Imza
Citizen
Deputy Speaker of the House
Representative
Aventura Resident
5th Anniversary
Popular in the Polls
Statesman
RealImza
Deputy Speaker
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2025
- Messages
- 116
- Thread Author
- #1
Case Filing
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION
RealImza
Plaintiff
v.
Plura72
Defendant
COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:
WRITTEN STATEMENT BY THE PLAINTIFF:
On September 29th, Plura72 released a press release within the #briefing channel (P-001). This press release contained numerous defamatory and slanderous statements.
Some examples include:
- “...when current [sic] deputy speaker of the house decided to initiate a retaliatory hearing against myself;” (P-001)
- “He [Plaintiff] has threatened me and i [sic] assume this hearing has been a coordinated attack against myself [sic]” (P-001)
As a result of this press release, the Plaintiff experienced a loss of trust from his colleagues within the House of Representatives and from the general public.
Additionally, on September 30th, Plura72 filed his opening statement for the House of Representatives Investigatory Hearing against him (P-002). This opening statement, similar to his press release, included defamatory and libellous statements.
Several instances include:
- “how i [sic] [Defendant] was repeatedly harassed by Deputy speaker [sic] and chairman of this hearing realimza...” (P-003)
- “..and how this hearing is nothing but a scummy alexanderlove style maneuver to further trash my [Defendant] reputation..” (P-004)
- “...and to give the impression that Deputy Speaker imza [sic] is defending the public (which he [Plaintiff] isnt[sic] ).” (P-005)
- “Imza accuses me of various things without any substantial proof, most damning of which is Corruption...” (P-006)
- “...this hearing is nothing more than imza being salty and revengeful [sic] for I [Defendant] have not voted for him as DSoH.” (P-007)
- “this is [sic] a misunderstanding at best. a coup [sic] attempt at worse [sic].” (P-008)
As a result of these statements within the Defendant’s opening statement, the Plaintiff experienced an injury to his reputation and his political career.
I. PARTIES
1. RealImza (Plaintiff and Witness)
2. Plura72 (Defendant)
3. Culls (Witness)
4. Multiman155 (Witness)
II. FACTS
- On September 29th, Plura72 released a press release within the #briefing channel. (P-001)
- This press release contained multiple defamatory and slanderous statements. (P-001)
- Additionally, on September 30th, Plura72 filed his opening statement within the House Plura72 Investigatory Hearing. (P-002)
- This opening statement contained numerous libellous and defamatory statements. (P-003, P-004, P-005, P-006, P-007, P-008)
- As a result of the press release and the opening statement, the Plaintiff’s reputation and trust as a politician with the public and the House of Representatives were harmed.
III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. SLANDER
The No More Defamation Act defines slander as:
The statements made by the Defendant within his press release met this definition.
- The statements in question were all false. The Defendant claimed that the hearing against him was retaliatory (which is defined as: “(of an action) characterized by a desire for revenge.” by the Oxford English Dictionary); however, as it was not “characterized by a desire for revenge”, but instead, was characterized by a desire to investigate alleged corruption, it would not be a retaliotary hearing. Additionally, the Defendant claimed that the Plaintiff had threatened him, yet the Plaintiff has never been convicted or charged with “threats” within the last month (which, per the Criminal Code Act, is defined as: “verbally threatens another player with communication to cause fear or force action”.)
- The statements by the Defendant defamed the Plaintiff’s reputation and profession. An example is when two motions to change the chairperson of the Plura72 hearing (which, at the time, was the Plaintiff) emerged within the House of Representatives, both claiming that the Plaintiff had been antagonistic to the Defendant and had a conflict of interest.
The No More Defamation Act defines libel as:
The opening statement published by the Defendant meets the definition of libel.
- All the statements by the Defendant were unfounded and baseless, thereby making them false.
- The statements caused harm to the Plaintiff’s reputation and his political career.
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
- $40,000 in punitive damages for the outrageous defamatory statements made by the Defendant.
- A public apology within the #politics and #campaign channels.
Witnesses:
Multiman155
Culls
Evidence:
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 4th day of this 10th month of this 2025th year.
