Lawsuit: Dismissed Chase Bank v. CraftyIso [2023] FCR 67

Status
Not open for further replies.
steveshat

steveshat

Bad Bitch Getta
State Department
Redmont Bar Assoc.
Supporter
Aventura Resident
steveshat
steveshat
donator1
Joined
May 28, 2023
Messages
63
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

Chase Bank (Represented by Resolute Law)
Plaintiff

v.

CraftyIso
Defendant


COMPLAINT

On the 22nd of July, CraftyIso decided to make a slanderous statement towards Chase Bank to possibly hurt their reputation. The Owner and CEO of Chase Bank, steveshat, was talking to a possible client about interest rates on bank accounts at Chase. While steveshat was talking to the possible client, CraftyIso decided to slander Chase Bank and said "chase pays ass interest". Following that, CraftyIso called Chase Bank's interest rate "laughable". This hurt Chase Bank's reputation and after this, the possible client stopped talking to steveshat. When confronted about this statement CraftyIso told steveshat to "grow a pair". Not only did CraftyIso prevent Chase Bank from securing a possible client, but they ruined Chase Bank's reputation in front of the 19 players online at the time.


I. PARTIES
1. Chase Bank
2. CraftyIso
3. steveshat


II. FACTS
1. CraftyIso slandered Chase Bank by saying "chase pays ass interest". (Exhibit A)
2. There were 19 players online at the time of this incident.
3. steveshat, Owner, and CEO of Chase Bank, was talking to a possible client when CraftyIso decided to slander Chase Bank. (Exhibit B)
4. When confronted about their statement, CraftyIso told steveshat to "grow a pair" (Exhibit C)


III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Slander is defined as "A purposeful false statement of a player to cause damage to that player's reputation." CraftyIso made the statement "chase pays ass interest" knowing it would hurt Chase Bank's reputation.
2. When CraftyIso made his slanderous statement, there were 19 players online. All of these players' views of Chase Bank as a Business and Financial Institution were ruined.
3. When CraftyIso made his slanderous statement, steveshat was talking to a possible client for Chase Bank. The client had asked steveshat "chase pays interest?". Following that, steveshat responded with "K68 there is interest on savings account yes". After this, CraftyIso decided to hurt Chase Bank's reputation in hopes that the client would not open an account with Chase Bank. After CraftyIso made his statement, the possible client stopped talking to steveshat.
4. After these slanderous statements, steveshat decided to confront CraftyIso. After the confrontation, CraftyIso told steveshat to "grow a pair" causing emotional damage to the Plaintiff.


IV. PRAYERS FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. $9,500 in compensatory damages. $500 for each of the players online.
2. $1,500 in consequential damages.
3. $2,200 in legal fees.

1690090649510.png
1690090674355.png
1690090695593.png
 
1690772827524.png

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

CraftyIso is required to appear before the court in the case of Chase Bank v. Craftyiso. Failure to appear within 48 hours of this summons will result in a default judgment in favor 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.​
 
MOTION TO DISMISS

The act of committing slander is indeed knowingly providing a false statement. It does not include providing opinions, whether Chase Bank pays poor interest is not shown in the original filing of the lawsuit.

Legality -

An opinion is titled as “a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.” Given the definition of opinion and that no evidence was provided showing that Chase Bank pays poor interest it is clear to show that CraftyIso was speaking not in fact but, in opinion. You cannot sue for opinion given the clear definition surrounding Slander.

Given what all the Prosecution has shown there is little to no legal merit to continue this case. Between the evidence lying in opinion and not slander to the Prosecution. There is also no proof of Chase Bank losing any money, assets, clients, or other due to the opinion.

Client -

The prosecution states they were talking to a possible client at the time the opinion was said. Given they have not stated a name, messages, or more showing that the opinion affected their judgment there is no basis to know if Chase Bank would be hurt due to the message.

Conclusion -

To put it all simply, the case is about whether opinion can be used as evidence in a slander lawsuit. Which according to definitions that the Prosecution has provided states that it cannot be used as evidence. The Prosecution has not produced evidence of losing profit other than a statement made by the Prosecution.

Charging -

The Defense wants the Prosecution to be charged with a frivolous court charge and for the Defense to be awarded with $2,500 in legal fees given the case was opened due to hurt feelings surrounding their bank. The case has no legal basis other than again being on the fact that they did not like the statement.

Proof of Representation -
View attachment 35902
 
The plaintiff has 48 hours to provide a response to the motion to dismiss.

Relaxed, please make sure to still provide an answer to complaint so the court knows exactly what is being disputed. I will give you the same deadline the plaintiff has to provide their response.
 
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

Defense Affirms a statement was made.

Defense Disputes that the statement was slanderous

Defense Affirms the 19 people

Defense Disputes hurting the reputation of Chase Bank.

This does not need to be long given everything was stated in the Motion to Dismiss.
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS

1. In Redmont, slander is defined as "A purposeful false statement of a player to cause damage to that player's reputation." The Defendant purposely made this statement that he cannot back up to hurt the Plaintiff's reputation. It is obvious this statement was made the hurt the reputation of the Plaintiff as when the statement was made, the Plaintiff was talking to a possible Client about interest rates.

2. The context in this situation matters. The statement the Defendant made is only part of the damages towards the Plaintiff. Besides the statement, the Defendant single handedly hurt the Plaintiff's reputation to all of those players online. All of this made the Plaintiff lose potential clients and the potential client the Plaintiff was talking to when the statement was made.

3. Along with all of this, this had a huge impact on the Plaintiff's potential clients. Reputation and trust is a crucial factor of Business in our Democracy. The statement the Defendant made impacted the Plaintiff's credibility. Along with this, not only did the Defendant affect the view of the potential client the Plaintiff was talking to, but they affected the views of everyone who witnessed the conversation.

4. The Plaintiff is not seeking to violate the Defendant's freedom of speech, but they are seeking for a fair judgement. Instead the Plaintiff requests that the Defendant receive fair punishment for the damaging statement towards the Plaintiff.
 
OBJECTION SPECULATION

Your Honor, it is not possible for the Prosecution to know if CraftyIso did in fact do it with the intent to hurt Chase Banks Reputation.

MOTION TO STRIKE
If the Objection for Speculation is granted I move to strike the first point of steveshat's response.
 
Your honor, I am temporarily deported for 2 weeks, not banned. I am still capable of writing on the forums.
 
I would also like the court to be made aware of by 9th Constitutional Right.
 
RelaxedGV said:
OBJECTION SPECULATION

Your Honor, it is not possible for the Prosecution to know if CraftyIso did in fact do it with the intent to hurt Chase Banks Reputation.

MOTION TO STRIKE
If the Objection for Speculation is granted I move to strike the first point of steveshat's response.
Click to expand...
Objection overruled; improper use of the objection.

The motion to dismiss to rejected; the motion reads more as a defense of the defendant rather than showing to the courts points of dismissal.

I will point out to the defendant's counsel that this case is a civil case against two parties, not a prosecution by the Commonwealth. I ask that the defendant's counsel refrain from referring to the plaintiff as the "prosecution."

steveshat said:
Your honor, I am temporarily deported for 2 weeks, not banned. I am still capable of writing on the forums.
Click to expand...
Steveshat, please refrain from speaking out of turn. At that time you had not been called to provide a response.

The Court will now call for opening statements starting with the plaintiff. The plaintiff has 48 hours to provide the Court with its opening statement.
 
MOTION TO RECUSE

Your Honor, the Plaintiff wants you to preside over the case. Pending the current allegations of corruption deals from your colleague Mask3D_WOLF I wish for you to be recused from the case and for a new Judge to preside.

1691118873063.png
 
May I respond to the motion?
 
Last edited:
MOTION TO RECONSIDER

Your Honor, this is a reconsider to the Motion to Dismiss. To put this simply, the case is completely surrounding speculation and has no legal merit. It all falls on whether my Client did in fact mean it to hurt Chase Bank. My Client also could not have know that the Plaintiff was in fact in a meeting for someone to bank with Chase Bank.
 
JoeGamer said:
The motion to dismiss to rejected; the motion reads more as a defense of the defendant rather than showing to the courts points of dismissal.
Click to expand...
Just going to say that we established there is no standing for a slander case. Look in the motion to dismiss handbook. It states that showing a lack of an element required to prove a certain act is dismissible. In this case, our client is being accused of slander for merely providing an opinion which cannot be inherently true NOR false. Opinions are subjective, and the law ONLY says slander is when someone provides a false statement. For something to be false, it has to be objective. This is incredibly fundamental tort law.

Let's call this a motion of reconsideration.
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

Your honor, while the defense claims that they were "providing an opinion", they still caused damage towards the Plaintiff. This is not about whether not the Plaintiff intended to cause these damages does not matter. He made the Plaintiff lose a client and possibly others with his words. With the statement the Defendant made, they not only caused future financial losses, but they tarnished the Plaintiff's reputation and public image.

The defense also moves that this case should be thrown out because the Defendant's statement was not slanderous. This case isn't entirely based on slander. The Defendant made a statement that lost the Plaintiff a client and possibly more. And maybe the Defendant's intentions weren't to cause damages towards the Plaintiff, but they did. We cannot ignore the fact that the Defendant caused future financial losses towards the Plaintiff.

Let us also not forget the fact that the Defendant showed no remorse for his actions and was toxic towards the Plaintiff. Not only did the Defendant call the Plaintiff's interest rate "laughable", he also privately messaged the Plaintiff when confronted to "grow a pair".

With all of this compiled together and these facts given it is important for us to note that even if the Defendant did not mean to cause these damages, he did.
 
RESPONSE TO MOTION TO RECUSE

Since there are two points brought forth in the motion, I will break this response into two points.

On the first point which states the plaintiff wants me to preside over this case.
People are allowed to have opinions on the presiding judge in cases they bring before the Court. These opinions can be based on a multitude of points. Opinions on presiding judge are not reason enough to merit a recusal of a Judge. I have never made any legal relations with Chase Bank or its associates, nor have I expressed any positive or negative opinion to Chase Bank, its associates, or steveshat. Again, parties are allowed to have and vocalize opinions they have about a presiding Judge but opinions alone do not warrant a recusal.

On the second point of current allegations
I have not been made aware by anyone of allegations of wrongdoing or misconduct by anyone. While people may claim certain allegations, these have no bearing on this case or either party involved in this case.

Burden of Proof
In Prodigium Partners at Law v _Austin27_ [2021] FCR 11, Former Judge Matt_S0 provided a statement on the Motion to Recuse​
The Judiciary has an obligation to be impartial, and individuals are nominated on the basis that they can perform their duties with impartiality and integrity. As such, the burden of proof falls to the accuser that a recuse is necessary, and any proof has to be overwhelming, given the severity of such an allegation. A successful motion to recuse is not to be discounted as something of negligible importance - a successful motion would demonstrate not only a Judge’s partiality within the matter but also incompetence in accepting the case when not necessary and damage trust in the Judiciary. I simply do not find the evidence before the Court to be of the required compelling nature to reach the standard required for such a motion.​
Click to expand...
For these reasons, I will be rejecting the motion to recuse. I will remind the defendant that if they disagree with my response and believe I should be recused they may appeal this decision to another Judge assigned at random by the Court Clerk.​
 
The motion to reconsider has not provided anything for me to reconsider instead it is a restatement of what was already said. The motion to reconsider is rejected.

Alexander P. Love said:
Just going to say that we established there is no standing for a slander case. Look in the motion to dismiss handbook. It states that showing a lack of an element required to prove a certain act is dismissible. In this case, our client is being accused of slander for merely providing an opinion which cannot be inherently true NOR false. Opinions are subjective, and the law ONLY says slander is when someone provides a false statement. For something to be false, it has to be objective. This is incredibly fundamental tort law.

Let's call this a motion of reconsideration.
Click to expand...
Mr. Love, while you may be co-counsel for the defendant, I ask that you and your other co-counsel refrain from posting the same motion. If you wanted to add more you should have asked to amend your initial motion or talked with Relaxed before posting the initial motion. Do not let it happen again or I may hold you in contempt. I will be striking this statement from the record.

The defendant has 48 hours to provide the Court with its opening statement.
 
OPENING STATEMENT

Your Honor, Opposing Council.

This case is hanging in the balance of whether an opinion can be considered slander. Short answer is no. Long answer is that the Plaintiff’s side must prove that the statement was a purposeful act in damaging the Plaintiff’s business. To simply state, the Plaintiff has yet to do so and has stated how it has hurt themselves rather than it being a purposeful action.

Opinion cannot be proved false. An opinion is how the person feels and not always revolved in fact. A matter of opinion cannot be proven false which is a term that you need for slander. For slander the statement made must be proven false and intentionally made to hurt the person or company. Given that the statement was a matter of opinion it is not possible to prove the opinion false and that it is not possible to prove that the statement was solely made to hurt the image of the Chase Bank.

The Plaintiff has yet to provide evidence of lost sales due to the opinion. A Client’s name has not been said stating that they were in talks to join Chase Bank and there is no evidence showing books or anything else that proves the opinion made Chase Bank lose money. Thus why should the Defense pay $9,500 when there is no proof of lost sales?

“CraftyIso decided to hurt Chase Bank's reputation in hopes that the client would not open an account with Chase Bank.” The Plaintiff has yet to prove that the Defense did do the action with Malicious intent. A normal opinion can always be seen as Malicious unless you have evidence of it hurting your company/brand/imaging. We have seen no evidence of it hurting Chase Bank, the brand, or the image of the Bank. Why should we believe the Plaintiff when these are not met and provided with evidence?

“The client had asked steveshat "chase pays interest?".” Given the Plaintiff had not in fact disclosed this to the “client” then the Defense was just providing information on the amount compared to other Financial Institutions. The rate has always been set around 2% or higher. Yet Chase Bank pays 0.1% interest and takes a $50 withdrawal fee, $25 monthly account fee, and a $100 account closing fee. If you put $100 into the bank then you will walk away with -$24.90 compared to a bank such as Megacorp that pays 5% interest. This evidence is shown below this opening statement.

Thank you for your time.
 
Thank you to both parties for providing your opening statements.

The Federal Court now ask for each party to provide a list of witnesses or expert testimonials they wish to testify before the Court. I ask that you provide a reason for which they should be summoned to the case. Please provide your list within the next 24 hours.
 
Your Honor, Opposing Council

The Defense wishes to call Dumbyhead1234. Reason being they are a current Savings Account Holder with Chase Bank.
The Defense also wishes to call LilLethalVert. Reason is they have stopped using Chase Bank Savings Accounts due to high fees.
 
OBJECTION
INCOMPETENT

Your honor, LilLethalVert never had an account with Chase Bank making him unable to answer questions the Defense has about Chase Bank Savings Accounts.
 
Your Honor, may we respond to the objection?
 
apologies your Honor. There was a miscommunication regarding what was said regarding LilLethalVert. We retract that witness. No Objection needed.
 
Your Honor,

The Plaintiff wishes to call IncompleteRiver as a witness. Reason is, they have a Savings Account with Chase Bank.
 
Last edited:
MOTION TO COMPEL

Your Honor, the Defense wants the contract that all Savings Account Holders must sign in order to open a Savings Account. This will show whether Chase Bank has broken the CLF laws and should be held accountable for their actions. This will also show that Chase Bank has poor interest in a contract they signed.
 
RelaxedGV said:
MOTION TO COMPEL

Your Honor, the Defense wants the contract that all Savings Account Holders must sign in order to open a Savings Account. This will show whether Chase Bank has broken the CLF laws and should be held accountable for their actions. This will also show that Chase Bank has poor interest in a contract they signed.
Click to expand...
It should be noted that this case is not about whether a party violated the CLF but on the question of slander. However, I do believe it to be beneficial to the Court to see the interest rates offered by Chase Bank.

Therefore, I therefore order that Chase Bank provides documents authorized by Chase Bank that show any interest rates currently offered at Chase Bank within the past two months. This order should be fulfilled in the next 48 hours.
 
federal-court-png.12082

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

IncompleteRiver is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of Chase Bank v. Craftyiso 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 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.

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.​
 
Your Honor, you forgot to summon DumbyHead1234.
 
Thank you for your extremely quick response.

The plaintiff's counsel may begin its direct examination. Please provide your questions within the next 48 hours.
 
Your Honor,

The Plaintiff's questions for IncompleteRiver are as follows:
1. Are you content with your account at Chase Bank?
2. Do you believe the interest rate at Chase Bank is fair?
3. Has Chase Bank ever done anything predatory towards you concerning your savings account?

As for the interest rate at Chase Bank, here is the contract signed by CraftyIso:
1691727304065.png
 
OBJECTION, YOUR HONOR
steveshat said:
Are you content with your account at Chase Bank?
Click to expand...
Question calls for conclusion, prohibited by official judicial policy.

steveshat said:
Do you believe the interest rate at Chase Bank is fair?
Click to expand...
Question calls for conclusion, prohibited by official judicial policy.

steveshat said:
Has Chase Bank ever done anything predatory towards you concerning your savings account?
Click to expand...
Question calls for speculation and is outside the scope of the witness's expertise (incompetent witness), as this witness is not qualified to speak on predatory banking practices or banking practices in general. This question also is ambiguous and is prejudicial over probative.
 
Your Honor, I present the answers to the questions asked by the plaintiff.

In response to "Are you content with your account at Chase Bank?":

I am.

In response to "Do you believe the interest rate at Chase Bank is fair?":

I believe the interest rate for my savings account is fair, but I cannot speak for any other interest rate, as my only interaction with Chase Bank as a customer was through a savings account.

In response to "Has Chase Bank ever done anything predatory towards you concerning your savings account?":

I do not believe their practices concerning my savings account were predatory.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
IncompleteRiver said:
In response to "Are you content with your account at Chase Bank?":

I am.

In response to "Do you believe the interest rate at Chase Bank is fair?":

I believe the interest rate for my savings account is fair, but I cannot speak for any other interest rate, as my only interaction with Chase Bank as a customer was through a savings account.

In response to "Has Chase Bank ever done anything predatory towards you concerning your savings account?":

I do not believe their practices concerning my savings account were predatory.
Click to expand...
Objection, Your Honor
Answers came to opinionated conclusion and contain speculation. I motion to strike.
 
Alexander P. Love said:
Question calls for conclusion, prohibited by official judicial policy.
Click to expand...
Objection Sustained; the witness is allowed to testify on things they observed, not opinions they have of Chase Bank. The witness's response will be struck from the record.
Alexander P. Love said:
Question calls for conclusion, prohibited by official judicial policy.
Click to expand...
Objection Sustained; see above for explanation
The witness's response will be struck from the record.

Alexander P. Love said:
Question calls for speculation and is outside the scope of the witness's expertise (incompetent witness), as this witness is not qualified to speak on predatory banking practices or banking practices in general. This question also is ambiguous and is prejudicial over probative.
Click to expand...
Objection Overruled
Alexander P. Love said:
Objection, Your Honor
Answers came to opinionated conclusion and contain speculation. I motion to strike.
Click to expand...
Objection Overruled


The plaintiff has 24 hours to ask any additional questions, otherwise, the Court will move to a period of cross-examination.
 
@IncompleteRiver

Were you aware of the statement "chase pays ass interest"?
Did the statement influence your trust or view in Chase Bank?
Did the statement affect your consideration of using Chase Bank's services in the future?
 
In response to "Were you aware of the statement "chase pays ass interest"?":

Before I was called as a witness to this case, I was not.

In response to "Did the statement influence your trust or view in Chase Bank?":

No.

In response to "Did the statement affect your consideration of using Chase Bank's services in the future?":

No.
 
Your Honor,

I wish to drop the case.
 
This case is dismissed with prejudice at the request of the plaintiff.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top