Lawsuit: Adjourned Unseatedduke1 v. The Radish [2024] DCR 26

Status
Not open for further replies.
IncompleteRiver said:
OBJECTION
Relevence?

This is just insulting to the Plaintiff, Your Honor.
Click to expand...
Your Honor, it’s a totally necessary question. The plaintiff is playing games and not answering my questions straight, so I am attempting to show the Court he is either playing games or is not a reasonable person.
 
Aladeen said:
@Alexander P. Love you may begin questioning your witness, please do so within the next 24 hours. Witness, please respond within 24 hours after the questions have been posted.
Click to expand...
My apologies, as I stated yesterday the time to question the plaintiffs witness is over. Mr Love please let the court know if you plan on questioning your witness.
 
Aladeen said:
My apologies, as I stated yesterday the time to question the plaintiffs witness is over. Mr Love please let the court know if you plan on questioning your witness.
Click to expand...
… I don’t have a witness. I am cross examining the plaintiff witness. I cannot be expected to only examine the plaintiff witness in a few hours.
 
Mr Love you are making a mockery of this court and have committed perjury. As a result you are fined $15,000 and are sentenced to 20 minutes of jail.
 
The plaintiff has 24 hours to cross examine the defendants witness. The witness must respond to the questions within 24 hours after they have been posted.
 
Aladeen said:
Mr Love you are making a mockery of this court and have committed perjury. As a result you are fined $15,000 and are sentenced to 20 minutes of jail.
Click to expand...
I didn’t call up Dartanman though. I called up AugustusPlayz but he got banned, so he cannot be called up. I apologize for the confusion.
 
Aladeen said:
Mr Love you are making a mockery of this court and have committed perjury. As a result you are fined $15,000 and are sentenced to 20 minutes of jail.
Click to expand...
You cannot fine or jail me for an indictable offense.
 
Alexander P. Love said:
I didn’t call up Dartanman though. I called up AugustusPlayz but he got banned, so he cannot be called up. I apologize for the confusion.
Click to expand...
You called AugustusPlays/Dartanboy.
 
Aladeen said:
You called AugustusPlays/Dartanboy.
Click to expand...
Your honor, I got confused as they were alts at first. After consideration, I realized that only Augustus would be the valid one since Dartanboy is a separate character.
 
Last edited:
Aladeen said:
The plaintiff has 24 hours to cross examine the defendants witness. The witness must respond to the questions within 24 hours after they have been posted.
Click to expand...
The plaintiff has 72 hours to present their closing statements. Immediately after the plaintiff posts their closing statement the defendant will have 72 hours to post theirs.
 
Your honor,

The plaintiff's counsel needs to to ask for a 72 hour extension. Both @IncompleteRiver and I are currently in the middle of moves IRL. We have thus been unable to respond to the rapid movements of this case. My apologies your honor.

Yours truly,
Matthew100x
Managing Partner of Prodigium
 
Extension granted.
 
Just a heads up for both parties I will be taking over this case from here and on.
 
Your honor,

I am posting on the behalf of @IncompleteRiver as he is unable to respond presently.

We’ve heard a lot in this case about satire, free speech, and sensitivity. But at its heart, this case is simple: Unseatedduke1, a respected judge turned plaintiff, was defamed and libeled by The Radish, a satire publication turned defendant.

The defense claims their article was satire. Yes, they included a disclaimer; but disclaimers do not absolve you from responsibility when your words are demonstrably false and cause harm. A reasonable person reading the article would believe that the plaintiff supported “big media” – a stance he explicitly rejected in his own words. The defendant took those words, twisted them, and published them against the plaintiff, without permission or even a basic attempt at journalistic integrity.

The defense claims satire is protected speech. While we certainly support free speech, satire is not a shield for defamation. There is a line between humor and harm, and the defendant crossed it. Their actions were deliberate, malicious, and damaging to the judge's career and reputation. The defense argues that satire justifies these actions. But satire doesn't give anyone a free pass to spread lies and harm reputations. The line between satire and defamation is clear: when the intent is to mislead or damage, it crosses that line.

Let's examine the evidence:
  • The Radish's own words: The "Judge Unseatedduke1 Joins Fight Against Big Media" article misrepresented the plaintiff's stance on who should post in #news, falsely attributing support for positions he never endorsed. This was not innocent commentary; it was a deliberate attempt to paint him in a specific light, regardless of the truth.
  • The refusal to retract: Despite receiving a cease and desist letter from the plaintiff requesting the removal of this harmful misinformation, the defendant refused to take responsibility for their actions. Instead, they doubled down, launching further attacks and fabrications that only exacerbated the damage.
  • The unauthorized use of copyrighted material: The defendant blatantly copied and pasted one of the plaintiff's messages without permission, directly violating his copyright. This is not simply a matter of quoting someone; it is stealing someone's creative work for their own gain.
  • The "Massive Protest" fabrication: The defendant falsely claimed there were massive protests outside the courthouse against the plaintiff, twisting events to make him appear unpopular and vulnerable. This was not journalism; it was propaganda designed to incite anger and discredit him in the public eye.
  • The fabricated quotes in "New Management": The defendant went so far as to invent entirely made-up quotes, attributing them to both the both the plaintiff and his legal counsel. These blatant fabrications were designed to portray the plaintiff and his legal team as authoritarian figures, silencing any dissent against their supposed agenda.
While the defendant claims to be a satire outlet, their actions speak volumes. After being confronted with their initial falsehoods and given the opportunity to rectify the situation with the Cease & Desist letter, the defendant responded not with remorse or accountability, but with a wave of further attacks designed to silence plaintiff and damage his reputation beyond repair.

Think about it: after receiving a cease and desist letter requesting the removal of the false article, what did the defendant do? They published another article falsely claiming there was a protest against him, complete with fabricated details and blatant lies. Then they published a third article mocking the plaintiff's efforts to seek justice, further blurring the line between satire and malicious defamation.

This wasn't accidental. This wasn't a simple misunderstanding. These were calculated actions intended to intimidate, harass, and silence a judge who dared to stand up for himself against their falsehoods.

In the case of xLayzur & Krix v. Politico [2023] FCR 62, it was established that the publication of false statements constitutes defamation and libel, even when disguised as reporting on public interest disclosures. The court ruled that journalistic freedom and expression of political communication does not extend to publishing false information that damages an individual's reputation. We extend this precedent to the defendant, whose publications of false statements have defamed and libeled the plaintiff when reported as news. The Federal Court’s decisions are binding in the district court under section 18.b of the Constitution “The Federal Court of Redmont is the appellate court for the District Court of Redmont.”

The defendant states that they are a “news reporting” company. False statements, regardless of political communication or news reporting status, can be sued for libel “these are specific, false claims about specific actions and results, the court believes that it is not protected by these Constitutional rights… the Freedom of Political Communication and the Freedom of Press and Media cannot protect you when making direct, specific, defamatory statements” (see Lawsuit: Adjourned - xLayzur & Krix v. Politico [2023] FCR 62). The defendant has made direct, specific, defamatory statements against the plaintiff and thus falls under the holding of [2023] FCR 62.

The defense argues there is no evidence of damage. But consider this: the plaintiff had to defend his reputation by taking legal action – an expense he wouldn’t have incurred if not for the defendant's reckless actions. He has been subjected to public ridicule and harassment, all because the defendant chose to prioritize clickbait over the truth. When someone intentionally publishes false information that harms another person's standing in their community, especially a judge whose impartiality is paramount, they must be held responsible. The plaintiff did not ask to be libeled and defamed. He was targeted by the defendant and they kept doubling down on their attacks. He deserves to be treated with respect, just as any citizen deserves to have their reputation protected from malicious attacks.

We therefore ask that the defendant be held accountable for their actions. Kindly award the plaintiff the damages he requested in his prayer for relief:
  • A public retraction and apology, clearly stating that the statements made were false and without basis.
  • The Defendant removes all copies of the aforementioned article from public domain.
  • Legal fees of $5,000 dollars.
  • The Plaintiff seeks 11,000 dollars in compensatory damages for the defendant's misuse of the plaintiff's intellectual property.
Thank you.
 
The defense requests a 24 hour extension as I am on vacation right now and will have a busy day today.
 
I apologize for the slight lateness, vacations can be unpredictable sometimes.

May it please the Court,

Your Honor, opposing council, this case is simple. I will reiterate what I have said before: the plaintiff is launching a petty lawsuit. The plaintiff purports that offensive journalism is too dangerous, but it is actually freedom of political communication and press. These important rights must be protected.

Libel must have intent to libel, which is disproven by the disclaimer on the article as well as the obvious satirical nature of the article as assumed by a reasonable person. It must also have provable damages: the plaintiff has failed to show how this actually harmed his reputation in a provable way, other than he was offended and decided to sue. Without these two, libel cannot be upheld. This case is much different than the precedent offered by the plaintiff as this is a satirical newspaper, not a newspaper pretending to pass something untrue off as a fact as was the case in the precedent. The different fact pattern entirely changes the tone of this case. Let's stick to the facts, let's stick to the law, and let's uphold freedom of the press for a healthy democracy.

Furthermore, the claims for intellectual property infringement hold no water. Using someone's quotes is not protected intellectual property, and even if it was, parody and news reporting are both covered under fair use.

The defense asks the Court to find the defense not liable on all counts and award the Radish $5,000 in legal fees. Thank you.
 
This court is in recess pending a verdict
 

Verdict


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT
Unseatedduke1 v. The Radish [2024] DCR 26

I. PLAINTIFF'S POSITION
1. The Radish published a post titled "Judge Unseatedduke1 Joins Fight Against Big Media" as one of their articles.
2. The article makes a claim on the behalf of the Plaintiff that he has taken a stance against “big-media” and supports The Radish.
3. The Plaintiff is a federal judge and wishes to maintain a neutral stance.
4. Plaintiff sent a Cease and Desist letter to The Radish on 7/24/2024 requesting the article be taken down
5. The Radish refused to comply with the demands to retract their statements and issue a public apology.
6. On 7/25/24, AugustusPlays sent a message that included statements about Plaintiff.
7. The defendant published a second article, falsely claiming there was a protest against the plaintiff.
8. The defendant publishes a third article titled “Not The Radish: Judge Unseatedduke1 Sues The Radish,” claiming that this article is not satire.
9. AugustusPlays is an alt (Alternate Account) of the player Dartanboy.
10. The Defendant published an article titled “New Management,” in which the defendant detailed the change in ownership of The Radish, and falsely quoted both IncompleteRiver and Unseatedduke1.
11. The Plaintiff Unseatedduke1 sent a message on 7/24/2024 saying “I like real news topics fake news shouldn’t be in the news channel”

II. DEFENDANT'S POSITION
1. Proof of damages were not offered, and also no damages were alleged.
2. The plaintiff must provide evidence for intent to harm reputation
3. There is no claim since Intellectual Property protects creative work and commentary is not creative work.

III. THE COURT OPINION
1. According to Defamation Act October 2020, "(1) A person may sue for defamation, however, damages from slander and libel are not presumed and must be proven in a court of law." damages have to be proven in a court of law.
2. Also in Defamation Act October 2020, "(2) On Top of proving harm, the Plaintiff must present evidence for intent to harm reputation."
3. In Intellectual Property Act, it states
(2) Copyright protection shall encompass, but not be limited to:
(a) Original literary works and;
(b) artistic works, including illustration, graphic designs, photography, and paintings.
(3) Acts of Congress are exempt from intellectual property/copywrite claims.


3. If we look at both the above, and the evidence that the plaintiff has brought forward to this court, and also the bills above, we can see that the claims that the plaintiff has not shown evidence for intent to harm reputation as it states in Defamation Act October 2020. Also, the Intellectual Property Act protects Original literary works, artistic works, illustrations, graphic designs, photography, paintings. A statement does not constitute to any above.

IV. DECISION
1. The District Court rules in favor of the defendant.

The District Court thanks all involved.



May the defense confirm if they still would like to proceed with their countersuit?
 
Anthony said:

Verdict


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT
Unseatedduke1 v. The Radish [2024] DCR 26

I. PLAINTIFF'S POSITION
1. The Radish published a post titled "Judge Unseatedduke1 Joins Fight Against Big Media" as one of their articles.
2. The article makes a claim on the behalf of the Plaintiff that he has taken a stance against “big-media” and supports The Radish.
3. The Plaintiff is a federal judge and wishes to maintain a neutral stance.
4. Plaintiff sent a Cease and Desist letter to The Radish on 7/24/2024 requesting the article be taken down
5. The Radish refused to comply with the demands to retract their statements and issue a public apology.
6. On 7/25/24, AugustusPlays sent a message that included statements about Plaintiff.
7. The defendant published a second article, falsely claiming there was a protest against the plaintiff.
8. The defendant publishes a third article titled “Not The Radish: Judge Unseatedduke1 Sues The Radish,” claiming that this article is not satire.
9. AugustusPlays is an alt (Alternate Account) of the player Dartanboy.
10. The Defendant published an article titled “New Management,” in which the defendant detailed the change in ownership of The Radish, and falsely quoted both IncompleteRiver and Unseatedduke1.
11. The Plaintiff Unseatedduke1 sent a message on 7/24/2024 saying “I like real news topics fake news shouldn’t be in the news channel”

II. DEFENDANT'S POSITION
1. Proof of damages were not offered, and also no damages were alleged.
2. The plaintiff must provide evidence for intent to harm reputation
3. There is no claim since Intellectual Property protects creative work and commentary is not creative work.

III. THE COURT OPINION
1. According to Defamation Act October 2020, "(1) A person may sue for defamation, however, damages from slander and libel are not presumed and must be proven in a court of law." damages have to be proven in a court of law.
2. Also in Defamation Act October 2020, "(2) On Top of proving harm, the Plaintiff must present evidence for intent to harm reputation."
3. In Intellectual Property Act, it states
(2) Copyright protection shall encompass, but not be limited to:
(a) Original literary works and;
(b) artistic works, including illustration, graphic designs, photography, and paintings.
(3) Acts of Congress are exempt from intellectual property/copywrite claims.


3. If we look at both the above, and the evidence that the plaintiff has brought forward to this court, and also the bills above, we can see that the claims that the plaintiff has not shown evidence for intent to harm reputation as it states in Defamation Act October 2020. Also, the Intellectual Property Act protects Original literary works, artistic works, illustrations, graphic designs, photography, paintings. A statement does not constitute to any above.

IV. DECISION
1. The District Court rules in favor of the defendant.

The District Court thanks all involved.



May the defense confirm if they still would like to proceed with their countersuit?
Click to expand...
The defense confirms, your honor, and motions for summary judgement on the issue.
 
Does the plaintiff agree to a summary judgement?
 
This court is in recess pending a verdict.
 

Verdict


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT
The Radish v. Unseatedduke1 [2024] DCR 26

I. PLAINTIFF'S POSITION
1. The counter plaintiff is requesting legal fees for Unseatedduke1 v. The Radish [2024] DCR 26

II. DEFENDANT'S POSITION
1. The counter defendant agreed to a summary judgement on the issue

III. THE COURT OPINION
1. According to Legal Damages Act "(e) In the event that the plaintiff initiates legal proceedings and such proceedings are dismissed by the court or result in a judgment in favor of the defendant, the prevailing party's legal representatives shall be entitled to recover reasonable legal fees from the plaintiff, capped at $5,000 or 20% of the case's value, whichever is higher."

2. Legal Damages Act states that if a plaintiff initiates legal proceedings and if it is dismissed or results in favor of the defendant, the defendant is entitled to legal fees from the plaintiff.



IV. DECISION
1. The District Court rules in favor of the counter plaintiff. And this court orders that $5,000 be transferred to the plaintiff's lawyer AlexanderLove from Unseatedduke1.

The District Court thanks all involved.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top