Lawsuit: Adjourned Lemonade Lottery V. instrumentbee73 [2022] DCR 10

[Olisaurus123]

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


Olisaurus123
Plaintiff

v.

instrumentbee73
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:
On the 21st of March, the defendant used a command that is supposed to be used for business purposes, to attempt to push misinformation about the legitimacy of my company, 'Lemonade Lottery'. The defendant claims that Lemonade Lottery is a scam and publicly shared this information via /ad.


I. PARTIES
1. Olisaurus123
2. instrumentbee73


II. FACTS
1. Defendant used a command that is designed for business-related adverts, to slander, defame and misinform the community of Redmont, that the company Lemonade Lottery is a scam.

https://imgur.com/a/WLe3auQ

(logs screenshotted from minecraft logs file)

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Due to the defendant slandering the company Lemonade Lottery, players of Redmont have now gained a reason to believe that Lemonade Lottery is an illegal scam.
2. The players of Redmont believing that Lemonade Lottery is a scam, gives the company a really poor reputation.
3. The slandering of the company Lemonade Lottery have affected whether people purchase a Lemonade Lottery Ticket.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. $250 for the loss of 1 Lemonade Lottery ticket.
2. $50 for emotional damages
3. $100 for legal fees


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: 21/03/2022

 

[Banana]

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

@instrumentbee73 is required to appear before the District Court in the case of Lemonade Lottery v. instrumentbee73.

Failure to appear within 48 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.​

 

[Olisaurus123]

Your Honor, we would like an in-game trial.

 

[Milqy]

I will be representing Instrumentbee73 in this court case, and I am also requesting an in-game trial if possible.

 

[Banana]

Given that both parties have expressed interest in an in-game trial, the Court will open a Discord chat with all involved parties for the purpose of scheduling. Once a final decision is reached, I will make a follow-up post in this thread.

 

[Banana]

Enel, you have not been summoned to speak in this court, and you have deliberately disrupted proceedings. I hereby find you in contempt of court for the first offence, and a $250 fine will apply, in accordance with the Judicial Standards Act. If you continue to cause a disruption, the penalty will increase.

 

[Banana]

At the request of both parties, there will be an in-game trial for this case.

This is scheduled for Tuesday, March 29 at 2:00 AM UTC (Monday, March 28 at 10:00 PM EST / Tuesday, March 29 at 3:00 PM NZDT).

 

[Banana]

Following a discussion with both parties, due to a conflict in scheduling, the in-game trial will now be scheduled for Thursday, March 31 at 2:00 AM UTC (Wednesday, March 30 at 10:00 PM EST / Thursday, March 31 at 3:00 PM NZDT).

 

[Milqy]

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

Olisaurus123
Plaintiff

V

instrumentbee73 (Milqy Representing)
Defendant

MOTION TO DISMISS
1. I will address the screenshot as nothing shy as an individual claiming what he wants. One singular advertisement is not enough justifiable cause for a slander charge. For a slander charge, the Plaintiff must present evidence that it in some way damaged his company, or his image. When, in fact, all 36 of his tickets did sell out in one day. From looking at the "Lemonade" Discord, and in the channel "#Lottery", you can clearly see that it started 3/19/2022, and ended 3/20/2022. With that, he has not produced a single /msg, /whisper, dm, or even a single /mail that someone withheld their purchase of a lemonade lottery ticket on the single piece of evidence that Olisaurus123 has presented to the court.

2. Citing the act of congress "Defamation Act October 2020", under section 5 "On Top of proving harm, the Plaintiff must present evidence for intent to harm reputation." Under which, the Plaintiff hasn't presented a single shred of evidence that the Defendant had an intent to harm the reputation of the "Lemonade Lottery". A single /ad command will not tarnish the brand "Lemonade," one that was on the list of "Total sales" according to data recently released by the DEC.

 

[Banana]

Would the Plaintiff like to respond to the Motion to Dismiss?

 

[Olisaurus123]

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

Olisaurus123 Plaintiff

V

Instrumentbee73
Defendant

I. Response to motion to dismiss

1. In this paragraph, the defendant claims a lack of evidence, and brings new facts to this case. Neither of these are valid reasons to dismiss a lawsuit.

2. The defense claims that the plaintiff has not provided any evidence which does not serve to suggest any inaccuracies or anything frivolous.

 

[Banana]

Due to the fact that the Plaintiff is basing their Motion to Dismiss on grounds of a lack of evidence, which is not sufficient for a dismissal, the motion is denied and the in-game trial will continue as scheduled.

 

[Banana]

Before a verdict is posted, the brief as described in the Court Rules and Procedures can be found here [Link to brief].

 

[Banana]

Verdict

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT
Lemonade Lottery v. instrumentbee73 [2022] DCR 10

I. PLAINTIFF’S POSITION
1. The Defendant posted a knowingly damaging false statement in a public chat seen by everyone online in order to harm the reputation of Lemonade Lottery.
2. The Defendant did not provide any evidence of this accusation or even try to voice a legitimate concern, but rather resorted to slandering the company following a dispute regarding a contracted sponsorship.
3. The Defamation Act allows victims of slander to sue for false statements.
4. The testimony provided by a witness proves that the Defendant’s statements meet the criteria to qualify as slander

II. DEFENDANT’S POSITION
1. The Plaintiff failed to prove that there was any actual damage to the company’s revenue as a result of the advertisement made.
2. The Plaintiff also failed to prove that the Defendant had an intent to harm the reputation of the company in question.
3. The Defendant has little to no existing reputation in the community of Redmont, and as such their opinion would not be taken seriously, and risk of damage to the Plaintiff’s or the Lemonade Lottery’s reputation would be extremely low.

III. COURT’S OPINION
1. Slander is defined as “A false and unprivileged statement of fact that can negatively impact someone's reputation” as per the Defamation Act.
2. The Defendant made the statement deliberately with malice, as there is no other reason for inciting possible distrust in a legitimate business with no evidence as to misconduct.
3. A public advertisement made by anyone, regardless of the level of reputation of the individual, carries weight. The individual’s stature in the community is irrelevant, because advertisements are specifically designed to grab the attention of everyone online.
4. Considering a statement more harshly because the speaker has been playing longer or is more active is an injustice, because it fails to ensure accountability on the behalf of new players and deprives active individuals of equal protection under the law, a constitutional right.
5. All this being considered, the Plaintiff has not proven what the damages caused by the statements made by the Defendant may be, although they have proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the statements constitute slander.

IV. VERDICT
Due to the fact that the Plaintiff has not proven that any damage was done to their company or revenue, this event does not qualify under the Defamation Act for extra damages to be awarded. It is the opinion of the court that the statement made does qualify as slanderous, however. The Defendant knowingly made a false statement directed to harm the reputation of the Lemonade Lottery. By that fact, I find in favor of the Plaintiff. Given that the Defendant did slander the Plaintiff’s company, in accordance with the Defamation Act, the court will award the minimum $50 penalty to the Plaintiff. The $100 in legal fees will likewise be awarded. Any additional claims for relief based on a lack of sales of lottery tickets will not be awarded, as no legitimate damage to sales was proven beyond reasonable doubt. I hereby order that:
- The Defendant be fined a total of $150
$50 for slander, and
$100 for legal fees
- The Plaintiff be unfined the same amount

This case is hereby adjourned in favor of the Plaintiff. The court would like to thank both parties for their time.