Lawsuit: Dismissed xAntho_ny v. FuriousPaladin [2023] DCR 22

[Anthony]

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


xAntho_ny
Plaintiff

v.

FuriousPaladin
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

On August 19th, 2023 the plaintiff was online at spawn talking to another player, in global chat, out of nowhere, the defendant says “isaw anthony selling droogs”, the correct spelling is drugs, the defendent says it again, followed by another player saying “anthony is that true”. FuriousPaladin says a slanderous statement leading other players to believe.


I. PARTIES
1. xAntho_ny (Plaintiff)
2. FuriousPaladin (Defendant)

II. FACTS
1. FuriousPaldain, out of the blue said in global chat that I was selling drugs, they said this twice, having other players in the chat actually think that the plaintiff was selling drugs to other players.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. According to The Defamation Act, “Slander is a false statement which defames another person.” FuriousPaladin said a statement in global chat that could have/can damaged the plaintiff’s reputation




IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. $300
2. $100 legal fees
3. An apology from the defendant.
4. $400 (total)

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 20th day of August 2023

 

[Mask3D_WOLF]

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
WRIT OF SUMMONS
FuriousPaladin is required to appear before the District Court in the case of xAntho_ny v. FuriousPaladin. 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.​

 

[Anthony]

You're honor, the plaintiff would like to request a default judgement due to the defendant not familiarizing themself with the court, nor a Attorney, or a Answer To Complaint.

 

[Mask3D_WOLF]

I hereby charge FuriousPaladin with contempt of court for failure to appear after summons. The DOJ is ordered to fine/jail them appropriately.

The court accepts the request from the plaintiff and will hereby enter a default judgement. Court will be in recess until then.

 

[ko531]

Your honour, I would like to petition the court for permission to file an amicus brief to provide some insight and evidence that the plantiff purposely left out

This is requested in accordance with previous precedent where legal professionals seeking to provide relevant information have been granted the opportunity to provide perspective.

 

[Anthony]

You're honor, may it be possible for the plaintiff to provide a full image of the above evidence, so that the court can see a full image, which ko531 is saying that I left out, and a reasoning can be given to why it was cut out.

 

[Mask3D_WOLF]

Your honour, I would like to petition the court for permission to file an amicus brief to provide some insight and evidence that the plantiff purposely left out

This is requested in accordance with previous precedent where legal professionals seeking to provide relevant information have been granted the opportunity to provide perspective.

Could @ko531 please provide what the scope of the brief would be?

You're honor, may it be possible for the plaintiff to provide a full image of the above evidence, so that the court can see a full image, which ko531 is saying that I left out, and a reasoning can be given to why it was cut out.

I will allow you to present this evidence, the full non-cut screenshot, with reasoning.

 

[Anthony]

You're honor, the word that were cut out was "joking". It was cut out for a couple of reasons. One reason was be because the defendant feared being sued, After the plaintiff said "i will sue you", right after the defendant said "joking". Another reason why it was cut out was because even though the defendant claims that they were "joking", it still could have/ can ruin the plaintiff's reputation.

 

[Mask3D_WOLF]

Anthony, this is your warning. Do not leave out relevant evidence in the future.

 

[ko531]

Yes your Honor,

The Amicus Brief was to include the entire screenshot that Anthony has now shown but also just a few words on my insight and opinion about the entire screenshot and the statements inside of said screenshots. Even though the screenshot has now been presented I still think my insight can be valuable before making a default judgement

 

[Mask3D_WOLF]

Do you have any relation to this case?

 

[ko531]

I did research into this case hoping that I could represent FuriousPaladin but they told me they already had legal representation. I offered an amicus brief as I knew the plantiff was purposely leaving out relevant evidence. I was not there when the incident in question happened but I know enough from my research to believe that my insight can only help before a default judgement. Even though I was trying to represent the Defendent I would be a netural 3rd party when presenting my insight as currently I have no ties with either the plantiff or defendent and only want the truth to be told

 

[Mask3D_WOLF]

I will allow you to file an amicus brief, please do so within 24 hours.

 

[ko531]

I want the court to be aware of 3 things with the conversation and the statements made before a default judgement.

1. The misspelling of drugs into droogs

The defendent seems to have never meant for these statements to be serious. He corrects his first statement as there was no space between "i" and "saw" but still spelled drugs and droogs meaning it was not a mistake and most likely was because it was meant to be in a joking manner.

2. No one left during this conversation

Every citizen who would have saw the first 2 statements about the plantiff selling "droogs" would have also saw the statement in which the defendent said they were "joking". Even if a citizen had their opinion about the plantiff change because of the first 2 statments, it should have been rectified when the defendent stated that they were "joking".

3. All 3 statments were said in under a minute

The defendent stated that they were "joking" just after the first 2 statements. A citizen would have to have to have a quick changing mind if their opinion about the plantiff changed that fast, but even if a citizen had a quick changing mind it should have been reverted after the defendent made the 3rd statement.

Thank you your honor for allowing my amicus brief and letting me speak the truth about the situation.

 

[Mask3D_WOLF]

Thank you, a verdict will come shortly.

 

[Anthony]

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

The plaintiff and defendant has settled out of court for $50 + $1 legal fee, paid to the plaintiff already.

DATED: This 1st day of September 2023

 

[Mask3D_WOLF]

This case is hereby dismissed with prejudice.