claim.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

A cropped screenshot was provided, which has a high chance of being false or unrelated

Objection, Your Honor
Inflammatory. This statement is highly prejudicial.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Maybe he was demanding to be killed by someone else near him but bigpappa without confirmation or second approval killed my client.

Objection, Your Honor
Speculation.

 

[Banana]

For future reference, please put your objections into one post if possible.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

I will try my best to get a statement from belated-dragon regarding this matter.

Objection, Your Honor
Relevance

 

[Alexander P. Love]

In this way the plaintiff is disrespecting the court.

Objection, Your Honor
Inflammatory.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

I am sorry if I missed anything, it can be derived from the rebuttals if not included in the opening statement.
Like said before, I will stick on my statement that this case is a joke and is just some people taking advantage of a statement and then over-exxagrating it.
I hope a harmful precedent is not set and proper justice will be delivered.

Objection, Your Honor
Relevance.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

For future reference, please put your objections into one post if possible.

I apologize, your honor. I will note this for the future.

 

[Banana]

In response to the objections:

Objection, Your Honor
Perjury. The defense has already affirmed in the response to this case that the defendant asked the Plaintiff to kill him. The defense is now going back on this. One statement or the other is a lie, and therefore there is perjury and obstruction at play here.

Overruled. The Defense affirmed that the Defendant gave consent for "someone" to kill them.

Objection, Your Honor
Speculation. The defense is testifying to my client's emotional state. The defense cannot affirm nor deny what my client felt at the present moment. My client will later testify to the fact they indeed felt stressed.

Overruled. Nobody is testifying to anything, and this is a piece of the Defense's argument.

Objection, Your Honor
Counsel is providing a straight up opinion rather than providing facts and analyzing said facts.

Overruled. I think it is plainly obvious that phrases like "in my opinion" are acceptable for argumentation.

Objection, Your Honor
Assumes facts not in evidence. Reporting a person to the police is not a Constitutional right.

Overruled. This could be true, but assuming facts not in evidence is a witness testimony objection. Argue this in your statements, not with objections.

Objection, Your Honor
Speculation. The word "probably" is used indicating this statement is straight-up speculation.

Overruled. This is the Defense's argumentation, as I've explained above, not witness testimony.

Objection, Your Honor
Assumes facts not in evidence.

Overruled. Argument.

Objection, Your Honor
Relevance.

Overruled. This is an opening statement. Statements regarding the case are permissible, and this is part of the Defense arguing against the Plaintiff's claims.

Objection, Your Honor
Assumes facts not in evidence. No law outlaws sarcasm nor jokes.

Overruled. Argument.

Objection, Your Honor
Perjury. The defense has previously affirmed both earlier in their opening statement AND in the response to the lawsuit that a false report was filed by the defendant. Therefore, the defense is lying by making the statement above and obstructing the operations of this court.

The Defense may respond to this objection if they wish, before I make a ruling on it.

Objection, Your Honor
Assumes facts not in evidence. This statement is wholly untrue as elections are popularity contests. The defense has no evidence to substantiate this claim.

Overruled. Argument.

Objection, Your Honor
Inflammatory. This statement is highly prejudicial.

Overruled. Prejudicial to what witness? This is argument.

Objection, Your Honor
Speculation.

Overruled. Argument.

Objection, Your Honor
Relevance

Overruled. This is related to the case.

Objection, Your Honor
Inflammatory.

Overruled, but keep it civil, both sides.

Objection, Your Honor
Inflammatory.

Overruled, but again, keep it professional.

Objection, Your Honor
Relevance.

Overruled. Argument.

The Defense may now make a response to the objection I mentioned above.
(Edited to add heading)

 

[Bibsfi4a]

Objection, Your Honor
Perjury. The defense has previously affirmed both earlier in their opening statement AND in the response to the lawsuit that a false report was filed by the defendant. Therefore, the defense is lying by making the statement above and obstructing the operations of this court.

Your honor, no perjury taken place as I have mentioned the word "even if it was."
This means we do not confirm or deny the fact that a false DOJ ticket was made.
There is no real definition for a false report and I might have made a mistake on this one, as I had no contact with the defendant, however I request you pause this objection until the testifying of bigpappa and Anthony has been done.

 

[Banana]

I will consider the perjury allegations further, and I will have a decision soon. The case may continue in the meantime, and both parties may present a list of witnesses they have to call, or declare that they have none.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

The plaintiff will be testifying as a witness in this matter. Furthermore, the plaintiff wishes to call xAntho_ny.

 

[Bibsfi4a]

The Defendant has no witnesses to call

 

[Banana]

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

@bigpappa140 and @Anthony are required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of bigpappa140 v. .BelatedDragon as witnesses.

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 all witnesses have declared themselves present, the Plaintiff may begin 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.​

 

[Anthony]

present

 

[Bibsfi4a]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION BREACH OF PROCEDURE

Your honor, a party in the case (bigpappa140) has breached court procedures. He failed to familiarize themselves with the case. The Court procedure "Response Times" according to which , a party in a court has to respond to a summon/ subpoena in 48 hours which the defendant has failed to do so.
Hence, I request Bigpappa be charged appropriate fines and shall not be able to testify in the case.

Relevant Screenshosts / Evidences-

Breach of Procedure-
As per specified in Guide - Objections Guide

Response times-
As per specified in Information - Court Rules and Procedures

 

[Alexander P. Love]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION BREACH OF PROCEDURE

Your honor, a party in the case (bigpappa140) has breached court procedures. He failed to familiarize themselves with the case. The Court procedure "Response Times" according to which , a party in a court has to respond to a summon/ subpoena in 48 hours which the defendant has failed to do so.
Hence, I request Bigpappa be charged appropriate fines and shall not be able to testify in the case.

Relevant Screenshosts / Evidences-

Breach of Procedure-
As per specified in Guide - Objections Guide
View attachment 36212


Response times-
As per specified in Information - Court Rules and Procedures

View attachment 36213

Your honor, while a contempt charge may be suitable, we have to ask Anthony questions separately anyways. I say we move on with his questioning and then bring bigpappa in whenever he gets here. Late or not, this court seeks the WHOLE truth and therefore shouldn't exclude testimony. I will personally remind the witness to appear.

 

[Bibsfi4a]

Your honor, while a contempt charge may be suitable, we have to ask Anthony questions separately anyways. I say we move on with his questioning and then bring bigpappa in whenever he gets here. Late or not, this court seeks the WHOLE truth and therefore shouldn't exclude testimony. I will personally remind the witness to appear.

Your honor, the plaintiff is not following prescribed court procedures. If bigpappa was really interested in telling thee truth, he would have been particular to the case.
Your honor, don't let a harmful precedent be set.
Bigpappa's testimony shall be excluded but I agree to Anthony testifying.

 

[bigpappa140]

present

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Your honor, the plaintiff is not following prescribed court procedures. If bigpappa was really interested in telling thee truth, he would have been particular to the case.
Your honor, don't let a harmful precedent be set.
Bigpappa's testimony shall be excluded but I agree to Anthony testifying.

Objection, Your Honor
The defense is speaking out of turn, as only ONE response to objection is permitted, and rebuttal is not authorized. The defense has issued a rebuttal to my permitted response, and is therefore speaking out of turn. I motion to strike his statement from the record.

 

[Banana]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION BREACH OF PROCEDURE

Your honor, a party in the case (bigpappa140) has breached court procedures.

Objection is overruled. I will give bigpappa140 a contempt of court charge, and I order that they be punished by the DOJ accordingly, but I will not strike their testimony.

Objection, Your Honor
The defense is speaking out of turn, as only ONE response to objection is permitted, and rebuttal is not authorized. The defense has issued a rebuttal to my permitted response, and is therefore speaking out of turn. I motion to strike his statement from the record.

Objection is sustained. This court needs to be orderly, and I will not allow undue arguing. I will not strike comments from the record, but this is the warning to both parties that a response is allowed but further rebuttals need to be requested.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Objection is overruled. I will give bigpappa140 a contempt of court charge, and I order that they be punished by the DOJ accordingly, but I will not strike their testimony.


Objection is sustained. This court needs to be orderly, and I will not allow undue arguing. I will not strike comments from the record, but this is the warning to both parties that a response is allowed but further rebuttals need to be requested.

May I proceed with the direct examination of my witness, your honor?

 

[Banana]

Yes, you may.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

@Anthony

1. Did you witness .BelatedDragon35 making remarks that reflect poorly on bigpappa140's reputation?
2. Did the defendant make a ticket where he falsely reported bigpappa140 for murder, to your knowledge?
3. If so, what happened in there?

@bigpappa140

1. Did you kill .BelatedDragon35?
2. Did .BelatedDragon35 ask you to kill him?
3. Did you witness .BelatedDragon35 making remarks that reflect poorly on your reputation?
4. How did you feel when these remarks were being made?
   1. Did you feel scared for your reputation and livelihood?
   2. Did these comments stress you out?
5. Were you running for public office at the time the comments were made?
   1. Were you nervous that these comments would hurt your chances of running for office?
   2. If you answer yes to the previous question, did that stress you out?

 

[Anthony]

1. Did you witness .BelatedDragon35 making remarks that reflect poorly on bigpappa140's reputation?
2. Did the defendant make a ticket where he falsely reported bigpappa140 for murder,

1. Yes I did.
2. No they did not

 

[bigpappa140]

@Anthony

1. Did you witness .BelatedDragon35 making remarks that reflect poorly on bigpappa140's reputation?
2. Did the defendant make a ticket where he falsely reported bigpappa140 for murder, to your knowledge?
3. If so, what happened in there?

@bigpappa140

1. Did you kill .BelatedDragon35?
2. Did .BelatedDragon35 ask you to kill him?
3. Did you witness .BelatedDragon35 making remarks that reflect poorly on your reputation?
4. How did you feel when these remarks were being made?
   1. Did you feel scared for your reputation and livelihood?
   2. Did these comments stress you out?
5. Were you running for public office at the time the comments were made?
   1. Were you nervous that these comments would hurt your chances of running for office?
   2. If you answer yes to the previous question, did that stress you out?

1. Yes
2. Yes
3. Yes
4. Not very good. I felt like these remarks would hurt my reputation in DC and these comments stressed me out because I believed my reputation was removed.
5. It was very early in the term and I believed these comments would disappoint my voters and ruin my chances of being in Congress again.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

1. Yes I did.
2. No they did not

Did you answer no for two because you did not witness it?

The event indeed happened by admission of the defendant.

 

[Anthony]

Did you answer no for two because you did not witness it?

The event indeed happened by admission of the defendant.

They did not open a DOJ ticket on discord, they don't even have discord.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

They did not open a DOJ ticket on discord, they don't even have discord.

Did they file a false report with the police in some manner?

 

[Anthony]

Did they file a false report with the police in some manner?

Yes, they did /complaint when the defendant asked the plaintiff to kill them.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Thank you. Your honor, defendant's witnesses.

 

[Banana]

The Defense may cross-examine if they wish.

 

[Milkcrack]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Banana has left the court and is therefore no longer the presiding justice. I have been assigned as the presiding judge for the remainder of the proceedings. As the defence failed to respond within 48 hours to cross-examine the witnesses, we will move on to the closing statement. The plaintiff has 48 hours to present their closing statements.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Banana has left the court and is therefore no longer the presiding justice. I have been assigned as the presiding judge for the remainder of the proceedings. As the defence failed to respond within 48 hours to cross-examine the witnesses, we will move on to the closing statement. The plaintiff has 48 hours to present their closing statements.

Your honor, I motion to move on as the defense has had plenty of time to conduct cross examination even before Justice Banana left the bench.

 

[Milkcrack]

I have previously, and explicitly, stated that we are moving on to closing statements which you as the plaintiff will be required to file first. Consequently, the motion in question is out of order and irrelevant to the current proceedings.

Reading back it has become apparent that there are motions and objections presented in this court case that appear to be for no other purpose then interrupt the flow of this trial. The court's time is a valuable resource, and it is crucial that motions, responses, and statements are filed in a timely manner, are relevant to the case at hand, and are well-supported by legal arguments. I want to make it clear that I will not hesitate to take approriate action against any party that fails to comply with the court's rules and be minful of it's time.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

I have previously, and explicitly, stated that we are moving on to closing statements which you as the plaintiff will be required to file first. Consequently, the motion in question is out of order and irrelevant to the current proceedings.

Reading back it has become apparent that there are motions and objections presented in this court case that appear to be for no other purpose then interrupt the flow of this trial. The court's time is a valuable resource, and it is crucial that motions, responses, and statements are filed in a timely manner, are relevant to the case at hand, and are well-supported by legal arguments. I want to make it clear that I will not hesitate to take approriate action against any party that fails to comply with the court's rules and be minful of it's time.

Your honor, I apologize as I misread what you said. That motion is out of place.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

May it please the Court,

Your honor, opposing counsel, it is clear that slanderous remarks occurred today which served to cause my client undue distress during an election period, where image is important. It further caused my client unnecessary humiliation, as many were aware of the comments being made and not everyone knew my client was innocent. .BelatedDragon35 both intentionally and maliciously, as proven by his comments, harmed my clients image and also opened a false police inquiry to get my client in further legal trouble. All in all, BelatedDragon must pay for his unacceptable conduct. I ask the Court to grant a full prayer for relief in this matter. Thank you.

 

[Milkcrack]

The defence has 48 hours to present their closing statement

 

[Bibsfi4a]

Your honor
I have the statement ready but I ask for around 24 hours to post if as it is late night in my country and i won't be available the next morning due to irl reasons and exam.

I am sorry it look long to prepare the statement as I had to research some facts and confirm some things with the DOJ
Hope you can understand

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Your honor, if the statement really was ready, why didn't he post it rather than asking for an extension? The plaintiff requests the Court to deny the defense's request.

 

[Bibsfi4a]

Your honor, if the statement really was ready, why didn't he post it rather than asking for an extension? The plaintiff requests the Court to deny the defense's request.

Your honor may I respond and give a reasoning?

 

[Milkcrack]

Apologies for the long delay. Please post the closing statements within 24 hours.

 

[Bibsfi4a]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Closing statement.

Your honor, I would like to keep the closing statement short and precise.

Your honor, the plaintiff has yet to prove any real damages. The plaintiff merely stating they felt humiliated is not enough in a court of law. Defamation is only designed to protect someones reputation, not their feelings; the plaintiff has shown no evidence of their reputation being damaged, and we have provided proof that the statements made by the defendant weren't defamatory in the first place.

We have shown in a previous screenshot that the plaintiff initially stated they were not harmed by the comments made by the defendant, and joked about it. This is an attempted cash grab from a new player, and is shameful. We ask this case is dismissed, deemed frivolous, and that the Attorney General look into this case to see if there was any possible perjury and fraud throughout it.

Screenshots prove that bigpappa admitted to not being harmed to the comments made by the defendant and joked about it, hence indirectly bigpappa admitted to not loosing any reputation, and took it as a joke.
When the plaintiff takes it as a joke, what are the damages for?

Hence your honor, the case does not stand a chance when there is No real legal damage occuring.

 

[Matthew100x]

I have been assigned to this case since the honorable Chief Justice has resigned. I see that both sides have submitted their closing arguments. I will be placing this case into recess to review and formulate a verdict.

 

[Matthew100x]

Verdict

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT
bigpappa140 v. .BelatedDragon35 [2023] FCR 63

I. PLAINTIFF'S POSITION
1. The plaintiff killed someone who had provided consent, then became slandered by that same person who took back their consent.
2. The defendant falsely filed a police report using /claim.
3. The defendant made up claims to make the plaintiff goes to jail.
4. As a result, he was humiliated and suffered emotional distress as consequential damages. The plaintiff also alleges that this behavior is "outrageous conduct" and demands punitive damages.

II. DEFENDANT'S POSITION
1. Defendant did acknowledge that he asked for someone to kill him but disputes whether or not the plaintiff lawfully killed the defendant in relation to this request.
2. The defendant acknowledges filing a false police report against the plaintiff.
3. The defendant affirms that they were making up the report to send the plaintiff to jail.
4. Defendant denies any and all claims of damages made against themselves.

III. THE COURT OPINION
This is a long case with a lot of relevent information, so this court will be breaking down the review with a style more akin to how the Supreme Court operates.

In order to properly understand the case, first an analysis must be conducted regarding the standards of slander. Given that the facts, the requirements of slander are not as stringent as required under Krix & xLayzur v. Politico where the plaintiff is required to overcome constitutional defenses (see Lawsuit: Adjourned - xLayzur & Krix v. Politico [2023] FCR 62). Instead, the plaintiff, must prove a balance of probabilities. They rely on the legal definition of slander, "a false statement which defames another person.In the form of spoken communication. For Minecraft purposes and realism we include regular Minecraft text in the server (General Chat) and discord chat as spoken communication." in addition to the common law set by several cases.

Olisaurus123 Vs. GoldenDiamonds4 [2022] DCR 17, it is the plaintiff’s burden of proof that damages occurred in order to collect an award. Keegan7om v. FriedPotaters [2021] DCR 21, the question is whether or not the defendant intended to cause harm to the reputation. Lord_Donuticus v. FriedPotaters [2021] FCR 22, where there must be a sufficient explanation for statements made by the defendant to prove that the accusations were not slander (See Lawsuit: Adjourned - Olisaurus123 Vs. GoldenDiamonds4 [2022] DCR 17, Lawsuit: Adjourned - Keegan7om v. FriedPotaters [2021] DCR 21 and Lawsuit: Adjourned - Lord_Donuticus v. FriedPotaters [2021] FCR 22 respectively). In accordance with the common law, the plaintiff must prove three things for a statement to be considered slandered. 1. The statement must be published. 2. The statement must be false. 3. The statement must have caused damage.

While Slander does not a published statement, it is clear that Slander is written and created in the form of written text as provided by the statute. Within that context, it can be understood that "publishing" is to type and circulate otherwise untrue statements in either Minecraft chats or discord chats. The defendant affirms that they indeed lied and made a misstatement against the plaintiff.

The next question this court must ask is whether or not this statement was false. While the defendant plainly states that they did not intend for the plaintiff the kill them, they openly in local chat, within earshot of the plaintiff, which the defendant acknowledges they did, of someone to kill them. When the plaintiff killed the defendant, they then filed a police report which they acknowledged was false in their Answer to Complaint.

Finally, the court must find whether the statement caused damage to the plaintiff's reputation. In accordance with the Legal Damages Act, there are two different damages being requested by the plaintiff, consequential damages via emotional distress and humiliation as well as punitive damages.

In assessing consequential damages, a justice must review the available evidence and deny awards that do not have sufficient proof. Statements to attorneys do not count as evidence towards consequential damages. It is proven that the defendant made a false statement against the plaintiff. This court will cycle back to consequential damages momentarily.

In assessing Punitive Damages, the justice can properly consider the character of the defendant's act, the nature and extent of the harm to the plaintiff that the defendant caused or intended to cause and the wealth of the defendant. The defendant clearly caused harm to the plaintiff's reputation by filing a false police report against the defendant. It is clear to this court that the behavior fits the legal standard of "outrageous conduct". This caused them harm in being made to be a criminal, having a criminal report, and requiring a lawyer to sort through a legal issue created by said false report. I took a review of the defendant's wealth at the time of writing and found -0.6 cents and could not find any properties. Subsuquently this court cannot award a very high punitive damage. If there is additional assets available that this court does not know about, it is the plaintiff's burden to work in conjunction with the DOJ to discover that balance.

Returning to consequential damages, since punitive damages are available in this instance due to "outrageous conduct", the Legal Damages Act allows for consequential damages with "no cap". Given that evidence sufficiently proves "outrageous conduct", it is logical to assume correlated consequential damages from the behavior of the defendant. However, due to lack of other proof, it is hard to assess whether or not the damages are as high as the plaintiff requests.
Given all the above, this court moves in favor of the plaintiff in this case.

IV. DECISION
The Federal Court hereby rules in favor of the Plaintiff, and grants a modified Prayer for Relief.

The Federal Court orders the Department of Justice to fine the Defendant $1,500 in Consequential Damages for emotional distress and unfine the Plaintiff the same amount.

The Federal Court orders the Department of Justice to fine the Defendant $7,500 in Consequential Damages for humiliation and unfine the Plaintiff the same amount.

The Federal Court orders the Department of Justice to fine the Defendant $1,000 in Punitive Damages for "outrageous conduct" and unfine the Plaintiff the same amount.

The Federal Court orders the Department of Justice to fine the Defendant $2,000 in Legal Fees and unfine the Plaintiff the same amount.

The Federal Court thanks all involved.