Lawsuit: Dismissed JamesTheSlay v. RealImza [2025] DCR 62

[James]

Case Filing

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


JamesTheSlay
Plaintiff

v.

RealImza
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

on UTC, August 1st RealImza made many false statements about JamesTheSlay harrasing Kat AKA Jesseya on DMs because of her political and religious beliefs. Later on the second of august UTC Kat confirmed i did not, by stating "Nah not harassing more like... Sea Lioning?... Harassing is wayyyy to strong of a word." this confirms Imzas intent to damage or at least somewhat brooze my reputation.

I. PARTIES
1. JamesTheSlay
2. RealImza
3. Kat

II. FACTS
1. I was Defamed by RealImza
2. Kat confirmed i did not harass her but rather Sea Lioned? idk what that means

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Libel
2. Reputational Damages
3. Emotional Damages

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. In Libel $50,000
2. In Reputational Damages $20,000
3. In emotional Damages $5,000

Witnesses are as follows:
1. Kat

Evidence is as follows:
1.

2.

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 17th day of August, 2025

 

[dearev]

Writ of Summons

@Imza, is required to appear before the District Court in the case of JamesTheSlay v. RealImza [2025] DCR 62

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.

 

[Imza]

I am present, your honour.

 

[dearev]

You have 48 hours to present an answer to complaint

 

[asexualdinosaur]

Answer to Complaint

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

JamesTheSlay
Plaintiff

v.

RealImza
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. Deny
2. Affirm

II. DEFENCES
1. No More Defamation Act - Defamation requires that the third party’s reputation be injured.
2. Claims for relief aren’t actual claims for the relief.
3. bigpappa140 v. .BelatedDragon35 [2023] FCR 63 & Vernicia v. RylandW [2025] FCR 5 upholds that the court must find whether the statement caused damage to the plaintiff’s reputation.

Witnesses:
JamesTheSlay

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 18th day of August 2025

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

The defense moves that the Emotional Damages Prayer for relief in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof,

1. Legal Damages Balance Act - Removed emotional damages from the law and should not be rewarded.

Spoiler: Proof of Representation

 

[James]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

The defense moves that the Emotional Damages Prayer for relief in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof,

1. Legal Damages Balance Act - Removed emotional damages from the law and should not be rewarded.

Your honour,
i will not contest that was my bad

 

[dearev]

Answer to Complaint

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

JamesTheSlay
Plaintiff

v.

RealImza
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. Deny
2. Affirm

II. DEFENCES
1. No More Defamation Act - Defamation requires that the third party’s reputation be injured.
2. Claims for relief aren’t actual claims for the relief.
3. bigpappa140 v. .BelatedDragon35 [2023] FCR 63 & Vernicia v. RylandW [2025] FCR 5 upholds that the court must find whether the statement caused damage to the plaintiff’s reputation.

Witnesses:
JamesTheSlay

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 18th day of August 2025

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

The defense moves that the Emotional Damages Prayer for relief in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof,

1. Legal Damages Balance Act - Removed emotional damages from the law and should not be rewarded.

Spoiler: Proof of Representation

View attachment 59973

Motion is Granted. The emotional damages relief shall be stricken.

We will now begin discovery which will be lasting for 5 days.

 

[James]

your honour,
May the defendant show where they heard that I was Harassing kat

 

[dearev]

your honour,
May the defendant show where they heard that I was Harassing kat

Please rephrase your request.

 

[Muggy21]

Your Honour,

The Redmont Civil Liberties Union is extremely concerned about the characterization of speech in the Commonwealth. May the RCLU file an amicus curiae brief in this case for your consideration?

We have no interest in either party, nor am I apprised of any privileged information.

 

[James]

wait how are you supposed to phrase it again @dearev i thought it phrased it correctly

 

[dearev]

Your Honour,

The Redmont Civil Liberties Union is extremely concerned about the characterization of speech in the Commonwealth. May the RCLU file an amicus curiae brief in this case for your consideration?

We have no interest in either party, nor am I apprised of any privileged information.

Granted. Please file within 48 hours

 

[James]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO COMPEL

The Plaintiff moves that the defense provide proof of someone Kat or Anybody else telling them I harrased Kat

 

[James]

@dearev i rephrased

 

[Muggy21]

Brief

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
AMICUS BRIEF by the Redmont Civil Liberties Union for JamesTheSlay v. RealImza [2025] DCR 62


1. COMPLAINT FAILS DEFAMATION STANDARD UNDER LAW

1. The No More Defamation Act (“NMD Act”) is the controlling statute for any defamation claim.
2. NMD Act § 4(1)(a) defines defamation as “a false statement and/or communication that injures a third party.” Notably, the Act makes no distinction between libel and slander, and therefore the operative inquiry is whether an actual injury has been demonstrated.
3. The operative word in this statutory definition is “injured.” The Plaintiff must do more than allege offense or displeasure; he must demonstrate to this Honourable Court that the phrase, viewed in full context, rises to the statutory threshold of injury.
4. Even if the Plaintiff’s claims were viewed in the most charitable light, the Complaint fails as a matter of law. The Plaintiff has not performed the most basic due diligence to explain why or how the alleged statement was injurious. Defamation requires a showing of actual harm, not a conclusory allegation that one’s feelings have been bruised.
5. With respect to “reputational damages,” the RCLU submits that actionable harm must consist of demonstrable losses flowing from commercial or transactional consequences: the halting of a monetary transaction, business relationship, or contractual engagement as a direct result of the alleged statement. Moreover, the Plaintiff must establish that such harm reflects a significant deviation in his reputation within the community of Redmont at large, not merely a personal sense of embarrassment.
6. One cannot simply declare aloud that one’s reputation has been harmed; without tangible proof of injury, a defamation claim collapses into nothing more than rhetoric.

2. CONSTITUTIONAL ROADBLOCK

1. As the Court is well aware, the Constitution affords the right to protected political communication. Const. Part IV § 32 (6).
2. Although not entered into evidence, the messages at issue were spoken in the chat of a political party. (This brief declines to reproduce them; the RCLU leaves that burden to the Respondent.)
3. Political communications are entitled to the broadest constitutional protection, and the Court should not disturb this safeguard by entertaining a suit that is facially defective.
4. While styled as “defamatory” or “harassment”, the Plaintiff’s theory of liability collapses absolutely if the underlying conduct was for political expression. (The Plaintiff ran a political campaign earlier, this is a significant possibility).
5. Constitutional protection does not yield merely because the Plaintiff wishes to re-label speech as offensive.
6. The Court must therefore hold that political communication, even when unpleasant or unwelcome, cannot be judicially re-cast as actionable harassment without eviscerating the guarantees of Const. Part IV § 32 (6).

I'd like to be known to the Court that the Plaintiff reached out to the author inquiring as to the content of this brief. He attempted to argue his case and brought up a client of the RCLU (I don't know why...)


Respectfully submitted for the Court's consideration, the RCLU prays for prompt dismissal.

 

[James]

Brief

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
AMICUS BRIEF by the Redmont Civil Liberties Union for JamesTheSlay v. RealImza [2025] DCR 62


1. COMPLAINT FAILS DEFAMATION STANDARD UNDER LAW

1. The No More Defamation Act (“NMD Act”) is the controlling statute for any defamation claim.
2. NMD Act § 4(1)(a) defines defamation as “a false statement and/or communication that injures a third party.” Notably, the Act makes no distinction between libel and slander, and therefore the operative inquiry is whether an actual injury has been demonstrated.
3. The operative word in this statutory definition is “injured.” The Plaintiff must do more than allege offense or displeasure; he must demonstrate to this Honourable Court that the phrase, viewed in full context, rises to the statutory threshold of injury.
4. Even if the Plaintiff’s claims were viewed in the most charitable light, the Complaint fails as a matter of law. The Plaintiff has not performed the most basic due diligence to explain why or how the alleged statement was injurious. Defamation requires a showing of actual harm, not a conclusory allegation that one’s feelings have been bruised.
5. With respect to “reputational damages,” the RCLU submits that actionable harm must consist of demonstrable losses flowing from commercial or transactional consequences: the halting of a monetary transaction, business relationship, or contractual engagement as a direct result of the alleged statement. Moreover, the Plaintiff must establish that such harm reflects a significant deviation in his reputation within the community of Redmont at large, not merely a personal sense of embarrassment.
6. One cannot simply declare aloud that one’s reputation has been harmed; without tangible proof of injury, a defamation claim collapses into nothing more than rhetoric.

2. CONSTITUTIONAL ROADBLOCK

1. As the Court is well aware, the Constitution affords the right to protected political communication. Const. Part IV § 32 (6).
2. Although not entered into evidence, the messages at issue were spoken in the chat of a political party. (This brief declines to reproduce them; the RCLU leaves that burden to the Respondent.)
3. Political communications are entitled to the broadest constitutional protection, and the Court should not disturb this safeguard by entertaining a suit that is facially defective.
4. While styled as “defamatory” or “harassment”, the Plaintiff’s theory of liability collapses absolutely if the underlying conduct was for political expression. (The Plaintiff ran a political campaign earlier, this is a significant possibility).
5. Constitutional protection does not yield merely because the Plaintiff wishes to re-label speech as offensive.
6. The Court must therefore hold that political communication, even when unpleasant or unwelcome, cannot be judicially re-cast as actionable harassment without eviscerating the guarantees of Const. Part IV § 32 (6).

I'd like to be known to the Court that the Plaintiff reached out to the author inquiring as to the content of this brief. He attempted to argue his case and brought up a client of the RCLU (I don't know why...)


Respectfully submitted for the Court's consideration, the RCLU prays for prompt dismissal.

i would just like to say this is not about political views this is about defamation

 

[dearev]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO COMPEL

The Plaintiff moves that the defense provide proof of someone Kat or Anybody else telling them I harrased Kat

Does the defendant concur?

 

[dearev]

Brief

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
AMICUS BRIEF by the Redmont Civil Liberties Union for JamesTheSlay v. RealImza [2025] DCR 62


1. COMPLAINT FAILS DEFAMATION STANDARD UNDER LAW

1. The No More Defamation Act (“NMD Act”) is the controlling statute for any defamation claim.
2. NMD Act § 4(1)(a) defines defamation as “a false statement and/or communication that injures a third party.” Notably, the Act makes no distinction between libel and slander, and therefore the operative inquiry is whether an actual injury has been demonstrated.
3. The operative word in this statutory definition is “injured.” The Plaintiff must do more than allege offense or displeasure; he must demonstrate to this Honourable Court that the phrase, viewed in full context, rises to the statutory threshold of injury.
4. Even if the Plaintiff’s claims were viewed in the most charitable light, the Complaint fails as a matter of law. The Plaintiff has not performed the most basic due diligence to explain why or how the alleged statement was injurious. Defamation requires a showing of actual harm, not a conclusory allegation that one’s feelings have been bruised.
5. With respect to “reputational damages,” the RCLU submits that actionable harm must consist of demonstrable losses flowing from commercial or transactional consequences: the halting of a monetary transaction, business relationship, or contractual engagement as a direct result of the alleged statement. Moreover, the Plaintiff must establish that such harm reflects a significant deviation in his reputation within the community of Redmont at large, not merely a personal sense of embarrassment.
6. One cannot simply declare aloud that one’s reputation has been harmed; without tangible proof of injury, a defamation claim collapses into nothing more than rhetoric.

2. CONSTITUTIONAL ROADBLOCK

1. As the Court is well aware, the Constitution affords the right to protected political communication. Const. Part IV § 32 (6).
2. Although not entered into evidence, the messages at issue were spoken in the chat of a political party. (This brief declines to reproduce them; the RCLU leaves that burden to the Respondent.)
3. Political communications are entitled to the broadest constitutional protection, and the Court should not disturb this safeguard by entertaining a suit that is facially defective.
4. While styled as “defamatory” or “harassment”, the Plaintiff’s theory of liability collapses absolutely if the underlying conduct was for political expression. (The Plaintiff ran a political campaign earlier, this is a significant possibility).
5. Constitutional protection does not yield merely because the Plaintiff wishes to re-label speech as offensive.
6. The Court must therefore hold that political communication, even when unpleasant or unwelcome, cannot be judicially re-cast as actionable harassment without eviscerating the guarantees of Const. Part IV § 32 (6).

I'd like to be known to the Court that the Plaintiff reached out to the author inquiring as to the content of this brief. He attempted to argue his case and brought up a client of the RCLU (I don't know why...)


Respectfully submitted for the Court's consideration, the RCLU prays for prompt dismissal.

Thank you, this brief will be taken into consideration.

 

[dearev]

I will be dismissing this case sua sponte under lack of standing (rule 2.2) the No more defamation act requires that for the plaintiff’s claims to have caused reasonable reputational harm which the plaintiff has not provided evidence of.

This case is hearby dismissed.