Lawsuit: Adjourned The_Donuticus v. GER et al. [2022] SCR 18

[Matthew100x]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


The_Donuticus (Represented by Counsel from DouCo Law & Partners and Co-Counsel from Prodigium | Attorneys at Law)
Plaintiff

v.

Reverse Class Action:
GER, as an Organization, et al.

• LieutenantDerp
• Yeet_Boy
• Jontaa
• Ultrapvpnoob
• Xtub12345
• Banaek5
• OakWinner

Defendant


COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

Your honors,

Ask yourself what is the most important aspect of a Democracy? Is it freedom of speech? Is it the right to vote? Is it freedom of the press? Your honor, in my mind it is a willingness and acceptance on the part of all involved to play fair - to let Democracy, the will of the people decide the election results. Without that basis we cannot have a Democracy, we can only grasp at it. So we have laws, laws that stop politically motivated actors from subverting our Democracy, we have laws against corruption, against fraud, against espionage. Your honors, the members of the Galactic Empire of Redmont care not for these laws, the clues in the name really - they don’t believe in Democracy, they see politics as a war, they believe that they can win power through force of arms and so called domination. I believe today this court will show them how wrong they are.

As the Plaintiff I believe that I have undeniable evidence that the members of the GER, included in our list of Defendants, engaged in activities with the goal of using fraud and espionage to subvert Democracy and achieve an autocracy with them on top. They started this goal by attempting to install themselves as spies in a rival political party with the goal of taking it down from the inside. I have no doubt once presented with the evidence this court will grant the remedies we prescribe for the good of our Democracy and the future of our nation.


I. PARTIES
1. The_Donuticus
2. The Former MINT Party
3. GER as an Organization.
4. LieutenantDerp
5. Yeet_Boy
6. Jontaa
7. Ultrapvpnoob
8. Xtub12345
9. Banaek5
10. OakWinner


II. FACTS
1. Request to reform MINT was submitted with staff permission on October 1st, 2022 by the Plaintiff (Exhibit A, https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/the_donuticus-political-party-application.14628/).

2. That same day, GER gathers interest in MINT about it being a threat to their party. A plan is formed in an 11 page memo written by LieutenantDerp and approved by Jontaa. It is distributed to GER members to i) Infiltrate MINT, ii) Destabilize MINT, ii) Assassinate the Plaintiff (Exhibit B, Attached).

3. A rally is planned and organized by Donut, according to their memo, to prepare the assassination of the Plaintiff (Exhibit B Page 8, Attached).

4. The plan is discovered, the GER abandons MINT and Donut shuts down the party after gathering evidence. GER leaders declare Mint dead because of it’s operation (Exhibit C and D, Attached).

5. The GER claims responsibility by giving their memo to the AG. LieutenantDerp is promptly charged with conspiracy to commit a misdeameanor - murder (Exhibit E, Lawsuit: Adjourned - Commonwealth of Redmont v. LieutenantDerp99 [2022] DCR 48).

6. LieutenantDerp proceeds to have a fight with The_Donuticus and makes a false statement against him, saying “Here's the thing. Everyone thinks I'm the bad guy. I get it. But lets not play favorites because I suspect everyone loves Donuticus” (Exhibit F, Attached).

7. The GER released a public News Statement claiming responsibility (Exhibit G, Attached).

8. LieutenantDerp pleads guilty to conspiracy to murder Donut and in essence pleads guilty to orchestrating the plot (Exhibit E, Judge’s verdict. Lawsuit: Adjourned - Commonwealth of Redmont v. LieutenantDerp99 [2022] DCR 48).

9. Campaign Espionage, is defined as “Any parties participating in or accessory to the gathering, infiltration, or compromise of any sensitive information related to a political campaign that has not already been released to the public, under the instruction of another campaign or entity working in association with another campaign” (Exhibit H, Act of Congress - Campaign Espionage Act).

10. The Definition of Fraud is “an intentional or reckless misrepresentation or omission of an important fact, especially a material one, to a victim who justifiably relies on that misrepresentation; and the victim party or entity suffered actual, quantifiable injury or damages as a result of the misrepresentation or omission.” (Exhibit I, Act of Congress - White-Collar Crack Down Act).

11. The Definition of Identity Fraud is “(4) Identity Fraud, shall be defined as; “The act of fraudulently misrepresenting yourself as someone else or fraudulently claiming you have authority where you don't” (Exhibit I, Act of Congress - White-Collar Crack Down Act)
Sub definition is: “(b) False Credentials, which shall be defined as "The Act of fraudulently misrepresenting yourself or someone else as having a certification, commendation or another type of credential for personal gain." (Exhibit I, Act of Congress - White-Collar Crack Down Act)

12. The White Collar Crime Act Section 8(2) requires that any player found guilty of fraud or attempted fraud shall receive up to 10min of jail time as well as a fine of a minimum of 100$ to a maximum of 50.000$ as well as being required to compensate the defrauded parties. (Exhibit I, Act of Congress - White-Collar Crack Down Act)

13. The Definition of Slander is “A purposeful false statement of a player to cause damage to that player's reputation.” (Exhibit J, Act of Congress - Defamation Act October 2020).

14. Campaign Espionage is not considered a crime under the Crime Severity Act not under it’s authorizing statute (Exhibit K, Act of Congress - Campaign Espionage Act)

15, All other evidence shall be listed here for each of the individual defendants to corroborate and support all evidence. You will see members infiltrating, speaking with the plaintiff, taking a pledge of oath to the plaintiff’s party and attempting to get his trust all while actually being a member of the GER attempting to destroy MINT from the inside (Exhibit L, Donut V. GER Evidence - Google Drive). Please note, there is overlapping evidence, we’ve attached only the evidence that is relevant to each individual even if it is repeated across the defendants.

16. Because Jontaa is a Representative and a charge threatens to remove him from his position, this case is within Supreme Court Jurisdiction.

17. Yeet_Boy is the leader of the party. His party offers benefits to pay for legal fees and any and all fines/damages his party members commit while on "mission" (Exhibit M, attached). I would like to note his current balance and the plots that he owns (Exhibit N, O, P, Q, R, And S, attached). He is also a member of JPM Credit Union and likely has assets with them (Exhibit T, attached).


III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. In engaging in the plot to take down MINT. The GER as an organization committed Campaign Espionage and Fraud. By directing its members to infiltrate, gather, and compromise MINT, it threatened and disrupted the political party. In essence destroying on the inside. By intentionally sending its members to misrepresent themselves and omit the fact that they were GER members, they defrauded MINT and disrupted the political party to the point that it was destroyed. By directing its members by stating that the GER will pay for members’ legal fees and fines for any wrongdoing they do while on “mission”.

2. In writing the plot to take down MINT. LieutenantDerp as an individual committed Campaign Espionage and Identity Fraud. By directing GER’s members to infiltrate, gather, and compromise MINT, LieutenantDerp threatened and disrupted the political party. By posing as a member of MINT and not disclosing that they had not relinquished their position as a GER leader, which would have made them ineligible for membership with MINT.
Additionally, LieutenantDerp as an individual committed Slander against Donut by stating “Here's the thing. Everyone thinks I'm the bad guy. I get it. But lets not play favorites because I suspect everyone loves Donuticus”. This is an untrue statement.

3. In leading the plot to take down MINT. Yeet_Boy as an individual committed Campaign Espionage and Identity Fraud. By directing GER’s members to infiltrate, gather, and compromise Mint, Yeet_Boy threatened and disrupted the political party. sending its members to misrepresent themselves and omit the fact that they were GER members, they defrauded MINT and disrupted the political party to the point that it was destroyed. By also misrepresenting his position on merging the parties, Yeet_Boy mislead the plaintiff into quantifiable injury by destabilizing his party.

4. In approving the plot to take down MINT. Jontaa as an individual committed Campaign Espionage and Identity Fraud. By directing GER’s members to infiltrate, gather, and compromise Mint, Jontaa threatened and disrupted the political party. By posing as a member of MINT and not disclosing that they had not relinquished their position as a GER leader, which would have made them ineligible for membership with MINT.

5, In assisting with the plot to take down MINT, Ultrapvpnoob as an individual committed Campaign Espionage and Identity Fraud. As a GER member, Ultrapvpnoob infiltrated, gathered, and compromised, threatening and disrupting the political party. By posing as a member of MINT and not disclosing that they had not relinquished their position as a GER member, which would have made them ineligible for membership with MINT.

6. In assisting with the plot to take down MINT, Xtub12345 as an individual committed Campaign Espionage and Identity Fraud. As a GER member, Xtub12345 infiltrated, gathered, and compromised, threatening and disrupting the political party. By posing as a member of MINT and not disclosing that they had not relinquished their position as a GER member, which would have made them ineligible for membership with MINT.

7. In assisting with the plot to take down MINT, Banaek5 as an individual committed Campaign Espionage and Identity Fraud. As a GER member, Banaek5 infiltrated, gathered, and compromised, threatening and disrupting the political party. By posing as a member of MINT and not disclosing that they had not relinquished their position as a GER member, which would have made them ineligible for membership with MINT.

8. In assisting with the plot to take down MINT, OakWinner as an individual committed Campaign Espionage and Identity Fraud. As a GER member, OakWinner infiltrated, gathered, and compromised, threatening and disrupting the political party. By posing as a member of MINT and not disclosing that they had not relinquished their position as a GER member, which would have made them ineligible for membership with MINT.

9. The white-collar crime act allows “Any party or entity can file a civil suit against a party or an entity if they believe the party they are suing has violated a white-collar crime and they have sustained damages because of this.”

10. White-Collar Crime Act allows for “Any party or entity found liable for fraud can receive punitive damages up to 10.000$ for a player and up to 100.000$ for a company. As well as being required to compensate, the defrauded party, which includes attorney fees. A judge may also grant extra punitive damages to a company if they believe that said company is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and most likely would be found criminally guilty if that was possible.”

11. The GER offers to pay for the legal fees of its members for any crimes they do while on duty.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. GER = $105,000 dollars to be compensated to the plaintiff. (Campaign Espionage + White Collar Crime Fraud(The GER is a registered Political Party and Company)).
2. LieutenantDerp = $20,000 dollars dollars to be compensated to the plaintiff + removal and exclusion of all parties involved from public office for a period of two months. (Campaign Espionage Act + White Collar Crime Act 4B Identity Fraud + Slander)
3 Yeet_Boy = $15,000 dollars dollars to be compensated to the plaintiff + removal and exclusion of all parties involved from public office for a period of two months. (Campaign Espionage Act + White Collar Crime Act 4B Identity Fraud)
4. Jontaa = $15,000 dollars dollars to be compensated to the plaintiff + removal and exclusion of all parties involved from public office for a period of two months. (Campaign Espionage Act + White Collar Crime Act 4B Identity Fraud)
5. Ultrapvpnoob = $15,000 dollars dollars to be compensated to the plaintiff + removal and exclusion of all parties involved from public office for a period of two months. (Campaign Espionage + White Collar Crime Act 4B Identity Fraud or Accomplice to this Crime)
6. Xtub12345 = $15,000 dollars dollars to be compensated to the plaintiff + removal and exclusion of all parties involved from public office for a period of two months. (Campaign Espionage + White Collar Crime Act 4B Identity Fraud or Accomplice to this Crime)
7. Banaek5 = $15,000 dollars dollars to be compensated to the plaintiff + removal and exclusion of all parties involved from public office for a period of two months. (Campaign Espionage + White Collar Crime Act 4B Identity Fraud or Accomplice to this Crime)
8. OakWinner = $15,000 dollars dollars to be compensated to the plaintiff + removal and exclusion of all parties involved from public office for a period of two months. (Campaign Espionage + White Collar Crime Act 4B Identity Fraud or Accomplice to this Crime)
8. Legal Fees of $35,000 for litigating spread amongst all defendants for a total of $3,750 per defendant dollars to be compensated to the plaintiff.
10. Extra Punitive Damages of $100,000 spread amongst all defendants for a total of $12,500 dollars per defendant dollars to be compensated to the plaintiff.
Total of $335,000 dollars across all defendants dollars to be compensated to the plaintiff.

 

[Matthew100x]

Exhibit N was not able to be attached on initial filing.

 

[Matthew100x]

Exhibit T was not able to be attached on initial filing.

 

[Krix]

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

The Galactic Empire of Redmont (GER) @YeetBoy1872325 is required to appear before the Supreme Court in the case of The_Donuticus v. GER, as an Organization, et al. [2022] SCR 18

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.​

 

[Dartanboy]

Hello, your honors.

I, and my associates at Solid Law, will be representing the GER in this case:

However, request a 48-hour extension (Saturday at 9:50 PM, CST) as I have two essays due on Friday, as well as an exam tomorrow.

Thank you.

 

[Dartanboy]

Additionally, we request that the Plaintiff's counsel does not make light of Court Rules & Procedures, and provide proof that the Plaintiff consented for this lawyer to represent them in court.

 

[Matthew100x]

I and Prodigium | Attorneys at Law represent Donut in this case.

 

[Krix]

Hello, your honors.

I, and my associates at Solid Law, will be representing the GER in this case:
View attachment 28956

However, request a 48-hour extension (Saturday at 9:50 PM, CST) as I have two essays due on Friday, as well as an exam tomorrow.

Thank you.

A 36 hour extension is granted to defence from now, in which time they must answer the complaint.

 

[Matthew100x]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

MOTION TO RECONSIDER

Justification for Motion:

1. The Defendant stated that their response was “fully drafted and peer-reviewed” (Emphasis mine).
2. The Defendant then stated that their response was “well it’s almost done”.
3. The Defendant then again stated “We found like 2 flaws in our last review and hes gonna fix it when he gets back”.
4. The defendant states that “I hadnt re-read it when i said it was fully finished But it is VERY close” (Emphasis mine).
5. The Defendant then stated that “Like i said, though it will not take much time to complete, my lawyer doesnt have much time to complete it” (Emphasis mine).

Your Honors, this does not sound like someone who needs an extension. They’ve had almost 24 hour now to draft a response and as of the morning of 10/12/22, the defendant is quoted multiple times making statements that his draft is almost completed. Therefore I request reconsideration of the granted extension of time.

DATED: This 13th day of October, 2022

 

[Dartanboy]

Hello, your honors.

I apologize for the lack of formatting as I am on my phone.

I request to respond to the motion. I have only two sentences to say.

 

[Krix]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

MOTION TO RECONSIDER

Justification for Motion:

1. The Defendant stated that their response was “fully drafted and peer-reviewed” (Emphasis mine).
2. The Defendant then stated that their response was “well it’s almost done”.
3. The Defendant then again stated “We found like 2 flaws in our last review and hes gonna fix it when he gets back”.
4. The defendant states that “I hadnt re-read it when i said it was fully finished But it is VERY close” (Emphasis mine).
5. The Defendant then stated that “Like i said, though it will not take much time to complete, my lawyer doesnt have much time to complete it” (Emphasis mine).

Your Honors, this does not sound like someone who needs an extension. They’ve had almost 24 hour now to draft a response and as of the morning of 10/12/22, the defendant is quoted multiple times making statements that his draft is almost completed. Therefore I request reconsideration of the granted extension of time.

DATED: This 13th day of October, 2022

The Court will be rejecting the Plantiffs Motion to reconsider, Whether or not the plaintiff claims they need less time or not outside of this Court Room the Court will not take that as being an indication of the Defence waving their extension.

Should they wish to do this they should do so in Court.

The Court granted the extension to the Defense based on the size and importance of the case and recognises that articulating a defence in such a situation can be a lengthy process. The Court also recognises that many people have lives outside the Commonwealth and tries in every instance to facilitate this as Real life takes priority and may prevent a party from working on their defence.

 

[Dartanboy]

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

The_Donuticus
Plaintiff

v.

GER, as an organization, et. al (apologies if I misspelled any of your names)

• LieutenantDerp99
• Yeet_Boy
• Jontaa
• ultrapvpnoob
• xtub12345
• bananek5
• OakWinner

(Solid Law Firm representing the GER organization)
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. AFFIRM the Plaintiff requested to reform MINT with staff permission on October 1, 2022.
2. DISPUTE that the 11-page memo was approved by Jontaa.
3. DISPUTE that the plan was to infiltrate MINT, destabilize MINT, and assassinate the Plaintiff. (In reality, the plan was specifically to infiltrate and destabilize MINT’s military – not the organization as a whole – and assassinate the Plaintiff).
4. AFFIRM A rally is planned by Donut, according to the memo, to prepare for the assassination of the Plaintiff.
5. AFFIRM The plan was discovered.
6. DISPUTE that the Plaintiff shut down the party. In fact, MINT was never accepted as a political party.
7. AFFIRM that the GER claims responsibility for the actions taken.
8. AFFIRM that LieutenantDerp99 pled guilty to conspiracy to commit a misdemeanor in relation to this operation.
9. DISPUTE that LieutenantDerp99 made a false statement against the Plaintiff by saying, “Here's the thing. Everyone thinks I'm the bad guy. I get it. But lets not play favorites because I suspect everyone loves Donuticus”.
10. AFFIRM that the GER claimed responsibility in the News Statement. Although it is worth mentioning that this statement was specifically talking about the Military Victory against MINT, and had nothing to do with the (non-existent) political party.
11. AFFIRM that LieutenantDerp99 pled guilty to conspiracy to murder Donut, however, DISPUTE that he pled guilty to orchestrating the plot.
12. AFFIRM that the various definitions provided by the Plaintiff’s facts 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14 are true, however, there seems to be a typo/grammatical error in Fact 14 that could cause some confusion (or perhaps I am misunderstanding).
13. AFFIRM that many of the individual defendants infiltrated MINT*, spoke with the Plaintiff, pledged an oath to the plaintiff’s party*, and attempted to gain his trust. DISPUTE that they were all members of the GER attempting to destroy MINT* from the inside, primarily because you cannot destroy a political party that does not exist. Additionally, they were not trying to destroy MINT* from the inside. They were trying to murder the Plaintiff and prove the GER has a better military.
* MINT was not an actual political party at the time
14. AFFIRM that Jontaa is a representative and the Plaintiff is alleging a charge that would remove Jontaa from their seat in public office.
15. AFFIRM that Yeet_Boy is the leader of the GER. AFFIRM that the GER offers to pay legal fees for its military members, however, DISPUTE that this is the case for political party members.

II. DEFENSES
First of all, I will provide arguments and point to evidence to back up the Defense’s side of the Disputed Facts:

1. The 11-page memo was NOT approved by Jontaa.
We have no evidence that he did not approve it, but the Plaintiff has no evidence that he did, and the Plaintiff has the burden of proof here.

2. The plan was specifically to infiltrate and destabilize MINT’s military – NOT the organization* as a whole – and assassinate the Plaintiff
This is supported by many quotes from the 11-page memo (Plaintiff’s Exhibit B):

• “The first step of weakening them is one many of our members have already covered, which is getting into the Army.”
• “Once you get in, you will join the Destabilization unit in slowly weakening the Army.”
• “As soon as he is dead, you will take a screenshot of his body. Send this to the Grand Admiral. Your mission is complete. All divisions will have succeeded. This is the very last step in destabilizing their Army.”

If you actually read the 11-page memo, you’ll see that “politics” are never mentioned. “Policies” are never mentioned. The sole purpose of this operation was to destabilize a military unit and murder the Plaintiff – for which LieutenantDerp99 has already been charged – and then prove to everyone that the GER’s military was better.
* MINT was not an actual political party or organization at the time

3. The Plaintiff did NOT shut down the party.
Your honors, MINT never was a political party. The Plaintiff withdrew his application before it was approved (see Plaintiff’s Exhibit A: https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/the_donuticus-political-party-application.14628/). The Plaintiff chose to do this of their own free will and you cannot shut something down if it never existed.

4. LieutenantDerp99 did NOT make a false statement against the Plaintiff by saying, “Here's the thing. Everyone thinks I'm the bad guy. I get it. But lets not play favorites because I suspect everyone loves Donuticus.”
There is only one part of this quote that even mentions the Plaintiff: “I suspect everyone loves Donuticus.” Your honors, this is a statement about LieutenantDerp99’s thoughts and feelings. Thus, it is not false (or at least, it is impossible to prove that it is false).

5. LieutenantDerp99 did NOT plead guilty to orchestrating the plot.
While LieutenantDerp99 certainly did orchestrate this, he did not plead guilty to orchestrating the plot, as orchestrating the plot in and of itself was not illegal – only a small portion of it (the conspiracy to commit murder) – was illegal (and LieutenantDerp99 did plead guilty to that). See the Plaintiff’s Exhibit E (Lawsuit: Adjourned - Commonwealth of Redmont v. LieutenantDerp99 [2022] DCR 48). One cannot plead guilty to something that is legal (and thus carries no guilt).

6. The GER does NOT pay legal fees for political party members unless they are also part of the GER’s military.
The evidence provided is a screenshot from #imperial-benefits which is describing the benefits of joining the GER’s military.

Your honors, we were considering also rebutting every single one of the Plaintiff’s Claims for Relief, however, we believe that is better suited for the Opening Statement. The original complaint, and the answer to the complaint, should only establish the facts of the case and make clear what both parties want from each other. This is fundamental to the concept of justice in order to restore peace and goodwill between the parties of this case.

III. COUNTER PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Defendant seeks the following from the Plaintiff:
1. $30,000 in legal fees
Your honors, we also request that if only a small portion of the Plaintiff’s 17 criminal allegations are found to be legitimate, that a partial prayer for relief still be granted to the Defendant, as if many of these allegations are found to be illegitimate, the Plaintiff should still be required to pay the Defendant’s legal fees for defending against those illegitimate allegations.

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 14th day of October 2022

 

[Dartanboy]

Your honors,

I would also like to mention that this (Friday) evening, through Sunday morning, I will be without Internet.
I can't imagine I would have a deadline that requires me to speak during this time, however, if I am, please be aware, and I request that I be given until Monday at noon (CST) to respond if I am requested to during the weekend.

Thank you.

 

[Dartanboy]

Good day, your honors.

The Defendant would like to participate in an in-game trial, if the Plaintiff is willing.

Thank you.

 

[Krix]

Does the Plaintiff wish to have an in-game trial?

 

[Matthew100x]

We do not your honor.

 

[Krix]

Very well,
The Supreme Court will now move to opening statements. The Plaintiff will have 48 hours to deliver their opening statements to the court.

 

[Matthew100x]

Your honors,

The defendants have agreed to most of the facts of the case. They want to try and prove that MINT was not a political party but instead a military. I will methodically deny this and prove why the charges against the GER and it's members continue to hold true.


Review of the Answer to Complaint:

1. AFFIRM the Plaintiff requested to reform MINT with staff permission on October 1, 2022.

Defendant affirms this fact.

2. DISPUTE that the 11-page memo was approved by Jontaa.

Defendant Disputes this fact, despite the memo being addressed to Jontaa.

3. DISPUTE that the plan was to infiltrate MINT, destabilize MINT, and assassinate the Plaintiff. (In reality, the plan was specifically to infiltrate and destabilize MINT’s military – not the organization as a whole – and assassinate the Plaintiff).

Defendant affirms this fact in its entirety, as the distinction between MINT’s military and MINT the party is nil, if any at all. The military and party are the same thing.

4. AFFIRM A rally is planned by Donut, according to the memo, to prepare for the assassination of the Plaintiff.

Defendant affirms this fact.

5. AFFIRM The plan was discovered.

Defendant affirms this fact.

6. DISPUTE that the Plaintiff shut down the party. In fact, MINT was never accepted as a political party.

Defendant disputes this fact.

7. AFFIRM that the GER claims responsibility for the actions taken.

Defendant affirms this fact.

8. AFFIRM that LieutenantDerp99 pled guilty to conspiracy to commit a misdemeanor in relation to this operation.

Defendant affirms this fact.

9. DISPUTE that LieutenantDerp99 made a false statement against the Plaintiff by saying, “Here's the thing. Everyone thinks I'm the bad guy. I get it. But lets not play favorites because I suspect everyone loves Donuticus”.

Defendant disputes this fact.

10. AFFIRM that the GER claimed responsibility in the News Statement. Although it is worth mentioning that this statement was specifically talking about the Military Victory against MINT, and had nothing to do with the (non-existent) political party.

Defendant affirms this fact in its entirety, as there is no distinction between MINT the military and MINT the party.

11. AFFIRM that LieutenantDerp99 pled guilty to conspiracy to murder Donut, however, DISPUTE that he pled guilty to orchestrating the plot.

Defendant affirms this fact and affirms that LieutenantDerp orchestrated the plot as a defense.

12. AFFIRM that the various definitions provided by the Plaintiff’s facts 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14 are true, however, there seems to be a typo/grammatical error in Fact 14 that could cause some confusion (or perhaps I am misunderstanding).

Defendant affirms the fact

13. AFFIRM that many of the individual defendants infiltrated MINT*, spoke with the Plaintiff, pledged an oath to the plaintiff’s party*, and attempted to gain his trust. DISPUTE that they were all members of the GER attempting to destroy MINT* from the inside, primarily because you cannot destroy a political party that does not exist. Additionally, they were not trying to destroy MINT* from the inside. They were trying to murder the Plaintiff and prove the GER has a better military.
* MINT was not an actual political party at the time

Defendant affirms the plan, disputes they attempted to destroy the party on the theory that MINT was not a political party. It is important to note the defendant affirms the statement and specifically how the plaintiff's claims are disputed.

14. AFFIRM that Jontaa is a representative and the Plaintiff is alleging a charge that would remove Jontaa from their seat in public office.

Defendant affirms this fact and Supreme Court jurisdiction.

15. AFFIRM that Yeet_Boy is the leader of the GER. AFFIRM that the GER offers to pay legal fees for its military members, however, DISPUTE that this is the case for political party members.

Defendant affirms this fact. It disputes that this is the case for Political Party members, however, Evidence shows that most, if not all, members who partook in this plan were both members of the military and party.


Review of the Defenses:

1. The 11-page memo was NOT approved by Jontaa.
We have no evidence that he did not approve it, but the Plaintiff has no evidence that he did, and the Plaintiff has the burden of proof here.

The defendant’s argument is predicated on the fact that they believe that there is no evidence to this theory. Their argument specifically does not preclude the possibility that Jontaa approved the plan, they merely state that he did not. However, LieutenantDerp being Jontaa’s subordinate, the plan was submitted to Jontaa, as stated directly by the memo. There are only two people who could have approved the plan, Jontaa or Yeet_Boy. Considering that Jontaa was LieutenantDerp’s direct superior, I am led to believe that it was him who approved the plan, though it is also possible that Yeet_Boy approved the plan. Our burden of proof is a balance of probabilities.

2. The plan was specifically to infiltrate and destabilize MINT’s military – NOT the organization* as a whole – and assassinate the Plaintiff
This is supported by many quotes from the 11-page memo (Plaintiff’s Exhibit B):
“The first step of weakening them is one many of our members have already covered, which is getting into the Army.”
“Once you get in, you will join the Destabilization unit in slowly weakening the Army.”
“As soon as he is dead, you will take a screenshot of his body. Send this to the Grand Admiral. Your mission is complete. All divisions will have succeeded. This is the very last step in destabilizing their Army.”
If you actually read the 11-page memo, you’ll see that “politics” are never mentioned. “Policies” are never mentioned. The sole purpose of this operation was to destabilize a military unit and murder the Plaintiff – for which LieutenantDerp99 has already been charged – and then prove to everyone that the GER’s military was better.
* MINT was not an actual political party or organization at the time

This is an interesting argument that the attorney for the defendant makes, only in that it is a theory that tries to make plausible sense of the situation to his client’s favor. Unfortunately for Counsel Dartanmann, his theory misrepresents the situation. Mint is a political party. As can clearly be seen in the plaintiff’s MINT party application (Fact 1, Defendant affirmed). Operatives from the GER were listed and believed to be members of MINT because they misrepresented themselves purposely to gain access (Defendant 13th affirmed fact). Evidence seen in the Google Drives (Fact 15), under the evidence folders for LieutentantDerp, Jontaa, Ultrapvpnoob, xtub12345, and Banaek5. They all made oaths affirming their loyalty for the MINT party. All five were listed under MINT’s party membership, adhering to the oaths they made to the MINT party. By enacting their plan, destabilizing the party, and then leaving the organization (As affirmed by the Defendant in Fact 4.), they disrupted and destroyed MINT as a political party.

The counter argument to this argument is that MINT was not a political party because it had not been approved. However, according to https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/registration-information.54/ and https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/political-party-information.92/, there exists a distinction. Political Parties that have been accepted are Registered Political Parties. This implies the existence of Unregistered Political Parties, also known as Pending Parties. However, what is the difference between a nonexistent or denied Political Party and an Unregistered Party? This is simple, it is a party that is pending approval or denial and currently following the application process to become Registered. This is distinct from defunct and imaginary Political Parties.

As an Unregistered Political Party, MINT was an indeed a real party with aspirations to become a Registered Party, The devastating attack on MINT caused by at least half of its registered members being secret collaborators for the GER who gathered, infiltrated, and compromised the fledgling political party by fraudulently misrepresenting themselves as party members caused MINT to fall apart. This caused the plaintiff to disband the party as it. Just because the defendant believed it to be an army, while potentially true, does not preclude the fact that MINT was an Unregistered Political Party seeking approval to become registered.

3. The Plaintiff did NOT shut down the party.
Your honors, MINT never was a political party. The Plaintiff withdrew his application before it was approved (see Plaintiff’s Exhibit A: https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/the_donuticus-political-party-application.14628/). The Plaintiff chose to do this of their own free will and you cannot shut something down if it never existed.

The Plaintiff is allowed to request that their application for their Unregistered Political Party be taken down. There is nothing preventing them from asking. Additionally, Registered Political Parties have been requested to be disbanded by leadership, here are a few examples:
https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/the-mad-hatter-party.11906/#post-55151
https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/peoples-progress-party-ppp.13988/#post-55068
https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/xsumomc-political-party-application.12005/
https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/new-coalition-party.3081/

4. LieutenantDerp99 did NOT make a false statement against the Plaintiff by saying, “Here's the thing. Everyone thinks I'm the bad guy. I get it. But lets not play favorites because I suspect everyone loves Donuticus.”
There is only one part of this quote that even mentions the Plaintiff: “I suspect everyone loves Donuticus.” Your honors, this is a statement about LieutenantDerp99’s thoughts and feelings. Thus, it is not false (or at least, it is impossible to prove that it is false).

While this may be true, the record must show that not everyone loves Donut. He is famously known as well for his relationship with Intercepticon, whom some say could be secret lovers, or haters, only the gods know. What is certain though is that I do not love Donut. I am famous for having not loved Donut. He yearns for my affection even though I deny it from him. He has told me “Matthew, we could be such great friends, even more if you swing that way ” and I always respond with “Donut, it’s nothing personal, this is just business”. Therefore proving the statement to be slanderously false, even if made on LieutenantDerp’s thoughts and feelings.

5. LieutenantDerp99 did NOT plead guilty to orchestrating the plot.
While LieutenantDerp99 certainly did orchestrate this, he did not plead guilty to orchestrating the plot, as orchestrating the plot in and of itself was not illegal – only a small portion of it (the conspiracy to commit murder) – was illegal (and LieutenantDerp99 did plead guilty to that). See the Plaintiff’s Exhibit E (Lawsuit: Adjourned - Commonwealth of Redmont v. LieutenantDerp99 [2022] DCR 48). One cannot plead guilty to something that is legal (and thus carries no guilt).

Defendant affirms the fact that LieutenantDerp orchestrated the plan and therefore accepts liability of this charge.

6. The GER does NOT pay legal fees for political party members unless they are also part of the GER’s military.
The evidence provided is a screenshot from #imperial-benefits which is describing the benefits of joining the GER’s military.

As stated in the Review of the Answer to Complaint (15), while the defendant disputes this fact, the truth is that many of the GER members are both a part of its military and party. The plot was orchestrated by its militant wing, orchestrated by LieutenantDerp who is a party leader and approved by Jontaa, who is an active Representative for the GER in Congress. Attached to the evidence in fact 15, in each individual defendant’s evidence file (with the exception of Yeet_Boy, who is the leader of the party and the military) you can see their discord tag with their respective party membership and military rank. All participants of this plot were members of both the military and the party, thus blurring the line, and any consequence affecting either party member or military member should be viewed with that lens that all members were acting within both their party and military.


RESPONSE TO COUNTERSUIT:

1. The defendant stated “Your honors, we also request that if only a small portion of the Plaintiff’s 17 criminal allegations are found to be legitimate, that a partial prayer for relief still be granted to the Defendant, as if many of these allegations are found to be illegitimate, the Plaintiff should still be required to pay the Defendant’s legal fees for defending against those illegitimate allegations.”.
2. The plaintiff did not make 17 criminal allegations, he stated 17 facts. Most of which the defendant affirms or partially affirms.
3. None of the charges brought forward were criminal, which the defendant agreed to in fact 14.
4. Considering point 2. and 3., the plaintiff motions for the countersuit to be dismissed.

Legal standards for the case:
Per the Judicial Standards Act (Act of Congress - Judicial Standards Act), the plaintiff only has to prove a Balance of Probabilities.


Conclusion of Opening Statements:
Your honors, it is clear to me that this case is incredibly clear cut. The defendant affirms most of the facts of the case. Their most significant defense is that MINT was not a political party because it had not been registered/approved by the Department of State and that it was instead a military.

I have thoroughly analyzed this argument. The truth of the matter is that the plaintiff’s party was hijacked by the GER operating as both a military and a party. It acted in unison and moved to destroy MINT, which the defendant affirms this multiple times.

MINT was first and foremost a party. MINT’s oath administered to LieutentantDerp, Jontaa, Ultrapvpnoob, xtub12345, and Banaek5 did not contain any line or passage that made mention of a MINT military. The argument that MINT is a military should not be taken with any serious merit.

Additionally MINT was an Unregistered Political Party, also known as a Pending Party, It almost met all requirements needed to become a full fledged party, up until the betrayal. The infiltration of MINT represented a blatant disregard for the party as they infiltrated, gathered, and compromised. This act constituted campaign espionage, as the GER had access at all levels of MINT before its collapse. It should not be forgotten how they came to do the actions that they did. As affirmed by the defendant, the plot was orchestrated by LieutenantDerp and the GER military. Everyone involved fraudulently misrepresented themselves as not being a part of the GER to gain access to MINT, thus committing Identity Fraud.

Since the organization by and at large moved as a cohesive unit, planned, and organized this attack on MINT, as affirmed by the defendant, the charge of fraud against the GER should prove true.

As for the Slander against Donut, we are more than happy to bring in witness statements to swear true testimony for their lack of love towards Donut.

Please remember, that we are not trying to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. We only need to prove a balance of probabilities. With that said, and with all the facts given and affirmed I would like to make a motion for summary judgment.


IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT.

The Plaintiff moves that the complaint in this case be moved for summary judgment, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

1. Nearly all facts are agreed upon.
2. The defendant affirms enough information, with the evidence gathered, for the defendant to be guilty of most if not all charges.

DATED: This 22nd day of October 2022

 

[Dartanboy]

Hello your honors, may I respond to the Motion for Summary Judgement?

 

[Dartanboy]

OBJECTION
PERJURY

The opposing counsel has committed perjury by saying,

"The plaintiff did not make 17 criminal allegations, he stated 17 facts."

Campaign Espionage, Fraud, and Slander are all crimes, thus alleging them is by definition, criminal allegations.

In total, the Plaintiff has alleged 8 counts of Campaign Espionage, 8 counts of Fraud, and 1 count of Slander, making a total of 17 criminal allegations.

 

[Krix]

Hello your honors, may I respond to the Motion for Summary Judgement?

The Defence has 48 hours to deliver a rebuttal to the Motion for Summary Judgement to the Court aswell your opening Statement

OBJECTION
PERJURY

The opposing counsel has committed perjury by saying,

"The plaintiff did not make 17 criminal allegations, he stated 17 facts."

Campaign Espionage, Fraud, and Slander are all crimes, thus alleging them is by definition, criminal allegations.

In total, the Plaintiff has alleged 8 counts of Campaign Espionage, 8 counts of Fraud, and 1 count of Slander, making a total of 17 criminal allegations.

After Reviewing the Counter suit Prayer for Relief and the Plaintiff's response to the countersuit, The Court believes there was confusion on the plaintiff's part as both, 17 criminal allegations were brought forward by the Plaintiff in total and there were 17 facts presented.
Therefore I will be overruling the perjury charge,

 

[Dartanboy]

Hello, your honors.

The Plaintiff posted their Opening Statement an entire week after the Defense's Answer to the Complaint - nearly 168 hours to refine their arguments and attempt to refute the Defense's arguments.

Because the Plaintiff was given so much time, combined with the fact that I was unable to get on until late last night, we request a 48 hour extension.

Thank you.

EDIT: When I said I was unable to get on until late last night, I meant most of Saturday and all day Sunday until late Sunday night (Time zone CST).

 

[Matthew100x]

May I respond to this request for an extension your honor?

 

[Dartanboy]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
REBUTTAL TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT

The Plaintiff has filed a Motion for Summary Judgement after filing (technically during filing?) an Opening Statement. This is wild. According to the Motions Guide, a Motion for Summary Judgement “asks the judge to make a decision on the case without going to trial.” Given that the Plaintiff has already filed an Opening Statement, this case’s trial has already begun. There cannot be a Summary Judgement.

Additionally, because the Opening Statement has been filed, delivering a verdict now would be a direct violation of the Defendant’s right to a fair trial, as the Plaintiff would have had more chances than the Defendant to present arguments before the court.

The Motions Guide also says that a Motion for Summary Judgement “can only occur if none of the facts of the case are in dispute.” Your honors, the Plaintiff’s Motion specifically says “Nearly all facts are agreed upon” [emphasis added]. If nearly all facts are agreed upon, then all facts are not agreed upon, and a Summary Judgement cannot occur.

Finally, the Plaintiff claims, “The defendant affirms enough information, with the evidence gathered, for the defendant to be guilty of most if not all charges.” This is a silly argument. The Defense has yet to post their Opening Statement. This entire case is about whether or not the Defendant is in fact guilty of these charges. The Plaintiff cannot simply say, “they are guilty” when the Defense disputes this and call that a sufficient reason for Summary Judgement.

That is all, your honors.

Thank you.

 

[Dartanboy]

Defendant Disputes this fact, despite the memo being addressed to Jontaa.

OBJECTION
PERJURY

The memo is not addressed to Jontaa. This is clear in the memo. The only time Jontaa is mentioned is in LieutenantDerp99's title: "Deputy Field Marshal to Jontaa"

 

[Dartanboy]

Your honors, we wish to waive the previously requested extension. We misjudged the strength of the Plaintiff's Opening Statement and thought it would take longer to refute their arguments. We will post our Opening Statement by the original deadline.

 

[Dartanboy]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

Good day, your honors. The Plaintiff makes 17 criminal allegations in their Claims for Relief, and here, we will take a look at all of them and rebut each one.

1. [Criminal Allegations 1 and 2] “In engaging in the plot to take down MINT. The GER as an organization committed Campaign Espionage and Fraud. By directing its members to infiltrate, gather, and compromise MINT, it threatened and disrupted the political party. In essence destroying on the inside. By intentionally sending its members to misrepresent themselves and omit the fact that they were GER members, they defrauded MINT and disrupted the political party to the point that it was destroyed. By directing its members by stating that the GER will pay for members’ legal fees and fines for any wrongdoing they do while on “mission”.”

According to both the Plaintiff and the Campaign Espionage Act, Campaign Espionage is “Any parties participating in or accessory to the gathering, infiltration, or compromise of any sensitive information related to a political campaign that has not already been released to the public, under the instruction of another campaign or entity working in association with another campaign.”

Your honors, MINT was not a registered political party (see Plaintiff’s Exhibit A: https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/the_donuticus-political-party-application.14628/) nor was MINT campaigning (see Defense’s Exhibit 1). Because MINT was neither a political party nor were they campaigning, there was no information related to a political campaign involved here. Thus, there was no “gathering, infiltration, or compromise of any sensitive information related to a political campaign.” Claiming this is Campaign Espionage is comparable to saying someone disrupting a book club is Campaign Espionage. It sounds silly, doesn’t it? That’s because it is. The GER simply cannot be found guilty of Campaign Espionage. To avoid repeating this argument for each individual the Plaintiff claims committed Campaign Espionage, I will simply say, “[Person] did not commit Campaign Espionage (see Defense 1)”

Moving on to the Plaintiff’s claims of Fraud, we see Fraud is defined by both the Plaintiff and the White-Collar Crack Down Act as “an intentional or reckless misrepresentation or omission of an important fact, especially a material one, to a victim who justifiably relies on that misrepresentation; and the victim party or entity suffered actual, quantifiable injury or damages as a result of the misrepresentation or omission.”

Your honors, there are three major problems with trying to find the GER guilty of Fraud. First, to suggest that anyone is expected to say every organization they currently belong to when trying to join another organization is a bit silly. Many people are members of dozens of organizations, and to expect them to say each one is absurd. Thus, although many members of the GER did not mention this to the Plaintiff, it was not, as far as they were aware, an important fact.

The second problem is that there must be a victim. Once again, we point to the fact that MINT was not a registered political party or organization. It is impossible to defraud an illegitimate or non-existant organization, so Fraud has not occurred.

Finally, even if MINT were an actual political party, the victim must be one “who justifiably relies on that misrepresentation” and “suffered actual, quantifiable injury or damages as a result.” Well, your honors, the Plaintiff did not justifiably rely on the alleged misrepresentation, as Donuticus implies that he had been aware that they were lying and that he “play[ed] along and play[ed] dumb” (See Defense’s Exhibit 2).

Given that Donuticus was aware of the actions being taken by the GER, it is impossible for it to be considered Fraud.

2. [Criminal Allegations 3, 4, and 5] “In writing the plot to take down MINT. LieutenantDerp as an individual committed Campaign Espionage and Identity Fraud. By directing GER’s members to infiltrate, gather, and compromise MINT, LieutenantDerp threatened and disrupted the political party. By posing as a member of MINT and not disclosing that they had not relinquished their position as a GER leader, which would have made them ineligible for membership with MINT.
Additionally, LieutenantDerp as an individual committed Slander against Donut by stating “Here's the thing. Everyone thinks I'm the bad guy. I get it. But lets not play favorites because I suspect everyone loves Donuticus”. This is an untrue statement.”

LieutenantDerp99 did not commit Campaign Espionage (see Defense 1).

Additionally, Identity Fraud is defined by the Plaintiff and White-Collar Crack Down Act as “The act of fraudulently misrepresenting yourself as someone else or fraudulently claiming you have authority where you don't.”

LieutenantDerp99 wrote a document that he never intended to share with Donuticus. The Plaintiff claims that writing this document that was not intended for Donuticus to see is somehow fraudulently misrepresenting the author as someone else to Donuticus, or fraudulently claiming the author has authority where the author did not, again to Donuticus. Your honors, given that this document was not supposed to be seen by Donuticus, it is absurd to suggest that writing this document makes the author guilty of Identity Fraud against Donuticus.

Additionally, even if the document were intended for Donuticus, the document does not misrepresent the author (LieutenantDerp99) as someone else, nor does it claim the author has authority where he does not. Thus, LieutenantDerp99 cannot be found guilty of Identity Fraud.

The Plaintiff also claims that in this statement: “Here's the thing. Everyone thinks I'm the bad guy. I get it. But lets not play favorites because I suspect everyone loves Donuticus” LieutenantDerp99 somehow committed Slander. Given that “Everyone thinks I’m the bad guy” is talking about LieutenantDerp99 – not the Plaintiff – there is no way that could be the Slander Donuticus claims. The only remaining statement that could be Slander is “I suspect everyone loves Donuticus.” That is a) stating a belief, not a fact, b) not damaging to Donuticus’s reputation, and c) did not have the intent to harm Donuticus. Thus, LieutenantDerp99 did not commit Slander against The_Donuticus.

3. [Criminal Allegations 6 and 7] “In leading the plot to take down MINT. Yeet_Boy as an individual committed Campaign Espionage and Identity Fraud. By directing GER’s members to infiltrate, gather, and compromise Mint, Yeet_Boy threatened and disrupted the political party. sending its members to misrepresent themselves and omit the fact that they were GER members, they defrauded MINT and disrupted the political party to the point that it was destroyed. By also misrepresenting his position on merging the parties, Yeet_Boy mislead the plaintiff into quantifiable injury by destabilizing his party.”

Yeet_Boy did not commit Campaign Espionage (see Defense 1).
Once again, Identity Fraud requires “fraudulently misrepresenting yourself as someone else” or “fraudulently claiming you have authority where you don’t.” Once again, your honors, the Plaintiff has failed to produce any evidence that Yeet_Boy did this. Thus, Yeet_Boy cannot be found guilty of Identity Fraud.

4. [Criminal Allegations 8 and 9] “In approving the plot to take down MINT. Jontaa as an individual committed Campaign Espionage and Identity Fraud. By directing GER’s members to infiltrate, gather, and compromise Mint, Jontaa threatened and disrupted the political party. By posing as a member of MINT and not disclosing that they had not relinquished their position as a GER leader, which would have made them ineligible for membership with MINT.”

Jontaa did not commit Campaign Espionage (see Defense 1).
Once again, Identity Fraud requires “fraudulently misrepresenting yourself as someone else” or “fraudulently claiming you have authority where you don’t.” Once again, your honors, the Plaintiff has failed to produce any evidence that Jontaa did this. Thus, Jontaa cannot be found guilty of Identity Fraud.

Additionally, Jontaa did not “approve the plot to take down MINT.” In fact, the only time Jontaa is even mentioned in the 11-page memo is as LieutenantDerp99’s superior, but the document does not claim to have Jontaa’s approval.

5. [Criminal Allegations 10 and 11] “In assisting with the plot to take down MINT, Ultrapvpnoob as an individual committed Campaign Espionage and Identity Fraud. As a GER member, Ultrapvpnoob infiltrated, gathered, and compromised, threatening and disrupting the political party. By posing as a member of MINT and not disclosing that they had not relinquished their position as a GER member, which would have made them ineligible for membership with MINT.”

ultrapvpnoob did not commit Campaign Espionage (see Defense 1).
Once again, Identity Fraud requires “fraudulently misrepresenting yourself as someone else” or “fraudulently claiming you have authority where you don’t.” Once again, your honors, the Plaintiff has failed to produce any evidence that ultrapvpnoob did this. Thus, ultrapvpnoob cannot be found guilty of Identity Fraud.

6. [Criminal Allegations 12 and 13] “In assisting with the plot to take down MINT, Xtub12345 as an individual committed Campaign Espionage and Identity Fraud. As a GER member, Xtub12345 infiltrated, gathered, and compromised, threatening and disrupting the political party. By posing as a member of MINT and not disclosing that they had not relinquished their position as a GER member, which would have made them ineligible for membership with MINT.”

xtub12345 did not commit Campaign Espionage (see Defense 1)
Once again, Identity Fraud requires “fraudulently misrepresenting yourself as someone else” or “fraudulently claiming you have authority where you don’t.” Once again, your honors, the Plaintiff has failed to produce any evidence that xtub12345 did this. Thus, xtub12345 cannot be found guilty of Identity Fraud.

7. [Criminal Allegations 14 and 15] “In assisting with the plot to take down MINT, Banaek5 as an individual committed Campaign Espionage and Identity Fraud. As a GER member, Banaek5 infiltrated, gathered, and compromised, threatening and disrupting the political party. By posing as a member of MINT and not disclosing that they had not relinquished their position as a GER member, which would have made them ineligible for membership with MINT.”

Bananek5 did not commit Campaign Espionage (see Defense 1)
Once again, Identity Fraud requires “fraudulently misrepresenting yourself as someone else” or “fraudulently claiming you have authority where you don’t.” Once again, your honors, the Plaintiff has failed to produce any evidence that Banaek5 did this. Thus, Banaek5 cannot be found guilty of Identity Fraud.

8. [Criminal Allegations 16 and 17 ] "In assisting with the plot to take down MINT, OakWinner as an individual committed Campaign Espionage and Identity Fraud. As a GER member, OakWinner infiltrated, gathered, and compromised, threatening and disrupting the political party. By posing as a member of MINT and not disclosing that they had not relinquished their position as a GER member, which would have made them ineligible for membership with MINT.”

OakWinner did not commit Campaign Espionage (see Defense 1)
Once again, Identity Fraud requires “fraudulently misrepresenting yourself as someone else” or “fraudulently claiming you have authority where you don’t.” Once again, your honors, the Plaintiff has failed to produce any evidence that OakWinner did this. Thus, OakWinner cannot be found guilty of Identity Fraud.

9. “The white-collar crime act allows ‘Any party or entity can file a civil suit against a party or an entity if they believe the party they are suing has violated a white-collar crime and they have sustained damages because of this.’”

While it is true that the White-Collar Crime Act allows for this, it has been shown throughout this filing that no Fraud occurred, thus the Plaintiff’s 9th Claim for Relief is irrelevant.

10. “White-Collar Crime Act allows for “Any party or entity found liable for fraud can receive punitive damages up to 10.000$ for a player and up to 100.000$ for a company. As well as being required to compensate, the defrauded party, which includes attorney fees. A judge may also grant extra punitive damages to a company if they believe that said company is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and most likely would be found criminally guilty if that was possible.”

While it is true that the White-Collar Crime Act allows for this, it has been shown throughout this filing that no Fraud occurred, thus the Plaintiff’s 10th Claim for Relief is irrelevant.

11. “The GER offers to pay for the legal fees of its members for any crimes they do while on duty.”

GER’s policy regarding paying legal fees for members of their military never mentions crime – only fees forced to pay while on duty [not as a result of actions taken while on duty] (See Plaintiff’s Exhibit M).

Now that the Claims for Relief are out of the way, let’s talk about the Plaintiff’s Opening Statement.

1. The Plaintiff claims, “The defendants have agreed to most of the facts of the case. They want to try and prove that MINT was not a political party but instead a military. I will methodically deny this and prove why the charges against the GER and it's members continue to hold true.”

Let the Defense be clear: We are not claiming that MINT was a military. We are claiming that MINT had a military, and that the military (and specifically their leader, The_Donuticus) was the target of the operation.

2. The Plaintiff responds to the fact that the 11-page memo was NOT approved by Jontaa, saying, “The defendant’s argument is predicated on the fact that they believe that there is no evidence to this theory. Their argument specifically does not preclude the possibility that Jontaa approved the plan, they merely state that he did not. However, LieutenantDerp being Jontaa’s subordinate, the plan was submitted to Jontaa, as stated directly by the memo. There are only two people who could have approved the plan, Jontaa or Yeet_Boy. Considering that Jontaa was LieutenantDerp’s direct superior, I am led to believe that it was him who approved the plan, though it is also possible that Yeet_Boy approved the plan. Our burden of proof is a balance of probabilities.”

Your honors, this is a crazy argument. While yes, the burden of proof is a balance of probabilities, it is not only possible but plausible that Jontaa did not approve this memo. The memo never asks for Jontaa’s approval. There are multiple people who could have approved it, and it could even be that no one approved it. One cannot simply be found guilty of a crime for which there is no evidence (of course balance of probability requires less evidence than proof beyond a reasonable doubt, but it still requires some evidence, but the Plaintiff has none).

3. The Plaintiff responds to the fact that the plan was specifically to infiltrate and destabilize MINT’s military – NOT the organization* as a whole – and assassinate the Plaintiff.
*MINT was not an actual political party or organization at the time, saying, “This is an interesting argument that the attorney for the defendant makes, only in that it is a theory that tries to make plausible sense of the situation to his client’s favor. Unfortunately for Counsel Dartanmann, his theory misrepresents the situation. Mint is a political party. As can clearly be seen in the plaintiff’s MINT party application (Fact 1, Defendant affirmed). Operatives from the GER were listed and believed to be members of MINT because they misrepresented themselves purposely to gain access (Defendant 13th affirmed fact). Evidence seen in the Google Drives (Fact 15), under the evidence folders for LieutentantDerp, Jontaa, Ultrapvpnoob, xtub12345, and Banaek5. They all made oaths affirming their loyalty for the MINT party. All five were listed under MINT’s party membership, adhering to the oaths they made to the MINT party. By enacting their plan, destabilizing the party, and then leaving the organization (As affirmed by the Defendant in Fact 4.), they disrupted and destroyed MINT as a political party.

The counter argument to this argument is that MINT was not a political party because it had not been approved. However, according to https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/registration-information.54/ and https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/political-party-information.92/, there exists a distinction. Political Parties that have been accepted are Registered Political Parties. This implies the existence of Unregistered Political Parties, also known as Pending Parties. However, what is the difference between a nonexistent or denied Political Party and an Unregistered Party? This is simple, it is a party that is pending approval or denial and currently following the application process to become Registered. This is distinct from defunct and imaginary Political Parties.

As an Unregistered Political Party, MINT was an indeed a real party with aspirations to become a Registered Party, The devastating attack on MINT caused by at least half of its registered members being secret collaborators for the GER who gathered, infiltrated, and compromised the fledgling political party by fraudulently misrepresenting themselves as party members caused MINT to fall apart. This caused the plaintiff to disband the party as it. Just because the defendant believed it to be an army, while potentially true, does not preclude the fact that MINT was an Unregistered Political Party seeking approval to become registered.”

Let’s break this apart. “Mint is a political party. As can clearly be seen in the plaintiff’s MINT party application (Fact 1, Defendant affirmed).” – No, Mint is not a political party. A request to reform MINT was submitted with staff permission. Additionally, the application was later denied (albeit at the request of the Plaintiff). This denial is evidenced in the Plaintiff’s Exhibit A. Here is a zoomed-in screenshot:

“Operatives from the GER were listed and believed to be members of MINT because they misrepresented themselves purposely to gain access (Defendant 13th affirmed fact). Evidence seen in the Google Drives (Fact 15), under the evidence folders for LieutentantDerp, Jontaa, Ultrapvpnoob, xtub12345, and Banaek5. They all made oaths affirming their loyalty for the MINT party. All five were listed under MINT’s party membership, adhering to the oaths they made to the MINT party.” – This omits extremely important details. The Defendants here took an oath that, according to the Plaintiff himself, had no repercussions if it was broken (Plaintiff’s Exhibit L > Jontaa Evidence > 004.png – I’ve also put a screenshot of it below). Given that the Plaintiff himself said that nothing happens if the oath is broken, he should have expected that some people may not follow the oath.

“By enacting their plan, destabilizing the party, and then leaving the organization (As affirmed by the Defendant in Fact 4.), they disrupted and destroyed MINT as a political party.” – Once again, they did not disrupt or destroy MINT. The_Donuticus requested that MINT’s application be denied. This was not the fault of the Defendant. This was the Plaintiff’s decision, and his decision alone. Additionally, we can see clearly that only two people “supported” the registration on the application, further exemplifying that MINT was not a legitimate political party (ten people are required to “support” it on the thread).

“The counter argument to this argument is that MINT was not a political party because it had not been approved. However, according to https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/registration-information.54/ and https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/political-party-information.92/, there exists a distinction. Political Parties that have been accepted are Registered Political Parties. This implies the existence of Unregistered Political Parties, also known as Pending Parties. However, what is the difference between a nonexistent or denied Political Party and an Unregistered Party? This is simple, it is a party that is pending approval or denial and currently following the application process to become Registered. This is distinct from defunct and imaginary Political Parties.” – This is just completely incorrect. Looking at Registration Information, which the Plaintiff so kindly linked for us in this argument (here it is again: https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/registration-information.54/) we see this: “All legitimate parties need to be registered with the Department of State. The Department may deny applications at their discretion” – yes, that’s right. If the application is denied, then it is not a legitimate party. Your honors, the Plaintiff claims that these policies imply the existence of “Unregistered Political Parties” or “Pending Parties,” however, the policy is very clear. There is no such thing, and unless the application is accepted, it is not a legitimate party (one might say it is actually an illegitimate party). This completely nullifies any argument in favor of finding the Defendant guilty of Campaign Espionage.

“As an Unregistered Political Party, MINT was an indeed a real party with aspirations to become a Registered Party, The devastating attack on MINT caused by at least half of its registered members being secret collaborators for the GER who gathered, infiltrated, and compromised the fledgling political party by fraudulently misrepresenting themselves as party members caused MINT to fall apart. This caused the plaintiff to disband the party as it. Just because the defendant believed it to be an army, while potentially true, does not preclude the fact that MINT was an Unregistered Political Party seeking approval to become registered.”

Once again, the Defense points above to the fact that MINT was not a legitimate party, according to DoS policy. Furthermore, the Plaintiff did not disband the (illegitimate) party – its application was denied (albeit at the request of the Plaintiff).

Finally, even if it is somehow decided that it was a legitimate party, the Plaintiff has failed to prove any damages occurred because of the actions committed by the GER.

4. The Plaintiff responds to the fact that the Plaintiff did NOT shut down the party, saying, “The Plaintiff is allowed to request that their application for their Unregistered Political Party be taken down. There is nothing preventing them from asking. Additionally, Registered Political Parties have been requested to be disbanded by leadership, here are a few examples: [some examples are provided]”

The Defense does not believe this to be relevant. Yes, the Plaintiff is allowed to request their application be taken down. The Defense never claimed it was illegal or wrong for him to do so. We simply said that it is not equivalent to shutting down a party since the party was not a legitimate party, according to the Department of State’s policy.

5. The Plaintiff responds to the fact that LieutenantDerp99 did NOT make a false statement against the Plaintiff by saying, “Here's the thing. Everyone thinks I'm the bad guy. I get it. But lets not play favorites because I suspect everyone loves Donuticus,” by saying, “While this may be true, the record must show that not everyone loves Donut. He is famously known as well for his relationship with Intercepticon, whom some say could be secret lovers, or haters, only the gods know. What is certain though is that I do not love Donut. I am famous for having not loved Donut. He yearns for my affection even though I deny it from him. He has told me “Matthew, we could be such great friends, even more if you swing that way ” and I always respond with “Donut, it’s nothing personal, this is just business”. Therefore proving the statement to be slanderously false, even if made on LieutenantDerp’s thoughts and feelings.”

There is no proof that this statement was damaging, there is no proof that there was intent to harm the Plaintiff, and there is no proof that LieutenantDerp99 did not suspect that everyone loves Donuticus. (Perhaps it would be false if LieutenantDerp99 said “Everyone loves Donuticus,” but that’s not what he said. He said, “I suspect everyone loves Donuticus.”)

6. The Plaintiff responds to the fact that LieutenantDerp99 did NOT plead guilty to orchestrating the plot, saying, “Defendant affirms the fact that LieutenantDerp orchestrated the plan and therefore accepts liability of this charge.”

I’ll simply repeat what was said earlier: One cannot plead guilty to something that is legal (and thus carries no guilt).

There is no liability of a charge since there is nothing LieutenantDerp99 can be charged with (apart from Conspiracy to Commit Murder, which he has already been charged, fined, and jailed for).

7. The Plaintiff responds to the fact that the GER does NOT pay legal fees for political party members unless they are also part of the GER’s military, saying that all of the military members involved are also party members.

The Defense does not care to respond to this claim because we’ve shown that the Plaintiff, in this case, should not be compensated as nothing illegal has occurred and no qualified damages that the GER is liable for have occurred. Of course, the one exception to this being LieutenantDerp99’s conspiracy to commit murder, but again, he has already been charged, fined, and jailed.

Conclusion of Opening Statement
Thank you, your honors, opposing counsel, for reading this filing. It is very long, but that is because there are 17 allegations that needed to be responded to. I apologize for that, but I refuse to stand by and watch people be illegitimately accused of highly illegal actions.

The Plaintiff makes many claims desperately grabbing at straws trying to show that MINT was in some way a legitimate party, but the Department of State’s policy (https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/registration-information.54/) makes it very clear. All legitimate parties need to be registered with the Department of State. A pending (or in this case, denied) application is the clear sign of an illegitimate party.

So, in summary, the Plaintiff alleges:

• 1 count of general Fraud committed by the GER as a whole

However, the Plaintiff has failed to prove any damages or a victim, and the Plaintiff did not justifiably rely on any information given to him by the GER (which is necessary for Fraud).

• 7 counts of Identity Fraud, one against each of the following named individuals:
  • LieutenantDerp99
  • Yeet_Boy
  • Jontaa
  • Ultrapvpnoob
  • xtub12345
  • bananek5
  • OakWinner

However, the Plaintiff has failed to show that any of these individuals have fraudulently misrepresented themself as someone else or fraudulently claimed they have authority where they don't (the definition of Identity Fraud according to the White-Collar Crack Down Act).

• 8 counts of Campaign Espionage, one against each of the following named individuals, and one against the GER as an organization
  • LieutenantDerp99
  • Yeet_Boy
  • Jontaa
  • Ultrapvpnoob
  • xtub12345
  • bananek5
  • OakWinner

However, the Plaintiff has failed to show that MINT was a legitimate political party (and in fact provided a link to DoS policy explaining that it was specifically not a legitimate party). The Plaintiff has failed to show that MINT was Campaigning, which is a necessary prerequisite for Campaign Espionage. In fact, there is evidence that MINT was not campaigning.

That is all.

Thank you again, your honors.

EVIDENCE:
Exhibit 1:

Spoiler: Exhibit 1 - MINT was not campaigning

Exhibit 2:

Spoiler: Exhibit 2 - The_Donuticus was aware of what was going on

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 24th day of October 2022

 

[Dartanboy]

Good evening, your honors.

I would like to inform the court that I have technically edited the Opening Statement by fixing a formatting error. Nothing else was changed.

 

[Krix]

Does either party wish to call any witnesses before the court, if not please state so.

 

[Matthew100x]

Your honor, we would like to submit a supplemental inclusion of evidence containing additional screenshots with regards to the case at large.

Additionally, we would like to request @Jontay as a witness for this case.

 

[Dartanboy]

OBJECTION
Breach of Procedure

The Plaintiff has already submitted dozens of pieces of evidence (counting the many Google Drive screenshots as separate pieces, even though they're collectively labeled Exhibit L). Not only did they submit so much evidence, but they had over a week to compile this collection of evidence, since the Plaintiff is alleging illegal actions that occurred over a week before the case was filed.

To allow additional evidence to be submitted would violate the Defendant's right to a fair trial, by allowing new evidence to be submitted that the Defendant was not aware of, and could not talk about in their Answer to Complaint or Opening Statement.

Your honors, I ask the court to strongly consider the Defendant's rights under the Constitution before responding to this.

Thank you

 

[Dartanboy]

The Defendant has no witnesses to call.

 

[Krix]

OBJECTION
Breach of Procedure

The Plaintiff has already submitted dozens of pieces of evidence (counting the many Google Drive screenshots as separate pieces, even though they're collectively labeled Exhibit L). Not only did they submit so much evidence, but they had over a week to compile this collection of evidence, since the Plaintiff is alleging illegal actions that occurred over a week before the case was filed.

To allow additional evidence to be submitted would violate the Defendant's right to a fair trial, by allowing new evidence to be submitted that the Defendant was not aware of, and could not talk about in their Answer to Complaint or Opening Statement.

Your honors, I ask the court to strongly consider the Defendant's rights under the Constitution before responding to this.

Thank you

Overruled, the plantiff may submit additional evidence. The court wishes to be informed as much as possible when making its decision

 

[Dartanboy]

Overruled, the plantiff may submit additional evidence. The court wishes to be informed as much as possible when making its decision

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO RECONSIDER

Your honors,

I completely understand that the Court wishes to be as informed in possible. All information should be made available before a decision is reached, however, I believe my client's rights are clearly being violated.

According to Part IV of the Constitution, "Any citizen, has the right to an attorney for a speed and fair trial. Any citizen, criminal or otherwise will have the right to a speedy and fair trial presided over by an impartial Judge, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, and to be confronted with the evidence against them, and to have the assistance of counsel for their defense." [Emphasis added]

The Defendant in this case was not confronted with the evidence that the opposing council is now attempting to submit. Such a submission violates both the Defendant's right to a fair trial and the Defendant's right to be confronted with the evidence against them.

Thank you.

 

[Krix]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO RECONSIDER

Your honors,

I completely understand that the Court wishes to be as informed in possible. All information should be made available before a decision is reached, however, I believe my client's rights are clearly being violated.

According to Part IV of the Constitution, "Any citizen, has the right to an attorney for a speed and fair trial. Any citizen, criminal or otherwise will have the right to a speedy and fair trial presided over by an impartial Judge, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, and to be confronted with the evidence against them, and to have the assistance of counsel for their defense." [Emphasis added]

The Defendant in this case was not confronted with the evidence that the opposing council is now attempting to submit. Such a submission violates both the Defendant's right to a fair trial and the Defendant's right to be confronted with the evidence against them.

Thank you.

Denied, They will be confronted with the evidence once it’s submitted to the court.No rights are being violated.

 

[Krix]

Your honor, we would like to submit a supplemental inclusion of evidence containing additional screenshots with regards to the case at large.

Additionally, we would like to request @Jontay as a witness for this case.

Granted, Please submit your additional evidence within the next 48 hours.

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

@Jontay is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of The_Donuticus v. GER, as an Organization, et al. [2022] SCR 18. as a witness. All witnesses have 48 hours to mark there that they are present.

Please familiarize yourself with the case as it stands at present. You will receive questions and may also be cross-examined.

I ask that all questions be provided to witnesses in a single post. If some questions need to be withheld as they depend on answers given to earlier questions, that is also considered reasonable. Once the witness has declared themselves present, the Plaintiff may begin with questions to their witnesses, followed by a period of cross-examination by the Commonwealth.

I am hereby informing each witness to ensure they are aware of the provisions of the law of perjury and its severity. Giving knowingly false testimony is highly illegal. Witnesses are required to tell the truth in their testimonies, pursuant to the Perjury Act.​

 

[Matthew100x]

Your Honor,

Here is the supplemental evidence.

The attachments are conversations that happened in the MINT discord prior to the party being disbanded.

Additional conversation from a discussion against Jontay: New GER Evidence - Google Drive.

I am purposely not expanding any further or giving opinion on the evidence for fairness towards the defendant since they were unable to respond in opening arguments. I will, however, reference evidence in witness testimony since the defendant will be able to in cross-examination. Additionally, I will reference evidence in closing statements since the defendant will be able to respond in their closing arguments as well.

 

[Krix]

Granted, Please submit your additional evidence within the next 48 hours.

View attachment 29491
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
WRIT OF SUMMONS

@Jontay is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of The_Donuticus v. GER, as an Organization, et al. [2022] SCR 18. as a witness. All witnesses have 48 hours to mark there that they are present.

Please familiarize yourself with the case as it stands at present. You will receive questions and may also be cross-examined.

I ask that all questions be provided to witnesses in a single post. If some questions need to be withheld as they depend on answers given to earlier questions, that is also considered reasonable. Once the witness has declared themselves present, the Plaintiff may begin with questions to their witnesses, followed by a period of cross-examination by the Commonwealth.

I am hereby informing each witness to ensure they are aware of the provisions of the law of perjury and its severity. Giving knowingly false testimony is highly illegal. Witnesses are required to tell the truth in their testimonies, pursuant to the Perjury Act.​

The Court hereby finds Jontay in contempt of court, for failing to appeal before the Supreme Court in the case The_Donuticus v. GER, as an Organization, et al. [2022] SCR 18.

The Department of Justice is hereby ordered to charge Jontay with one charge of contempt of Court.

We will now move to closing statements as the witness has failed to appear.

The Plantiff now has 48 hours to deliver their closing statement to the court.

 

[Lord_Donuticus]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT

Your honors,

As the Defence stated in its motion against us wishing to submit more evidence “The Plaintiff has already submitted dozens of pieces of evidence”, and that is really the point here. There is so much evidence that points towards the Defendants being incredibly guilty, it is really impossible to write about all of it. It should be noted that the defendant affirmed much of the evidence, with the exception of the supplemental inclusion of evidence.

So instead the Defence has equivocated, made sweeping statements, argued semantics - for example stating that MINT was not a registered Political Party, and therefore by not being registered is not protected under the Campaign Espionage law, despite the fact that the law never mentions Political Parties. And that not being a registered political party means it cannot be a victim of fraud - more on that second one later.

Campaign Espionage is, once again for the ease of the courts, defined as such:
“Any parties participating in or accessory to the gathering, infiltration, or compromise of any sensitive information related to a political campaign that has not already been released to the public, under the instruction of another campaign or entity working in association with another campaign.”

Campaign Espionage was established with the stated goal of: “Loopholes in the legal code must be closed to ensure fair political practices” Now the law does not actually define what a political campaign actually is, but anyone can agree that it is a pretty broad definition. As previously explained in our Opening Statement, MINT was an Unregistered Political Party at the time of the events. But is an Unregistered Political Party a Political Campaign? It is pretty easy to say yes, a political campaign is a group of people campaigning for something political. Now MINT was an Unregistered Political Party that had policies, it was organized, it was trying to get official status so that it could run in elections. Sounds like a campaign to us, and we believe that it sounded like a campaign to the GER, a rival campaign - and that is why they took the path they chose.

So did the collective members of the GER commit Campaign Espionage against MINT? Well the evidence really speaks for itself there, it is a: ‘Does it swim like a duck, does it quack like a duck, well it is a duck’ situation here, it’s just so obvious to see. In their answer to the complaint in point ‘13.’ the Defence affirms that “many of the individual defendants infiltrated MINT*, spoke with the Plaintiff, pledged an oath to the plaintiff’s party*, and attempted to gain his trust.” specifying “Additionally, they were not trying to destroy MINT* from the inside. They were trying to murder the Plaintiff and prove the GER has a better military. *MINT was not an actual political party at the time”

Well this is why the new evidence gathered by the Plaintiff is so important to this case, because in the screenshots of the conversation that the GER members thought they were just having between themselves ‘Bubble’ writes (Picture 003): “Jontay knew about the operation…Operation to destroy MINT” then later (Picture 009) ‘EthanPoggers’ writes: “We got MINT shut down…our mission is complete” to which xXLeiutenantDerpXx replies “yeah. We destabilized them and they shut down. We won” - seems like they had aspirations above just a little bit of murder. It is possible that they have not been entirely truthful with their counsel, something which I’m sure their counsel is not too happy about.

So if the Defence affirms that the members of the GER did indeed plan and execute the plan to infiltrate MINT, and then in private they are stating the reason for this was to destabilize and shut down MINT, it is pretty cut and dry that they have admitted their guilt in this plot. The new evidence shows in plain writing the guilt of the members accused. Lastly it does not matter if they throw out this claim that despite their intention to destabilize and destroy MINT their actions were against MINT’s military, because MINT was not a military - it was an Unregistered Political Party.

And so on the charge of Campaign Espionage we ask the court to come back to the intention behind the law, is the GER acting in this way a "fair political practice"? We ponder this question because stopping unfair practices is why the law was established. We would say it is not at all fair and hope the court agrees with us and moves to prevent these practices from occuring in the future, something which the new evidence shows they fully intend to do.

Let us move onto Identity Fraud, where once again the new evidence kind stops the Defence in their tracks. You see in their Opening Statement the Defence states the following: “First, to suggest that anyone is expected to say every organization they currently belong to when trying to join another organization is a bit silly.”, well funnily enough they were all repeatedly warned on the 1st of October, the same day that the MINT application was posted due to the influx of new members, that they could not be part of the GER and MINT, and even if that wasn’t the case the issue at hand is not the fact that they were in the GER and MINT at the same time, even though that was against MINT’s rules, but instead that they joined MINT specifically claiming they were done with the GER!

The Defence then states that MINT cannot be a victim because it was not a registered political party, while this is an utterly ridiculous point we are not even going to go into it. The victim here is the Plaintiff, The_Donuticus - the Plaintiff is the individual as the leader of the party who was the target of the fraudulent and deceitful actions. That is why this case is 'The_ Donuticus v GER…'.

The Defence also states “the Plaintiff did not justifiably rely on the alleged misrepresentation, as Donuticus implies that he had been aware that they were lying and that he “play[ed] along and play[ed] dumb””, the issue is that the Plaintiff did justifiably rely on the misrepresentation, as the GER members were listed as members of MINT in its registration on the 1st of October in order to get it officially confirmed as a party. The only reason that the registration was undertaken is because of the belief of the Plaintiff that MINT would be able to be approved as an actual party, due to the influx of members. It wasn’t until after this date that Jontay revealed the information to the Plaintiff which then confirmed the suspicions the Plaintiff had. With the statement that the Plaintiff “play[ed] along and play[ed] dumb” refering to the events after that where the rally was held and the knowledge of the deceit was revealed, and the registration then being retracted due to the now knowledge that MINT would not have the members to get accepted.

However, none of this is actually consequential as the very act of joining a political party with the intention of destabilizing and destroying by way of misrepresentation of who they are is Identity Fraud. When joining a political party, people are expected to be loyal, even more so if they are taking an oath of loyalty to the party. The fact that they did so and then moved against MINT by acting as agents of the GER; they acted in a manner that fits the definition of Identity Fraud.

Your honors, it’s simple: The GER wanted to take down MINT. They sent their members in to pretend to be new members in order to infiltrate and destroy the party. They wanted to do this to prove their superiority, they did it because they believed that the plaintiff’s party would be an easy mark.

Your honors, the power is in your hand to make this decision. It is clear that the defendant has moved to destroy MINT through their actions and thus their members have committed Campaign Espionage and Identity Fraud and that the GER as an organization committed Fraud.

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 6th day of November 2022

 

[Dartanboy]

OBJECTION
PERJURY

Good day, your honors.

The Plaintiff in their Closing Statement said
"Now MINT was an Unregistered Political Party that had policies, it was organized, it was trying to get official status so that it could run in elections. Sounds like a campaign to us, and we believe that it sounded like a campaign to the GER, a rival campaign - and that is why they took the path they chose."

This directly contradicts a statement made earlier by the Plaintiff, as shown in the Defense's Exhibit 1 (re-attached here for ease of finding).

The Plaintiff is clearly aware that MINT was not campaigning, and has turned around and stated in court that MINT was campaigning in an effort to pin charges against my client. This is absurd and unacceptable.

 

[Dartanboy]

OBJECTION
PERJURY

The Plaintiff in their Closing Statement said
"When joining a political party, people are expected to be loyal, even more so if they are taking an oath of loyalty to the party."

Your honors, as shown previously, the Plaintiff was asked, "What happens if I break the swear?" to which the answer was ultimately "I guess nothing."

To boldly proclaim that loyalty is expected after clearly saying there are no consequences for breaking the swear, is perjury.

This is in the Plaintiff's Exhibit L, and shown in a screenshot earlier, but here it is again for ease of finding:

 

[Lord_Donuticus]

May we respond to these charges, your honors? - We will be posting an objection to this shortly eitherway.

 

[Matthew100x]

Objection.
Breach of Procedure.

Your honor, we are in closing statements, at this particular time making objections is reprehensible behavior by the defendant's attorney. Instead of responding to arguments cordially in their own closing statements, the defendant is attempting to get extra arguments in to subvert the plaintiff's argument before producing their own closing statement. It is entirely unfair that the defendant gets to produce extra argument to subvert the plaintiff's argument and also produce a closing statement. The objections should be struck from the record and the case needs to proceed as before so we can reach a verdict.

If the defendant wishes to make these points, they should argue such in their closing arguments.

 

[Dartanboy]

Objection.
Breach of Procedure.

Your honor, we are in closing statements, at this particular time making objections is reprehensible behavior by the defendant's attorney. Instead of responding to arguments cordially in their own closing statements, the defendant is attempting to get extra arguments in to subvert the plaintiff's argument before producing their own closing statement. It is entirely unfair that the defendant gets to produce extra argument to subvert the plaintiff's argument and also produce a closing statement. The objections should be struck from the record and the case needs to proceed as before so we can reach a verdict.

If the defendant wishes to make these points, they should argue such in their closing arguments.

ANSWER TO OBJECTION

I believe Perjury has occurred. According to the Objections Guide, I can object for Perjury. I do not need to argue against Perjury in my Closing Statement. That is why Objections exist.

Objections are, according to the Objections Guide, able to be used while "objecting to a remark made by the opposing party." This is not a breach of procedure, your honors. It is merely the Plaintiff's counsel disagreeing with the proper usage of Objections in Redmont.

 

[Matthew100x]

Objection.
Breach of Procedure.

Perjury is defined as "When a witness has perjured themselves on the stand by lying or strongly misrepresenting facts on the stand (proof of perjury should be made with the objection)." Guide - Objections Guide

There are no witnesses currently making testimony.

 

[Matthew100x]

Objection.
Breach of Procedure.

The defendant's attorney has not been called to give a response to my objection. I am requesting a contempt of court charge.

 

[Dartanboy]

Objection.
Breach of Procedure.

Perjury is defined as "When a witness has perjured themselves on the stand by lying or strongly misrepresenting facts on the stand (proof of perjury should be made with the objection)." Guide - Objections Guide

There are no witnesses currently making testimony.

ANSWER TO OBJECTION

Your honors, this Objection is, once again, not a Breach of Procedure. It is a response to my Objections of Perjury. I request it be struck from the record.

If it is not struck, here is my response:
While the Objections Guide defines Perjury as "When a witness has perjured themselves on the stand by lying or strongly misrepresenting facts on the stand (proof of perjury should be made with the objection)" there is significant precedent showing that an Objection based on Perjury can be sustained (or the verdict include perjury) against lawyers who are not in witness testimony. Here are a few examples:

Lawsuit: Adjourned - Commonwealth of Redmont v. Milqy [2022] SCR 16

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT CRIMINAL ACTION The Commonwealth (hugebob23456 and Mask3D_WOLF representing) Prosecution v. Milqy Defendant COMPLAINT The Prosecution alleges criminal actions committed by the Defendant as follows: Corruption is when someone uses their...

www.democracycraft.net

Lawsuit: Adjourned - Dartanman v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2022] FCR 72

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT CIVIL ACTION Dartanman Plaintiff v. Commonwealth of Redmont Defendant COMPLAINT The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows: On August 26, 2022, the Plaintiff was informed that there was an open Bank Robbery charge against...

www.democracycraft.net

Additionally, in most official filings in court, the following excerpt is included:
"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." Objections on Perjury are the only way for counsel to inform the court that they believe Perjury has occurred in order to hold the opposing counsel accountable.

 

[Matthew100x]

Objection.
Breach of Procedure.

The defendant's attorney has not been called to give a response to my objection. I am requesting a second contempt of court charge.

 

[Dartanboy]

Objection.
Breach of Procedure.

The defendant's attorney has not been called to give a response to my objection. I am requesting a contempt of court charge.

Objection.
Breach of Procedure.

The defendant's attorney has not been called to give a response to my objection. I am requesting a second contempt of court charge.

ANSWER TO TWO OBJECTIONS
This is not Breach of Procedure. The Plaintiff's counsel really needs to become more familiar with Court Procedures in Redmont. The Objections Guide, which the Plaintiff's counsel has already quoted from, shows that you can answer to an objection without being directed to by the court:

This lawyer is filling up the case with silly and ignorant objections.

 

[Matthew100x]

Objection.
Breach of Procedure.

The defendant's attorney has not been called to give a response to my objection. I am requesting a third contempt of court charge.

 

[Dartanboy]

Objection.
Breach of Procedure.

The defendant's attorney has not been called to give a response to my objection. I am requesting a third contempt of court charge.

ANSWER TO OBJECTION (Final response to this almost-identical objection as I am not going to keep adding unnecessary posts to this case)
See my previous Answer to Objection, which proves that I am able to answer without being called to respond.

 

[Matthew100x]

Objection.
Breach of Procedure.

The defendant's attorney has not been called to give a response to my objection. I am requesting a fourth contempt of court charge.

 

[Krix]

OBJECTION
PERJURY

Good day, your honors.

The Plaintiff in their Closing Statement said
"Now MINT was an Unregistered Political Party that had policies, it was organized, it was trying to get official status so that it could run in elections. Sounds like a campaign to us, and we believe that it sounded like a campaign to the GER, a rival campaign - and that is why they took the path they chose."

This directly contradicts a statement made earlier by the Plaintiff, as shown in the Defense's Exhibit 1 (re-attached here for ease of finding).
View attachment 29543
The Plaintiff is clearly aware that MINT was not campaigning, and has turned around and stated in court that MINT was campaigning in an effort to pin charges against my client. This is absurd and unacceptable.

OBJECTION
PERJURY

The Plaintiff in their Closing Statement said
"When joining a political party, people are expected to be loyal, even more so if they are taking an oath of loyalty to the party."

Your honors, as shown previously, the Plaintiff was asked, "What happens if I break the swear?" to which the answer was ultimately "I guess nothing."

To boldly proclaim that loyalty is expected after clearly saying there are no consequences for breaking the swear, is perjury.

This is in the Plaintiff's Exhibit L, and shown in a screenshot earlier, but here it is again for ease of finding:
View attachment 29544

Objection.
Breach of Procedure.

Your honor, we are in closing statements, at this particular time making objections is reprehensible behavior by the defendant's attorney. Instead of responding to arguments cordially in their own closing statements, the defendant is attempting to get extra arguments in to subvert the plaintiff's argument before producing their own closing statement. It is entirely unfair that the defendant gets to produce extra argument to subvert the plaintiff's argument and also produce a closing statement. The objections should be struck from the record and the case needs to proceed as before so we can reach a verdict.

If the defendant wishes to make these points, they should argue such in their closing arguments.

Objection.
Breach of Procedure.

The defendant's attorney has not been called to give a response to my objection. I am requesting a contempt of court charge.

Objection.
Breach of Procedure.

Perjury is defined as "When a witness has perjured themselves on the stand by lying or strongly misrepresenting facts on the stand (proof of perjury should be made with the objection)." Guide - Objections Guide

There are no witnesses currently making testimony.

ANSWER TO TWO OBJECTIONS
This is not Breach of Procedure. The Plaintiff's counsel really needs to become more familiar with Court Procedures in Redmont. The Objections Guide, which the Plaintiff's counsel has already quoted from, shows that you can answer to an objection without being directed to by the court:
View attachment 29545

This lawyer is filling up the case with silly and ignorant objections.

Overruled, I ask that both parties follow court procedure. If the defence has arguments they wish to make they may do so in their closing statement.

The Defense now has 48 hours to deliver their closing statement to the court.

 

[Dartanboy]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT

Good day, your honors, opposing counsel.

I’ll jump straight into this.

1. The Plaintiff claims “There is so much evidence that points towards the Defendants being incredibly guilty.”

The Defense agrees that there is a lot of evidence, but disagrees that this evidence is incriminating. In simple terms, there’s a lot of stuff, but none of that stuff is illegal.

2. The Plaintiff claims that the Defense has “argued semantics – for example stating that MINT was not a registered Political Party, and therefore by not being registered is not protected under the Campaign Espionage law, despite the fact that the law never mentions Political Parties.”

To be very clear, while it is true that MINT was not a registered Political Party, that was not the final finding. According to DoS policy, MINT was an illegitimate party – not merely “not registered.” Because it is illegitimate (not merely “not registered”, it is not protected under the Campaign Espionage law.

I’ll repeat the DoS policy here: “All legitimate parties need to be registered with the Department of State.”
(Here’s a link: https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/registration-information.54/)

If a party is not registered, it is by definition, not legitimate.

3. The Plaintiff has brought the definition of Campaign Espionage again: “Any parties participating in or accessory to the gathering, infiltration, or compromise of any sensitive information related to a political campaign that has not already been released to the public, under the instruction of another campaign or entity working in association with another campaign.”

Not only was MINT an illegitimate party, but MINT was not campaigning (that is, there was no political campaign). This is clearly stated by the Plaintiff (see Defense’s Exhibit 1, also copied here for ease of finding).

Additionally, the GER has not participated in “the gathering, infiltration, or compromise of any sensitive information related to a political campaign.” This is partially because there was no political campaign to have sensitive information, but perhaps more convincing is the lack of sensitive information itself.

Your honors, let us review the Plaintiff’s Claims for Relief regarding Campaign Espionage.
(Note: I have changed “Mint” to “MINT” and “the political party” to “MINT” even though MINT was an illegitimate party. I have also fixed typos in usernames)

• “The GER as an organization committed Campaign Espionage … [by] directing its members to infiltrate, gather, and compromise [MINT]”
  • This makes no claims about gathering, infiltrating, or compromising sensitive information, which is a requirement for Campaign Espionage.
• “LieutenantDerp[99] as an individual committed Campaign Espionage … [by] directing GER’s members to infiltrate, gather, and compromise [MINT]”
  • This makes no claims about gathering, infiltrating, or compromising sensitive information, which is a requirement for Campaign Espionage.
• “Yeet_Boy as an individual committed Campaign Espionage … [by] directing GER’s members to infiltrate, gather, and compromise [MINT]”
  • This makes no claims about gathering, infiltrating, or compromising sensitive information, which is a requirement for Campaign Espionage.
• “Jontaa as an individual committed Campaign Espionage … [by] directing GER’s members to infiltrate, gather, and compromise [MINT]”
  • This makes no claims about gathering, infiltrating, or compromising sensitive information, which is a requirement for Campaign Espionage.
• “[ultrapvpnoob] as an individual committed Campaign Espionage … [ultrapvpnoob] infiltrated, gathered, and compromised … [MINT]”
  • This makes no claims about gathering, infiltrating, or compromising sensitive information, which is a requirement for Campaign Espionage.
• “[x]tub12345 as an individual committed Campaign Espionage … [x]tub12345 infiltrated, gathered, and compromised … [MINT]”
  • This makes no claims about gathering, infiltrating, or compromising sensitive information, which is a requirement for Campaign Espionage.
• “[bananek5] as an individual committed Campaign Espionage … [bananek5] infiltrated, gathered, and compromised … [MINT]”
  • This makes no claims about gathering, infiltrating, or compromising sensitive information, which is a requirement for Campaign Espionage.
• “OakWinner as an individual committed Campaign Espionage … OakWinner infiltrated, gathered, and compromised … [MINT]”
  • This makes no claims about gathering, infiltrating, or compromising sensitive information, which is a requirement for Campaign Espionage.

4. So we see the Plaintiff say “Does it swim like a duck, does it quack like a duck, well it is a duck.”

Well, your honors. A parrot is perfectly capable of swimming and sounding like a duck, and that’s exactly what MINT did here. It sounds kind of like a political party. It acted kind of like a political party, but in the end, the DoS policy concludes it is an illegitimate party.

Regardless, the argument does not end there. As stated and shown above, the Plaintiff has failed to allege all the necessary parts of Campaign Espionage, and therefore no Campaign Espionage can be found legitimate.

5. The Plaintiff claims, “Well this is why the new evidence gathered by the Plaintiff is so important to this case, because in the screenshots of the conversation that the GER members thought they were just having between themselves ‘Bubble’ writes (Picture 003): “Jontay knew about the operation…Operation to destroy MINT” then later (Picture 009) ‘EthanPoggers’ writes: “We got MINT shut down…our mission is complete” to which xXLeiutenantDerpXx replies “yeah. We destabilized them and they shut down. We won” - seems like they had aspirations above just a little bit of murder. It is possible that they have not been entirely truthful with their counsel, something which I’m sure their counsel is not too happy about.”

First of all, this evidence only suggests that the following is true:

• Bubble (I do not know who they are in Redmont) may have believed the operation was to destroy MINT
  • This was likely referring to MINT’s military, not the political party as a whole.
• EthanPoggers (who I believe is Jontaa) believed the mission was complete after MINT was shut down.
  • Again, this was likely referring to MINT’s military, not the political party as a whole.
• xXLieutenantDerpXx (who I believe is LieutenantDerp99) believed that when MINT was shut down, the GER won.
  • Again, this was likely referring to MINT’s military, not the political party as a whole.

Regardless, even if it was found that the purpose of this operation was to shut down the political party, there’s still a severe lack of “the gathering, infiltration, or compromise of any sensitive information related to a political campaign” that is required for Campaign Espionage.

6. The Plaintiff prepared for my arguments in my 5th point, claiming, “So if the Defence affirms that the members of the GER did indeed plan and execute the plan to infiltrate MINT, and then in private they are stating the reason for this was to destabilize and shut down MINT, it is pretty cut and dry that they have admitted their guilt in this plot. The new evidence shows in plain writing the guilt of the members accused. Lastly it does not matter if they throw out this claim that despite their intention to destabilize and destroy MINT their actions were against MINT’s military, because MINT was not a military - it was an Unregistered Political Party.”

Well, once again the Plaintiff is possibly committing Perjury, directly contradicting the Plaintiff’s own evidence. Take a look at the Plaintiff’s Exhibit L > Jontaa Evidence > 003.png (also partially screenshotted below). We see the Plaintiff proclaiming “I will promise you, MINT always wins” and “MINT is an army”

Either MINT was a military, or the Plaintiff has committed Fraud by leading the Defendants in this case to believe that it was.

7. The Plaintiff says, “And so on the charge of Campaign Espionage we ask the court to come back to the intention behind the law, is the GER acting in this way a "fair political practice"? We ponder this question because stopping unfair practices is why the law was established. We would say it is not at all fair and hope the court agrees with us and moves to prevent these practices from occuring in the future, something which the new evidence shows they fully intend to do.”

The Defense is of the belief that this was not a political practice at all, but a strategic military operation that the Plaintiff wishes to paint as a political operation. Regardless, the Plaintiff is asking the court to set aside the actual law regarding Campaign Espionage, and come to a conclusion based on whether the practice was “fair.” I urge you not to make a decision contrary to the law.

8. The Plaintiff says, “Let us move onto Identity Fraud, where once again the new evidence kind stops the Defence in their tracks. You see in their Opening Statement the Defence states the following: “First, to suggest that anyone is expected to say every organization they currently belong to when trying to join another organization is a bit silly.”, well funnily enough they were all repeatedly warned on the 1st of October, the same day that the MINT application was posted due to the influx of new members, that they could not be part of the GER and MINT, and even if that wasn’t the case the issue at hand is not the fact that they were in the GER and MINT at the same time, even though that was against MINT’s rules, but instead that they joined MINT specifically claiming they were done with the GER!”

The Defense affirms that the Plaintiff sent several messages saying they could not be a member of both the GER and MINT, however, the Plaintiff retracted MINT’s application before they were able to respond, but as the Plaintiff says: that is not “the issue at hand.” (So let’s talk about the actual issue).

First, let’s take another look at the definition of Identity Fraud: “The act of fraudulently misrepresenting yourself as someone else or fraudulently claiming you have authority where you don't”

The Plaintiff is asking you, once again, to set aside the law for this verdict. It boils down to this: “they joined MINT specifically claiming they were done with the GER!” Your honors, does that sound like the Defendants misrepresented themselves as someone else? Does that sound like the Defendants claimed to have authority where they did not? While it might be possible that they could be found guilty of other crimes, it certainly does not fit the bill of Identity Fraud. To further show this, we can go through the Plaintiff’s Claims for Relief regarding Identity Fraud:
(Note: I have fixed typos in usernames)

• “LieutenantDerp[99] as an individual committed … Identity Fraud … not disclosing that they had not relinquished their position as a GER leader, which would have made them ineligible for membership with MINT.”
  • This makes no claims about LieutenantDerp99 misrepresenting themself as someone else or having authority where they do not, which is a requirement for Identity Fraud.
• “Yeet_Boy as an individual committed … Identity Fraud … sending its members to misrepresent themselves and omit the fact that they were GER members, they defrauded MINT and disrupted the political party to the point that it was destroyed. By also misrepresenting his position on merging the parties, Yeet_Boy mislead the plaintiff into quantifiable injury by destabilizing his party.”
  • This makes no claims about Yeet_Boy misrepresenting themself as someone else or having authority where they do not, which is a requirement for Identity Fraud.
• “Jontaa as an individual committed … Identity Fraud … not disclosing that they had not relinquished their position as a GER leader, which would have made them ineligible for membership with MINT.”
  • This makes no claims about Jontaa misrepresenting themself as someone else or having authority where they do not, which is a requirement for Identity Fraud.
• “[ultrapvpnoob] as an individual committed … Identity Fraud … not disclosing that they had not relinquished their position as a GER leader, which would have made them ineligible for membership with MINT.”
  • This makes no claims about ultrapvpnoob misrepresenting themself as someone else or having authority where they do not, which is a requirement for Identity Fraud.
• “[x]tub12345 as an individual committed … Identity Fraud … not disclosing that they had not relinquished their position as a GER leader, which would have made them ineligible for membership with MINT.”
  • This makes no claims about xtub12345 misrepresenting themself as someone else or having authority where they do not, which is a requirement for Identity Fraud.
• “[bananek5] as an individual committed … Identity Fraud … not disclosing that they had not relinquished their position as a GER leader, which would have made them ineligible for membership with MINT.”
  • This makes no claims about bananek5 misrepresenting themself as someone else or having authority where they do not, which is a requirement for Identity Fraud.
• “OakWinner as an individual committed … Identity Fraud … not disclosing that they had not relinquished their position as a GER leader, which would have made them ineligible for membership with MINT.”
  • This makes no claims about OakWinner misrepresenting themself as someone else or having authority where they do not, which is a requirement for Identity Fraud.

9. The Plaintiff says, “The Defence then states that MINT cannot be a victim because it was not a registered political party, while this is an utterly ridiculous point we are not even going to go into it. The victim here is the Plaintiff, The_Donuticus - the Plaintiff is the individual as the leader of the party who was the target of the fraudulent and deceitful actions. That is why this case is 'The_ Donuticus v GER…'.”

Your honors, the Plaintiff makes it very clear: The_Donuticus is the Plaintiff and believes he was the target of the allegedly fraudulent and deceitful actions. So the question becomes, why do the Claims for Relief so adamantly claim that the Defendants “disrupted the political party” and “defrauded MINT?”

Well, I cannot answer that question. Perhaps we need to throw out each Claim for Relief that is alleging actions against MINT, not against The_Donuticus.

10. The Plaintiff states, “The Defence also states “the Plaintiff did not justifiably rely on the alleged misrepresentation, as Donuticus implies that he had been aware that they were lying and that he “play[ed] along and play[ed] dumb[”], the issue is that the Plaintiff did justifiably rely on the misrepresentation, as the GER members were listed as members of MINT in its registration on the 1st of October in order to get it officially confirmed as a party. The only reason that the registration was undertaken is because of the belief of the Plaintiff that MINT would be able to be approved as an actual party, due to the influx of members. It wasn’t until after this date that Jontay revealed the information to the Plaintiff which then confirmed the suspicions the Plaintiff had. With the statement that the Plaintiff “play[ed] along and play[ed] dumb” refering to the events after that where the rally was held and the knowledge of the deceit was revealed, and the registration then being retracted due to the now knowledge that MINT would not have the members to get accepted.”

I don’t really have much to say here. It’s up to the Plaintiff to prove that he justifiably relied on the alleged misrepresentation. It’s not up to the Defense to prove he didn’t. Despite this, the Defense has at least provided enough evidence to leave significant room for doubt.

Additionally, as mentioned earlier, no elements of Identity Fraud were actually alleged – just Identity Fraud as a whole was weakly alleged.

11. The last part of the Plaintiff’s Closing Statement that I will be reviewing here, says, “However, none of this is actually consequential as the very act of joining a political party with the intention of destabilizing and destroying by way of misrepresentation of who they are is Identity Fraud. When joining a political party, people are expected to be loyal, even more so if they are taking an oath of loyalty to the party. The fact that they did so and then moved against MINT by acting as agents of the GER; they acted in a manner that fits the definition of Identity Fraud.”

Yet again, your honors, the Plaintiff asks you to set aside the law, claiming Identity Fraud without claiming the Defendants misrepresented themselves as someone else or that they claimed to have authority where they did not.

12. There are still two Claims for Relief which have not yet been mentioned, so I’ll touch on them now.

First the Plaintiff asks for LieutenantDerp99 to be charged with Slander for saying “I suspect everyone loves Donuticus.”
This statement does not cause damages to the Plaintiff, nor is it demonstrably false (one cannot prove that LieutenantDerp99 did not believe that). Finally, the Plaintiff did not show there was intent to do harm. This seems to be a despicable money-grab attempt.

Second, the Plaintiff asks for the GER as a whole to be charged with Fraud for “intentionally sending its members to misrepresent themselves and omit the fact that they were GER members.”
There are multiple problems with this:

• There is reasonable doubt to believe the Plaintiff justifiably relied on the misrepresentation
• MINT was an illegitimate party
• The Plaintiff asked them to leave or told them to leave the GER shortly before retracting MINT’s application to be a legitimate party
• If MINT was legitimate and was the victim, it seems odd that this is ‘The_Donuticus v. GER…’

And, I believe that’s all.

In conclusion, I ask two things, your honors. First, take a look at the damage caused by my clients. Were there any real, quantifiable damages? I don’t believe so. The most damage that could possibly have been done was the retraction of the MINT application, but even this was the choice of the Plaintiff, not forced by my clients. Regardless, even if it was forced by my clients, there is nothing stopping the Plaintiff from trying to form MINT again, thus showing an extreme lack of damages, yet the Plaintiff requests over $300,000 in compensation. The Plaintiff does not seem to want to see justice, rather a large sum of cash in his own pockets when my clients have merely upset him without disobeying the law.

Secondly, your honors, I implore you to look very strongly at the law. The Plaintiff fails to allege extremely important factors of most of the alleged crimes. So much so, that to rule in favor of the Plaintiff for most of these would actually set the precedent that if only a small portion of the definition of a crime is met, the actions would be considered said crime. Imagine being sued for Slander when you were completely honest, but did damage to someone’s reputation. Upon proving the validity of the statement, you were still forced to pay up. This would be the precedent being set. Again, I urge you not to set aside the law, and to uphold the laws of Redmont and the rights of my clients.

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 9th day of November 2022

 

[Dartanboy]

Your honors, I do not know what happened to the formatting there.

(Random bolds, underlines, and failed lists)

I am trying to fix it so sorry about the edit messages. I will not change the content of the arguments at all.

EDIT: I have fixed it. I accidentally included some bbcode in the arguments (particularly in ultrapvpnoob's name and the word "by"). They've been removed.

 

[Krix]

The Court is now in recess, The Supreme Court will convene and decide upon its verdict based on facts presented to the court.

Please be patient I expect this will take longer than usual due to the size of the case.

 

[Jakovus]

Your honours,

Since Dartanman left Solid Law Firm, I will be taking over the case as main representation for the Defendant. In that light, I would request the Court to deliver the verdict in the near future. While I do understand the complexity of this case, a month and a half have already elapsed since the Court issued their announcement it's in recess and to me it looks as a more than reasonable amount of time to deliver the verdict.

 

[Krix]

Verdict

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT
The_Donuticus v. GER, as an Organization, et al. [2022] SCR 18

I. PLAINTIFF'S POSITION
1. The plaintiff had intentions to recreate MINT.
2. During the time between the initial party registration application and the ultimate shutdown of MINT, select members of the Galatic Empire of Redmont (GER) caused damages to the plaintiff and his harmed his intentions to form a political party.

II. DEFENDANT'S POSITION
1. The defendant affirms some of the facts listed in the initial filing, however, disagrees with the claims which the plaintiff wishes to grants relief from
2. The defendant had no intention of destabalizing MINT as a party, only their alleged military.
3. The GER did not shutdown MINT as MINT was never formally recognized as a party.

III. THE COURT OPINION
Justice JoeGamer delievered the Opinion of the Court, in which Justce Nacholebraa joined. Chief Justice Krix filed a dissenting opinion.

Justice JoeGamer delivered the Opinion of The Court

With the great unbanning, many former political faces returned to the Commonwealth with revived ambitions and goals. Among these, The_Donuticus, founder of the now defunct political party MINT, returned with ambitions to bring back the MINT party. Seeing a potential militaristic threat, the Galactic Empire of Redmont (referred to as the GER), currently run by Yeet_Boy, drafts plans to weaken and destabilize the “MINT army”; these plans would later turn out to be “Operation Phantom” [Exhibit B]. According to plans, the goal of Operation Phantom was to infiltrate MINT, destabilize MINT’s army, and assassinate its leader, The_Donuticus (referred to as Don in Exhibit B). While in the midst of this plan, the plan is discovered. Having knowledge of the plan, The_Donuticus uses the party application as a way of gathering evidence of wrongdoing from the GER. After gathering evidence and hosting a rally, The_Donuticus withdraws his party application and releases a public memorandum acknowledging he knew about the alleged espionage and allowed the GER to continue in order to gather evidence. A few days later, The_Donuticus files a class action suit against members of the GER, as well as the GER itself. The case itself alleges damages from campaign espionage, identity fraud, and slander.
Before addressing the alleged damages, it is important to establish two ideas, MINT as a political campaign and the purpose of civil court. Based on the actions of MINT, while not formally recognized as a political party, its actions were still that of a political campaign. This will be used when assessing the alleged damage due to campaign espionage. Second, it is important for this court to outline the purpose of the civil court. The civil court is used to obtain compensation and punitive damages as a result of actions done by the defendant. The civil court is not a citizen laying out criminal charges and pursuing these charges. Instead, civil court should be seen as a party seeking compensation as a result of actions done, whether that be from criminal statute or extraneous circumstances.
When looking at the alleged damages because of the GER’s attempted campaign espionage, it is unclear whether the alleged damages would have occurred if The_Donuticus had removed the GER members from MINT when finding out about Operation Phantom. As previously established, MINT is a political campaign. Given the activities of the GER, it is clear that the GER was an opposing political campaign. Had action been done by MINT when first hearing about the potential espionage occurring, this entire situation may have been avoided, however, the plaintiff allowed damages to continue. When a party allows damages to occur, they null themselves from receiving any compensation and punitive relief.
When looking at damages due to identity fraud, it is unlikely that any damages were suffered as a result of the GER’s actions. In the initial filing facts section, the plaintiff admits to discovering the plan. However, instead of acting on this knowledge, the plaintiff admits to “shut[ing] down the party after gathering evidence.” Furthermore, in a public memorandum posted in MINT’s political party application, The_Donuticus admits letting the GER “ run rapanant.” In civil cases, the standard of proof is the balance of probabilities. Had they taken proper action when hearing about the plan, all the havoc caused by the GER would have been avoided. The fact is the plaintiff allowed the GER to cause chaos and harm MINT. These damages are not the fault of the GER but of The_Donuticus’s inaction to remove a problem. Now it is impossible to gauge the damage actually done prior to being informed of the plan since no official timeline has been established by either party. Purposely allowing damages to occur makes the damaged party’s request for compensation invalid. If one allows something to happen, they must pay the consequence of their actions (or lack thereof).
When it comes to slander, it is important to answer two questions: (1) Did the comment damage the reputation, character, or good name of the plaintiff and (2) Did the defendant have an intent to harm the plaintiff? The comment in question [Exhibit F] raises the difference between a false statement and a slanderous statement. It is important to note that not all false statements are slander. The plaintiff is correct in pointing out that not everybody loves The_Donuticus, but this statement does not damage the reputation, character, or good name of the plaintiff. The claims of slander fail both tests and no damages have been proven by the plaintiff over the defendant’s statement.
When looking at this case in whole, the biggest factor in this case was the fact the plaintiff saw the GER, saw the damages being committed, and did not do anything within their power to stop the GER; by their own admission, they allowed these to occur to gather evidence. This is unacceptable and will not be tolerated in civil court. Gathering evidence for damages is always allowed (this is the nature of civil court), however, when a party must allow damages to occur under their own accord, this is not damages which relief can be claimed.

Chief Justice Krix's dissent

When looking at the case The_Donuticus v. GER, et al. [2022] SCR 18 it is clear that the GER had a malicious intent to undermine the stability of MINT and cause it damage. It is also relevant to note that MINT operated as a "campaign" and therefore was covered under campaign espionage laws which stipulate the definition for campaign as "An entity which is politically motivated and has objectives it wishes to accomplish through political means with the aim of influencing law or government policy."
MINT clear was a politically motivated organisation and had objectives it wished to accomplish through political means, regardless of whether it was a registered political party or not. Operation Phantoms entire purpose was aimed towards the "gathering, infiltration, or compromise of any sensitive information related to a political campaign that has not already been released to the public" in relation to their activities within MINT.

Therefore I believe any member involved in operation Phantom engaged in an act of Campaign Espionage against MINT and should be charged with punitive damages of $5,000 each; and in the event any member involved in operation Phantom be in a Public Office within the Commonwealth of Redmont they should be removed from their position forthwith. However this leaves the question, were any damages suffered by the plaintiff as a result of the acts of the defendant(s)?, I believe damages were suffered, be it not monetary losses. A large amount of time goes into the creation and running of any organisation let alone a political campaign. It is clear to me that the actions by the defendant(s) sabotaged this work through creating an atmosphere within the campaign of paranoia and deceit due to members of operation Phantom not acting in a manner of good faith upon joining MINT, actively attempting to destabilize the party. Based on these facts It is my opinion that this court should award the extra punitive damages requested in the plaintiffs prayer for relief in order to compensate for this loss of time, and stress caused by the perpetrators involved in operation Phantom.

Lastly, It is not my belief than an onus shouldn't be placed upon a victim to interfere when damages incurred as a result of an agent engaging in criminal acts are being done against them, or an entity they own; I believe this would create a dangerous precedent where victims of criminal acts are forced to place themselves in harms-way in order to guarantee their eligibility to receive the compensatory damages they are owed. This belief carries over to the case The_Donuticus v. GER, et al. [2022] SCR 18

IV. DECISION
The Supreme Court rules in favor of the defendants and grants the following relief:
1. A sum of $7,000 in total, to cover legal fees for the defendant

The Supreme Court thanks all involved.