Lawsuit: Pending The Redmondt Gazette v Plura72 [2025] DCR 73

[ThePuffer]

Case Filing

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


The Redmondt Gazette (represented by ThePufferOffical)
Plaintiff

v.

Plura72
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

Following a series of investigate articles into Representive Plura regarding alleged misconduct, Plura72, had sent a defamatory image regarding the Redmondt Gazette (see P-001). The image constitutes a clear violation of the No More Defamation act, and has painted the Gazette as a milkman searching to milk Plura, causing immense reputational damage to both the Gazette, as well as it's staff and ownership.

I. PARTIES
1. The Redmondt Gazette (represent by ThePufferOffical)
ThePufferOffical (chairmen of the Gazette, represent by himself)
Plura72

II. FACTS
1. Between October 1st, to October 4th, The Redmondt Gazette (also refered by the name Gazette, or the shorthand TRG) ran a bunch of articles about Plura72 as part of a series of investigate articles
During said time the articles ran, the Gazette attempted to contact Plura numerous times, whenever they ran an opinion article on him, which were ignored
Following the ignored attempts, The Gazette had contacted Plura's vice presidential candidate giving him a deadline to set up an interview, for the final article in the series (See P-002).
A few hours after, Plura72 sent the image described below (P-001) in the #media discord channel
Lastly, Plura72 sent the following video (see P-003 and P-004), in the #discord media channel, this time tagging Chairmen of the Gazette in the message

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Breach of the No More Defamation Act: the act disallows such defamatory speech like the made by the defendant as well as sets the punishment by law
2. Lack of enjoyment in Redmondt: by making such defematory statements, the defendant caused plaintiff lack of enjoyment and caused him to want to play less in the server.
Emotional distress - such defamatory statements caused the plaintiff clear emotional distress in the form of humiliation

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. A written apology from defendant, in which defendant promisess to the court to never defamed plaintiff again
2. All offending messages to be taken down
Consecuntial damage from lost of enjoyment: The Plaintiff seeks 5000$ from the defendant for causing lost of enjoyment
Emotional damages from emotional distress: the plaintiff seeks an additional 5000$ for the emotional distress defendant has caused.
Monterey damages from the defematory statements : an additional 5000$ from the defematory statements made by plaintiff.
Punitive damages: An additional 2500$ in punitive damages due to defendants bully like behavior.


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 Forth day of October 2025

P-001

Spoiler

Spoiler

P-003

Spoiler

P-004

Spoiler

[unfurl="true"]Dropbox

 

[Muggy21]

Writ of Summons

@Plura72, is required to appear before the District Court in the case of The Redmont Gazette v. Plura72

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.

 

[CoolCat]

Your honour,
as a journalist who, among other things, worked with satirical articles as well as other satirical content, I would like to file an amicus curiae brief regarding this case. I hope that this court will grant me the possibility to provide insights on the very polarizing question "Satire or Defamation". Thank you!

 

[pricelessAgrari]

I will be representing Plura72 on this case.

 

[ThePuffer]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR EMERGENCY INJUNCTION

The Plaintiff hereby is requesting Emergency Injunction for the deletion of the defematory content, in order to stop the continuing harm to Plaintiff's reputation

1. Emergency Injunction are supposed to stop harm. It is under plaintiff believes that the exsistance of the defematory content harms the reputation of the Gazette, and as such, plaintiff request for the content to be deleted

 

[ThePuffer]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR EMERGENCY INJUNCTION

The Plaintiff herbey requests a motion for Emergency Injunction for Plaintiff to stop continued release of defematory statements, untill the trial ends.
1. This motion is requested in order to make sure that the trial will be fair for both parties.
2. By continuing to release defematory statements, Defendant hurts the chance for a fair trial, and forces plaintiff to add endless evidence to the trial.
3. Attached below is examples of the continuing release of said defematory statements

P-005

Spoiler

[\Spoiler]

P-006

Spoiler

 

[Muggy21]

View attachment 63540
I will be representing Plura72 on this case.

You shall have 72 hours to Answer to the Complaint.

 

[Muggy21]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR EMERGENCY INJUNCTION

The Plaintiff hereby is requesting Emergency Injunction for the deletion of the defematory content, in order to stop the continuing harm to Plaintiff's reputation

1. Emergency Injunction are supposed to stop harm. It is under plaintiff believes that the exsistance of the defematory content harms the reputation of the Gazette, and as such, plaintiff request for the content to be deleted

Court Order

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ORDER

Denied,

The existence of the harm is the reason Plaintiff* is suing right now. To order its deletion would be immensely prejudicial.

 

[Muggy21]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR EMERGENCY INJUNCTION

The Plaintiff herbey requests a motion for Emergency Injunction for Plaintiff to stop continued release of defematory statements, untill the trial ends.
1. This motion is requested in order to make sure that the trial will be fair for both parties.
2. By continuing to release defematory statements, Defendant hurts the chance for a fair trial, and forces plaintiff to add endless evidence to the trial.
3. Attached below is examples of the continuing release of said defematory statements

P-005

Spoiler

View attachment 63552
[\Spoiler]

P-006

Spoiler

View attachment 63554

Court Order

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ORDER - Plaintiff's EI (#6)

Denied,

Two reasons,

1. Defendant has a right to political communication. Since Defendant is a politician, the Court will defer on injunctive relief before rushing to stifling his speech.
2. In reading Ko531 v. Commonwealth [2024] FCR 33, the Court finds that communications reasonably connected to the Defendant’s legislative functions fall within parliamentary immunity, warranting judicial deference to Congress in the performance of its constitutional duties. (The Court’s decision to defer constitutes a temporary restraint in the exercise of extraordinary relief, not a permanent or conclusive determination on the merits..)

 

[ThePuffer]

Court Order

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ORDER - Plaintiff's EI (#6)

Denied,

Two reasons,

1. Defendant has a right to political communication. Since Defendant is a politician, the Court will defer on injunctive relief before rushing to stifling his speech.
2. In reading Ko531 v. Commonwealth [2024] FCR 33, the Court finds that communications reasonably connected to the Defendant’s legislative functions fall within parliamentary immunity, warranting judicial deference to Congress in the performance of its constitutional duties. (The Court’s decision to defer constitutes a temporary restraint in the exercise of extraordinary relief, not a permanent or conclusive determination on the merits..)

Your honor, from what Plaintiff can tell the attached case has nothing to do with Political Communications. Was the case attached by any chance the wrong case?

 

[ThePuffer]

View attachment 63540
I will be representing Plura72 on this case.

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISCHARGE
The Plaintiff is herbey requesting that the Defense Counsel by dissmised and for the defendant to find a new Lawyer to represent him.
The motion is submitted on the following grounds:
1. Looking at evidence P-002, the conversation held between Plaintiff, is with Defense Counsel
2. Considering fact (1.) Defense Counsel is a potential witness in the case.
3. Due to fact (2.) by having Defense Counsel continue to represent the Defendant, while also being a potential witness in the case Plaintiff believes that there is a clear conflict of interest. For those reasons Plaintiff requests the removal of Defense Counsel, and for him to be replaced with a lawyer who is unrelated to the case at hand
[\motion]

 

[Muggy21]

Your honor, from what Plaintiff can tell the attached case has nothing to do with Political Communications. Was the case attached by any chance the wrong case?

Wrong case included, nonetheless the Court's view doesn't change. You're asking for extraordinary relief for an action that may be reasonably construed to be political communication.

 

[ThePuffer]

Wrong case included, nonetheless the Court's view doesn't change. You're asking for extraordinary relief for an action that may be reasonably construed to be political communication.

Would the court be able to include the right case so plaintiff would be able to learn from his mistakes?

 

[Muggy21]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISCHARGE
The Plaintiff is herbey requesting that the Defense Counsel by dissmised and for the defendant to find a new Lawyer to represent him.
The motion is submitted on the following grounds:
1. Looking at evidence P-002, the conversation held between Plaintiff, is with Defense Counsel
2. Considering fact (1.) Defense Counsel is a potential witness in the case.
3. Due to fact (2.) by having Defense Counsel continue to represent the Defendant, while also being a potential witness in the case Plaintiff believes that there is a clear conflict of interest. For those reasons Plaintiff requests the removal of Defense Counsel, and for him to be replaced with a lawyer who is unrelated to the case at hand
[\motion]

P-002 shows a conversation between yourself and pricelessAgrari. If the Court accepts that pricelessAgrari is a unsummoned witness and should be dismissed, the Court will likewise require new representation for the Gazette. The same image you point to can be used to impeach you.


Denied.

 

[Muggy21]

Your honour,
as a journalist who, among other things, worked with satirical articles as well as other satirical content, I would like to file an amicus curiae brief regarding this case. I hope that this court will grant me the possibility to provide insights on the very polarizing question "Satire or Defamation". Thank you!

Proceed, you shall have 24 hours.

 

[ThePuffer]

P-002 shows a conversation between yourself and pricelessAgrari. If the Court accepts that pricelessAgrari is a unsummoned witness and should be dismissed, the Court will likewise require new representation for the Gazette. The same image you point to can be used to impeach you.


Denied.

Your honor, to clarify that plaintiff understands, the claim here is that due to the Gazette being represented with a: "third party lawyer", the conversation can be used to impeach the lawyer of the Gazette, as he could be a probable witness?

 

[Muggy21]

Your honor, to clarify that plaintiff understands, the claim here is that due to the Gazette being represented with a: "third party lawyer", the conversation can be used to impeach the lawyer of the Gazette, as he could be a probable witness?

Counsel, you are throwing stones in a glass house. You’re arguing that opposing counsel’s statements make them a witness, yet by the same logic, your own involvement could subject you to the same challenge.

if you have additional remarks or wish to question the Court, do so in a motion; The Court is not a classroom.

 

[ThePuffer]

Wrong case included, nonetheless the Court's view doesn't change. You're asking for extraordinary relief for an action that may be reasonably construed to be political communication.

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION
The court cited the wrong case in it's court order. After Plaintiff's counsel clarified that to the court, the court still didn't sent the correct case to plaintiff counsel, though it continued to maintain its position.
It is for those reasons that Plaintiff filles this motion asking of the court to send the talked about case so that Plaintiff counsel could learn from it and see if it is to do with the current case

 

[Muggy21]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION
The court cited the wrong case in it's court order. After Plaintiff's counsel clarified that to the court, the court still didn't sent the correct case to plaintiff counsel, though it continued to maintain its position.
It is for those reasons that Plaintiff filles this motion asking of the court to send the talked about case so that Plaintiff counsel could learn from it and see if it is to do with the current case

Corrected Case:
see xEndeavour v. Commonwealth [2023] SCR 22. The SCR deferred on interfering with a political situation, in where political communication is undoubtedly involved.

Counselor, this is not an invitation for a conversation. If you respond to this thread asking the Court to explain how this applies, I will hold you in Contempt.

 

[ThePuffer]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF REDMONT
MOTION TO RECONSIDER.
The Plaintiff hereby requests of the court to reconsider it's second motion for Emergency Injunction (EI). According to the court's Order (to which this message responds) there are two reasons to which the court denies plaintiffs request for EI.
The first is the defendats right to political communication. Though Defendant has a right to political communication (as is underlined in the constitution), Plaintiff refars to section 32 of the constitution which says: "The Redmont Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it, subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law that are justified in a free and democratic society." Due to the No More Defamation Act disallowing defematory speech, and due to the above mentioned section, Plaintiff believes that the right to political communication is irrelevant here.
The second reason regards the case that was attached. Though the court corrected the case that was attached following plaintiffs motion for clarification, the new case, in Plaintiffs view, is not relevant to the case at hand, due to the following reasons:
In the case that was attached (xEndeavour v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2023] SCR 22) according to the court:

the SCR defared on intefiring with a political situation, in where political communication is undoubtedly involved

In the case the SCR indeed defared on intefiring with the issue, stating many reasons, none of which, are political communication. The closet argument the court stated regarding Political Speech, is in the court's majority opinion regarding the nature of the case in which the supreme court claimed

The Supreme Court is supposed to be an apolitical body. The Supreme Court as a majority does not feel comfortable deciding on a case that has major ramifications within the House of Representatives. While we do not disagree that we may have the power to do so in certain circumstances, as we set out in reason one, we do not believe we have the power in this instance. If we were to make a decision it would immensely swing politics one way or the other. This goes against our apolitical creed, thus we're deciding this case in favor of the people to let them decide.

The claim the SCR made was more to do with the courts apolitically than it is to do with the right to political communication. With that being said even if the case was to do with political communication, the right to political communication in plaintiffs opinion, was lost when the defendant breached the law (No More Defamation Act)
The claim that the communication made by the defendant is reasonably connected to defendant's legislative function, in Plaintiffs opinion is wrong here as well, as the actions defendant has made have nothing to due with any legislation or other acts that have to daily job of the representive. To claim that the actions are to do with defendats role as a representative, could easily set a precedent that any statement made by a representative is to do with their daily job, even if the statement has broken the law.

 

[Muggy21]

Court Order

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ORDER - Motion to Reconsider #20

Denied,


As to Plaintiff’s point one, a Court has yet to find a violation of the No More Defamation Act, so the assertion that “political communication is irrelevant here” is prejudicial. Furthermore, the Court wasn’t presented any recognizable argument as to how the communication in question is even defamatory.

As to Plaintiff’s second point, the majority of the argument is selectively quoting and misapprehending the case law. End v. CW [2023] SCR 22 is meant to reaffirm the principle that the judiciary must exercise restraint in matters closely intertwined with political discourse.

Furthermore, according to Plaintiff’s complaint, the Gazette approached Plura’s “vice presidential candidate” after Plura72 ignored the Gazette’s rapprochements. The Plaintiff’s argument that there is no political communication present in Plura72’s conduct during the controversy is prejudicial; the Court finds no basis to reconsider its prior ruling.

 

[CoolCat]

Proceed, you shall have 24 hours.

Your honour,
because of surprising real life circumstances I will rescind my request. I won't be able to file the brief in time and do not want to disturb the case additionally. Thank you!