Lawsuit: Dismissed RealImza v. Plura72 [2025] DCR 74

Status
Not open for further replies.
Imza

Imza

Citizen
Deputy Speaker of the House
Representative
Supporter
Aventura Resident
5th Anniversary Popular in the Polls Statesman
RealImza
RealImza
Deputy Speaker
Joined
Mar 14, 2025
Messages
123

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)
All the above statements by the Defendant constitute slander, which, per Section 4(3a) of the No More Defamation Act, is defined as:
A false statement, usually made through either discord or in-game messages, which defames another person’s reputation, business, profession, or organization.
Click to expand...
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)

All the above statements made by the Defendant constitute libel, which, per Section 4(2a) of the No More Defamation Act, is defined 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.
Click to expand...
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
  1. On September 29th, Plura72 released a press release within the #briefing channel. (P-001)
  2. This press release contained multiple defamatory and slanderous statements. (P-001)
  3. Additionally, on September 30th, Plura72 filed his opening statement within the House Plura72 Investigatory Hearing. (P-002)
  4. This opening statement contained numerous libellous and defamatory statements. (P-003, P-004, P-005, P-006, P-007, P-008)
  5. 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:
A false statement, usually made through either discord or in-game messages, which defames another person’s reputation, business, profession, or organization.
Click to expand...
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.
2. LIBEL
The No More Defamation Act 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.
Click to expand...
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.
IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
  1. $40,000 in punitive damages for the outrageous defamatory statements made by the Defendant.
  2. A public apology within the #politics and #campaign channels.

Witnesses:
Multiman155
Culls

Evidence:
P-001.png

P-002.png

P-003.png


P-004.png

P-005.png

P-006.png

P-007.png

P-008.png

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.

 

Writ of Summons

@Plura72, is required to appear before the district Court in the case of RealImza v. Plura72 [2025] DCR 74

In the interest of more efficient Courtroom proceedings, the Court will permit responses to motions without prior Court permission. The deadline for said motions shall be 48 hours.

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.

 
Defendant has failed to appear within the time prescribed

A public defender will not be called as the Defendant is active and has responded to other cases before the Court.
 

Court Order


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - Sua Sponte Dismissal

In reading the Complaint, the Court sees a potentially fatal standing issue in the continued prosecution, parliamentary immunity.

The theory of parliamentary immunity is the assertion that Members of Congress enjoy certain immunities required to discharge their functions without undue influence or interference. Essentially, the Courts and the Executive should not have extensive ability to interfere with Congressional business that occurs within that body’s core constitutional mandate. Members of Congress must use publicly available channels in the conduct of their business, thus the Courts should be interfere with that communication.

The Court believes it would be a violation of the separation of powers to attempt to police conduct within official Congressional business and to police the words of a Representative outside of another cognizable legal theory.


The Plaintiff has 48 hours to brief the Court as to the standing of his claims.


 
Muggy21 said:

Court Order


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - Sua Sponte Dismissal

In reading the Complaint, the Court sees a potentially fatal standing issue in the continued prosecution, parliamentary immunity.

The theory of parliamentary immunity is the assertion that Members of Congress enjoy certain immunities required to discharge their functions without undue influence or interference. Essentially, the Courts and the Executive should not have extensive ability to interfere with Congressional business that occurs within that body’s core constitutional mandate. Members of Congress must use publicly available channels in the conduct of their business, thus the Courts should be interfere with that communication.

The Court believes it would be a violation of the separation of powers to attempt to police conduct within official Congressional business and to police the words of a Representative outside of another cognizable legal theory.


The Plaintiff has 48 hours to brief the Court as to the standing of his claims.


Click to expand...
Your Honour,
I will be quite busy today and tomorrow due to irl responsibilities. Therefore, I request that the court grant me a 32-hour extension for this deadline.
Thank you!
 
Imza said:
Your Honour,
I will be quite busy today and tomorrow due to irl responsibilities. Therefore, I request that the court grant me a 32-hour extension for this deadline.
Thank you!
Click to expand...
You have until 10/11/25 20:37, your time zone.
 
Present, Your Honor. I will be representing Plura72 on behalf of MZLD.

Defendant would like to be heard on the Order to Show Cause.
 

Attachments

  • 1759963248089.png
    1759963248089.png
    57.7 KB · Views: 14
BrownBerry said:
Present, Your Honor. I will be representing Plura72 on behalf of MZLD.

Defendant would like to be heard on the Order to Show Cause.
Click to expand...

Defendant's counsel failed to respond within the 72 hours window. Why should the Court entertain your argument?
 
BrownBerry said:
Present, Your Honor. I will be representing Plura72 on behalf of MZLD.

Defendant would like to be heard on the Order to Show Cause.
Click to expand...
Actually disregard my prior statement. The OSC returnable to the Court is prior to a dispositive motion, the Court sees it in the interest of justice that the Defendant be heard.

I'll hear you on the OSC by 10/11/25 @ 13:37 EST.
 
Last edited:
Deadline for responses is October 11th, 2025 @ 14:00 EST.
Feel free to respond before that!

This modifies all deadlines aforementioned (Court was trying to be helpful, but is now confused with everyone's time zones lol - mb!)
 

Answer to Complaint


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

RealImza
Plaintiff

v.

Plura72
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. Defendant AFFIRMS paragraph 1 of the Complaint.
2. Defendant DENIES paragraph 2 of the Complaint.
3. Defendant AFFIRMS paragraph 3 of the Complaint.
4. Defendant DENIES paragraph 4 of the Complaint.
5. Defendant NEITHER AFFIRMS NOR DENIES paragraph 5 of the Complaint.

II. DEFENCES
Plura72 presents the following defences against the Complaint:

A. The statements are protected from liability.
The Court has already identified that an issue arises as to whether Plaintiff's claims are barred by parliamentary immunity. Defendant will file a brief in support of the Court’s sua sponte motion to dismiss. Defendant believes every statement in the Complaint is protected by the immunity identified by the Court.

B. The statements are protected opinion.
1. Defendant, just like every other citizen of the Commonwealth, has a right to their opinion. Defendant honestly held, and still holds, the opinions expressed in the statements at issue. They are just that: opinions. Clearly, Plaintiff vigorously does not agree with them (enough to bring this suit) but Plaintiff cannot enforce their own opinions on Defendant and through them, the people of the Commonwealth.

2. Even if this Court does not dismiss the Complaint on immunity grounds, it must still recognise that opinions are protected and that the rough-and-tumble of politics sometimes contains abrasive. Defendant will introduce evidence at trial that the statements are (1) opinion; and (2) honestly held by the Defendant.

C. The statements are true.
Alternatively, Defendant claims their statements about RealImza are substantively true. Defendant will produce evidence during trial that each of the statements is true—or is substantially true and is therefore not deserving of a damages award.


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 the 9th day of October 2025.

 

Motion


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

The defence moves that the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s first Prayer for Relief, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges that:

A. Failure to state a claim.
1. Plaintiff does not allege that Defendant’s conduct was "outrageous". The only mention of "outrageous" behaviour is in the one-sentence Prayer for Relief. Making statements that are merely defamatory, without more, is not outrageous behaviour.

2. Therefore, the first Prayer for Relief is insufficiently pleaded and should be dismissed under Rule 5.5 for failure to state a claim.

B. No Evidence of "Reasonable Reputational Harm".
1. This Court held in Anthony_org v. Culls [2025] DCR 67 that a plaintiff bringing a defamation action must "provide sufficient evidence to show that reputational harm occurred" (following the Federal Court's precedent in Vernicia v. RylandW [2025] FCR 5). In JamesTheSlay v. RealImza [2025] DCR 62, this Court held that a plaintiff must prove "reasonable reputational harm" in support of their claim for damages.

2. Plaintiff has only presented a bare assertion of damages. How is the Court supposed to assess the quantum of damages when there is no evidence?

3. For that reason, Plaintiff’s second Prayer for Relief should be dismissed under Rule 2.2 following the JamesTheSlay case, or alternatively under Rule 5.5 following the Anthony_org case.

 

Motion


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO NOLLE PROSEQUI

Your Honour,
Due to limited time and burnout from DC, I move to Nolle Prosequi this case and drop all charges.

Respectfully Submitted,
RealImza

 

Motion


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR LEGAL FEES

The Defendant moves for legal fees to awarded in this case under §9 of the Legal Damages Act:

1. This case was never going to succeed on its merits. The issue of parliamentary immunity, as well as the regular defences to defamation claims, fell overwhelmingly in favour of the Defendant. As soon as this case became unwinnable, RealImza dismissed it. And indeed, as at the time of writing, RealImza has not dismissed his other case where the claims are at least arguable. Plaintiff's motion does not explain why this case, and not any other, is being dismissed.

2. RealImza took this case in order to deny Defendant's constitutional right to say as he believes, and to participate in the legislature's proceedings. It was a SLAPP suit. Costs must be awarded at a high level in order to dissuade others from participating in similar frivilous proceedings.

3. Therefore, Defendant asks the Court to award legal fees at a rate of 30% ($12,000 based on the claim for $40,000). Defendant understands this is not a regular motion, but it is well within the Court's powers under the Legal Damages Act to award legal fees in this situation, and Defendant knows of no other way to claim fees (except by filing a countersuit, which would unnecessarily prolong proceedings and cannot be reasonably accomplished in the time between Plaintiff's motion and the Court's likely dismissal of the proceedings).

 

Court Order


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ORDER - SUA SPONTE DISMISSAL


The Court is an impartial arbiter of justice for parties that approach it, it is not for this Court to create justice for any other purpose. Plaintiff approaches this Court seeking punitive damages for alleged defamatory remarks by Defendant. Defendant responds, albeit late, affirming several theories in defense to Defendant’s conduct.

In closing this controversy, Plaintiff attempted to Nolle Prosequi and Defendant moved for Legal Fees. In its analysis, the Court will briefly touch on several points.

  1. Parliamentary Immunity


    Defendant enjoys parliamentary immunity (I know DC has a Congress, shutup) in his official acts and when he uses tools otherwise used for said acts. When Defendant released a press release and gave statements within the House, he is presumed to be civilly immune from suit for his actions. Nonetheless, if Plaintiff’s complaint is taken with full faith, then a preponderance would show that some of Defendant’s statements were defamatory to Plaintiff. Parliamentary immunity is meant to shield Congresspeople from undue interference from the Courts in its principle constitutional duties, not to act as a shield for slanders. The Court finds that Defendant lacks civil immunity on this defense.

  2. Reputational Harm


    The Court sees no possible way this can be adjudicated prior to Discovery and a full fact finding exercise. The Complaint includes witnesses and would be able to be amended prior to discovery. Long story short, this defense is premature and won’t be addressed by the Court.


  3. On Legal Fees


    Defendant alleges that the Complaint “was never going to succeed on the merits.” On a plain reading and interpretation of said Complaint, the Court finds such an definitive statement to be immensely prejudicial. Furthermore, Defendant accuses Plaintiff of conducting a SLAPP suit; This accusation again is without basis, no injunctive relief nor significant monetary damage is being summarily excised from Defendant (Using the Courts to right a wrong is not inherently obstructive, the Court will not accept a general theory that the mere existence of a lawsuit is in itself prohibitive to public conduct).

    Nonetheless, the Court’s duty is to render justice according to the parties’ conduct. The Plaintiff, however, sought only punitive damages, undoubtedly an extraordinary remedy, without first alleging any ordinary or non-outrageous harm. To claim that an incident was “outrageous,” one must first plead that some lesser, non-outrageous wrong occurred; the Plaintiff skipped this step and leapt straight to outrage without establishing a foundational cause of action. For something to be outrageous, the Court must accept that the underlying action is to be so obvious that a reasonable person can view the harm and immediately accept the controversy as a harm; That does not exist in a defamation case.

    On the other hand, Defendant’s actions in this case must be likewise reviewed. Although not a written rule, a Respondent is invited to answer to a case; Defendant’s counsel stated that an Answer was immediately proposed with judicial economy in mind (the idea of conserving judicial resources). The Court welcomes parties that understand that the Court should be relieved whenever possible, but not to the extent that parties end of giving the Court more work. Defendant was invited to submit a Oppositional Statement to the Court on its OSC for dismissal, he instead submitted three other filings. The Court will thus reduce the award payable to Counsel for this purpose.

  4. Order

In considering all actions in this case, the Court orders the following:


  1. Plaintiff shall pay $1,000.00 in Legal Fees to MZLD.
  2. Case is dismissed without prejudice.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top