Lawsuit: Pending CastoloGR v. Raz0Baz0 [2025] DCR 83

[guiltypleasurez]

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

CastoloGR
Plaintiff

v.

Raz0Baz0
Defendant

The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

On October 10, 2025, TheBlockTimes published an article based on an anonymous tip, carefully noting the unverified nature of the information with phrases such as "Based on an anonymous tip" and "Apparently." The article concerned a potential change in political endorsement from Plura72. Shortly after, upon Plura72's denial of the tip's contents, the People's Press, under Chief Editor Raz0Baz0, published an article that went beyond reporting the denial. The People's Press article falsely accused TheBlockTimes of spreading "misinformation" and engaging in "journalist malpractice."

These statements are not matters of opinion but are presented as factual accusations regarding TheBlockTimes' professional conduct. The Defendant, motivated by a clear political conflict of interest, knowingly published these false and damaging statements even after being directly warned by the Plaintiff that such accusations could constitute defamation. Furthermore, the Defendant deliberately manipulated evidence to support their false narrative. This conduct constitutes libel under Redmont law and has caused direct injury to the reputation and professional standing of TheBlockTimes, for which the Plaintiff now seeks relief.

I. PARTIES

CastoloGR - Plaintiff
The Block Times - Plaintiff’s newspaper

Raz0Baz0- Defendant
People's Press/People Press - Defendant’s newspaper


II. FACTS

1. On October 10, 2025, the Plaintiff published an article titled “Plura Withdrawing Support Of JamesTheSlay And Is Now Endorsing Culls.” The article clearly stated its sourcing was an anonymous tip (Exhibit P-001).
2. Subsequently, Plura72 made a statement denying the information in the anonymous tip and reaffirming his support for JamesTheSlay (Exhibit P-001).
3. On October 10, 2025, the Defendant, Raz0Baz0, authored and published an article in the People's Press titled “The Block Times spreading misinformation?” (Exhibit P-002).
4. The Defendant, Raz0Baz0, serves as the Head of Affairs for the Labor Party of Redmont (LPR), the political party led by Plura72. This establishes a clear conflict of interest, indicating that the Defendant's article was motivated by political bias rather than journalistic integrity.
5. The Defendant's article made the direct and unsubstantiated accusation that TheBlockTimes was engaged in a "blatant misinformation campaign, or journalist malpractice."
6. The Defendant published these accusations despite being personally warned by the Plaintiff about the potential for a defamation lawsuit. The Defendant's own article includes a direct quote from the Plaintiff stating, "I'll just say that saying TBT is spreading misinformation without proof... can lead to defamation charges."
7. Crucially, the Defendant's article featured a screenshot of a "sue me" gif sent by the Plaintiff, but deliberately and maliciously edited the image to omit the Plaintiff's immediately subsequent message stating "jk" (just kidding). This selective editing was clearly intended to create the false and damaging impression that the Plaintiff was being belligerent, when the full context shows the Plaintiff was being humorous (Exhibit P-003).
8. The Defendant's actions driven by political bias and executed through the manipulation of evidence demonstrate that their article was not a work of good faith journalism, but a malicious attack designed to harm the Plaintiff's reputation.
9. As a direct result of the Defendant's article, TheBlockTimes has suffered demonstrable reputational harm. The Plaintiff has secured evidence of a community member publicly stating that they lost credibility for the Plaintiff's newspaper specifically because of the Defendant's defamatory article (Exhibit P-004).

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

• Libel. The No More Defamation Act defines defamation in §4(1)(a) as: “Defamation is a false statement and/or communication that injures a third party's reputation. The tort of defamation includes both libel and slander.” The same act, in §4(2)(a), defines Libel as: “A method of defamation expressed by documents, signs, published media, or any communication embodied in physical form that is injurious to a person's reputation, exposes a person to public hatred, contempt or ridicule, or injures a person in his/her business, profession or organization.”
• The Defendant published an article, a form of media embodied in physical form.
• This article contained false statements accusing the Plaintiff's organization of "spreading misinformation" and committing "journalist malpractice."
• The Defendant acted with actual malice, demonstrated by their clear conflict of interest and their deliberate manipulation of evidence (the cropped screenshot) to create a false narrative and hold the Plaintiff up for public ridicule. This proves a knowing and reckless disregard for the truth, motivated by political bias.
• These libelous statements have caused injury to TheBlockTimes's reputation, as shown in the evidence, fulfilling all criteria under the Act.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:

1. Public Apology. As authorized by the No More Defamation Act, §5(1)(a), we request the Defendant be ordered to issue a formal and public apology to TheBlockTimes for the false and damaging statements made.
2. Public Retraction. We request the Defendant be ordered to publish a formal and public retraction of the defamatory statements made in their article, specifically the accusations of "spreading misinformation" and "journalist malpractice."
3. Defamation Damages. As authorized by the No More Defamation Act, §5(1), we request $10,000 for the significant reputational and professional injury suffered by TheBlockTimes due to the Defendant's libelous publication.
4. Legal Damages. As authorized by the Legal Damages Act, we request damages of 30% of the total case value to be awarded to the Plaintiff's legal representative.

V. EXHIBITS
Exhibit P-001: TheBlockTimes Article: “Plura Withdrawing Support Of JamesTheSlay And Is Now Endorsing Culls”.

Spoiler

Exhibit P-002: People's Press Article: “The Block Times spreading misinformation?”

Spoiler

Exhibit P-003: A complete screenshot of the Plaintiff's "sue me" gif immediately followed by the "jk" message, proving the Defendant's exhibit was maliciously edited.

Spoiler

Exhibit P-004: Screenshot of a community member stating a loss of credibility in TheBlockTimes as a direct result of the Defendant's article.

Spoiler

Proof of representation:

 

[dearev]

Writ of Summons

@Silly Billy(Raz0Baz0), is required to appear before the district Court in the case of CastoloGR v. Raz0Baz0 [2025] DCR 83

Failure to appear within 72 hours of this summons will result in a default judgement based on the known facts of the case.

Both parties should make themselves aware of the Court Rules and Procedures, including the option of an in-game trial should both parties request one.

 

[guiltypleasurez]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO AMEND FILING

The Plaintiff respectfully requests to amend a small error in the initial filing, point two under FACTS should say:

"Subsequently, Plura72 made a statement denying the information in the anonymous tip and reaffirming his support for JamesTheSlay (Exhibit P-002)."

And not:

Subsequently, Plura72 made a statement denying the information in the anonymous tip and reaffirming his support for JamesTheSlay (Exhibit P-001).