Lawsuit: Adjourned xLayzur & Krix v. Politico [2023] FCR 62

[Matthew100x]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


xLayzur & Krix (Represented by Prodigium | Attorneys at Law. Counsel: Matthew100x)
Plaintiff

v.

Politico
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

The defendant wrote an article in #news that made a false statement against the plaintiff and co-plaintiff. This article is designed to damage the plaintiff’s and co-plaintiff’s reputation. It is an attack piece made during a critical time of the election season. The statements are verifiable false and thus the plaintiffs allege libel against the defendant.

I. PARTIES
1. xLayzur, Plaintiff
2. Krix, Co-Plaintiff (named in article as “Chief Justice at the time”)
3. Politico, Defendant

II. FACTS
1. On July 7th, 2023, at 12:50 pm EST, the defendant posted a news article in #news. (See Discord - A New Way to Chat with Friends & Communities)
2. The article alleged that the plaintiff, “has recently come under scrutiny due to a series of controversies surrounding his political career. These controversies shed light on his alleged misconduct and abuse of power”. (See Discord - A New Way to Chat with Friends & Communities)
3. It further alleged a scandal named “VOTEGATE”, and stated the following “During xLayzur's time as a Representative and Deputy Speaker in the 15th Congress, witnesses accused him of attempting to sell his votes for a substantial sum of money. Despite having witnesses and evidence, suspicions of favoritism from the Chief Justice at the time cast doubt on the investigation, leading to no conviction. However, xLayzur did face a Vote of No Confidence in the House and lost his position.” (See Discord - A New Way to Chat with Friends & Communities)
4. The plaintiff did face a Vote of No Confidence which was motioned by 10/8/2022, proposed by then Rep xEndeavour. This motion passed on 10/10/2022. (See Discord - A New Way to Chat with Friends & Communities)
5. The plaintiff was prosecuted for this action in The Commonwealth v. xLayzur [2022] SCR 19. (See Lawsuit: Dismissed - The Commonwealth v. xLayzur [2022] SCR 19)
6. The Supreme Court handled this case as both the trial court and the court of final appeal. (See https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/the-commonwealth-v-xlayzur-2022-scr-19.14780)
7. In this case, the Prosecution attempted to utilize a statement of fact as well as screenshots as proof against the defendant. (See Lawsuit: Dismissed - The Commonwealth v. xLayzur [2022] SCR 19)
8. The Supreme Court was headed by then Chief Justice, Krix, who is a co-plaintiff to this case. (See Lawsuit: Dismissed - The Commonwealth v. xLayzur [2022] SCR 19)
9. The court in this case found that the screenshots could not be relied on as evidence because “Alexthelion has already previously attested that the screenshots were, in fact, fake to Congress, If Alexthelion were to retract on that statement and change his story he would not be a reliable witness. Therefore this Court would be unable to consider his testimony reliable, and as result, it could not be used to assist in the prosecution of a citizen of the Commonwealth.” (See Lawsuit: Dismissed - The Commonwealth v. xLayzur [2022] SCR 19)
10. The court in this case found that joint statement of facts could not be used as legal evidence for the following reasons:

1. “Congress's analyses of the evidence cannot be taken into consideration as Congress is a political body and may have political motives additionally Congress's analysis does not prove how the screenshots could not be a forgery.”
2. “Congress's analysis of the evidence by pointing out pixels and spacing as a justifiable reason to prove the credibility of the evidence does not prove that the evidence is without a shadow of a doubt not fraudulent it only attests to the high-quality standard of photoshopping that would be required to make the screenshots seem real.”
3. “If congress was able to distinguish the noticeable indicators which prove whether a screenshot is credible or not there is the possibility that a forger could have noticed the same indicators.”

(See Lawsuit: Dismissed - The Commonwealth v. xLayzur [2022] SCR 19)
11. The Court in this case found that there was insufficient evidence to support a prosecution and therefore found the defendant not guilty. (See Lawsuit: Dismissed - The Commonwealth v. xLayzur [2022] SCR 19)
12. The plaintiff was thus accused of the crime and acquitted of it, therefore he is not guilty of committing the crime as found in the highest court in our nation, therefore the allegations laid out in fact 3. are false.
13. Per fact 3., the defendant alleged in their article “Despite having witnesses and evidence, suspicions of favoritism from the Chief Justice (bold added for emphasis) at the time cast doubt on the investigation, leading to no conviction”.
14. This is false, as the Court came to the conclusion as a whole, it was not just the decision made by solely the co-plaintiff. (see Lawsuit: Dismissed - The Commonwealth v. xLayzur [2022] SCR 19)
15. Libel is defined as “A published false statement that is damaging to a person’s reputation”. (See Act of Congress - Defamation Act October 2020)


III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Due to the Defendant’s article which made false statements against the plaintiff, the plaintiff’s reputation was damaged. Therefore, the conduct of the defendant falls under the definition of libel.
2. Due to the Defendant’s article which made false statements against the co-plaintiff, the co-plaintiff’s reputation was damaged. Therefore, the conduct of the defendant falls under the definition of libel.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. $20,000 dollars in Humiliation Damages from the defendant for the plaintiff. (See Consequential Damages Act of Congress - Legal Damages Act.)
2. $10,000 dollars in Humiliation Damages from the defendant for the co-plaintiff. (See Consequential Damages Act of Congress - Legal Damages Act.)

(Attach evidence and a list of witnesses at the bottom if applicable)

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 7th day of July, 2023.

 

[Banana]

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

The Defendant is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of xLayzur & Krix v. Politico [2023] FCR 62].

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.​

 

[End]

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


xLayzur et al.
Plaintiff

v.

Politico
Defendant


ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

Your honour,

Politico is a long-standing publisher dedicated to the dissemination of political information, ensuring accountability in public office, and facilitating informed decision-making. It is through the press that citizens are empowered to participate actively in our democratic processes, forming opinions, and engaging in discussions on matters of public importance.

This case is an attack on the press and constitutionally enshrined freedoms by those who fear being held accountable.

FACTS

1. On July 7th, 2023, at 12:50 pm EST, the defendant posted a news article in #news.

Affirmed
Politco published an article in #news.

---

2. The article alleged that the plaintiff, “has recently come under scrutiny due to a series of controversies surrounding his political career. These controversies shed light on his alleged misconduct and abuse of power”

Affirmed
Politco published an article about allegations of misconduct an abuses of power.

---

3. It further alleged a scandal named “VOTEGATE”, and stated the following “During xLayzur's time as a Representative and Deputy Speaker in the 15th Congress, witnesses accused him of attempting to sell his votes for a substantial sum of money. Despite having witnesses and evidence, suspicions of favoritism from the Chief Justice at the time cast doubt on the investigation, leading to no conviction. However, xLayzur did face a Vote of No Confidence in the House and lost his position.”

Affirmed
Politco published an article about accusations made against the xLayzur.
Politico published an article about suspicions at the time that the Chief Justice was acting improperly in that they did not recuse themself, despite being a close friend and long time political ally of xLayzur.
Politico published an article which stated that xLayzur was subject to a successful VONC.

---

4. The plaintiff did face a Vote of No Confidence which was motioned by 10/8/2022, proposed by then Rep xEndeavour. This motion passed on 10/10/2022.

Affirmed
This motion passed without contest.

Evidence before the committee:

Statement of agreed facts with the witness:

Overlay showing the discord formatting perfect to the pixel:

---

5. The plaintiff was prosecuted for this action in The Commonwealth v. xLayzur [2022] SCR 19.

Affirmed

---

6. The Supreme Court handled this case as both the trial court and the court of final appeal.

Affirmed

---

7. In this case, the Prosecution attempted to utilize a statement of fact as well as screenshots as proof against the defendant.

Affirmed

---

8. The Supreme Court was headed by then Chief Justice, Krix, who is a co-plaintiff to this case.

Affirmed

---

9. The court in this case found that the screenshots could not be relied on as evidence because “Alexthelion has already previously attested that the screenshots were, in fact, fake to Congress, If Alexthelion were to retract on that statement and change his story he would not be a reliable witness. Therefore this Court would be unable to consider his testimony reliable, and as result, it could not be used to assist in the prosecution of a citizen of the Commonwealth.”

Affirmed
The court totally ignored evidence which would normally be considered admissible, ignored a comprehensive investigation which found that the witness was alleged to have tampered with by xLayzur - to which the witness confessed and produced evidence, stating that they lied before court to protect xLayzur. The fact that today the two plaintiffs share a political party and that the former Chief Justice is whipping voters for the other Plaintiff is even more so suspicious of the fmr. Chief Justice's motivations at the time.

---

10. The court in this case found that joint statement of facts could not be used as legal evidence for the following reasons:

1. “Congress's analyses of the evidence cannot be taken into consideration as Congress is a political body and may have political motives additionally Congress's analysis does not prove how the screenshots could not be a forgery.”
2. “Congress's analysis of the evidence by pointing out pixels and spacing as a justifiable reason to prove the credibility of the evidence does not prove that the evidence is without a shadow of a doubt not fraudulent it only attests to the high-quality standard of photoshopping that would be required to make the screenshots seem real.”
3. “If congress was able to distinguish the noticeable indicators which prove whether a screenshot is credible or not there is the possibility that a forger could have noticed the same indicators.”

Affirmed
However the court ignored the evidence presented and the presence of a witness who was willing to testify and produce evidence from their DMs with xLayzur that they had been encouraged to obstruct justice.

---

11. The Court in this case found that there was insufficient evidence to support a prosecution and therefore found the defendant not guilty.

Affirmed

---

12. The plaintiff was thus accused of the crime and acquitted of it, therefore he is not guilty of committing the crime as found in the highest court in our nation, therefore the allegations laid out in fact 3. are false.

Disputes
The case did not go to trial, it was dismissed based on a lack of evidence. The plaintiff was not acquitted, they were not found guilty, because there was no plea and there was no advance to trial. The case was over before it started, very early in the preliminary stages of the case.

---

13. Per fact 3., the defendant alleged in their article “Despite having witnesses and evidence, suspicions of favoritism from the Chief Justice (bold added for emphasis) at the time cast doubt on the investigation, leading to no conviction”.

Affirmed
Politico published an article which accurately points out that there were suspicions of favouritism from the Chief Justice at the time of the investigation.

---

14. This is false, as the Court came to the conclusion as a whole, it was not just the decision made by solely the co-plaintiff.

Disputes
This is irrelevant to the Chief Justice's conflict of interest in presiding over the case.

---

15. Libel is defined as “A published false statement that is damaging to a person’s reputation”.

Affirmed

---

Please see below the following Motions to Dismiss:

Spoiler: Motion to Dismiss 1 - Standard of Proof

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


xLayzur et al.
Plaintiff

v.

Politico
Defendant


MOTION TO DISMISS

Lets make one thing clear. The Plaintiff has lodged a civil action which has a standard of proof amounting to the balance of probabilities. The plaintiff is attempting to substantiate this case on the basis of a dismissed criminal action which has the signifiantly higher proof standard of beyond a reasonable doubt.

The prosecution has attempted to discredit the evidence against the plaintiff based on the Supreme Court's appreciation for evidence in what was a criminal action. As the court can see, an abundance of evidence was collected which supports the published claims that there were allegations made and suspicions raised based on this information. This evidence beyond satisfies the standard of proof for civil action.

Therefore, the claims that the published allegations and suspicions were without reasonable evidence are incorrect. The presence of evidence supporting the published information is one of the reasons that this case should be dismissed.

Spoiler: Motion to Dismiss 2 - Constitutional Freedom VI

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


xLayzur et al.
Plaintiff

v.

Politico
Defendant


MOTION TO DISMISS
This case is an attack on the constitutionally enshrined freedom of Political Communication (IV).

Freedom of political communication is a cornerstone of a well-functioning democracy. It is an essential mechanism that empowers citizens to engage in political discourse, voice their opinions, and hold public officials accountable.

In a healthy democracy, media outlets like Politico must have the freedom to speak openly, not only reporting on successful prosecutions but also raising allegations of misconduct and public sentiments of suspicion. This freedom ensures transparency, fosters informed decision-making, and enables the public to actively participate in shaping their government.

Without the ability to express dissenting opinions and share critical information, the democratic fabric weakens, and the trust between citizens and their representatives erodes. Therefore, protecting and upholding freedom of political communication is crucial to maintaining a robust and resilient democracy.

Politico has done nothing but report on allegations and public sentiments of suspicion.

Spoiler: Motion to Dismiss 3 - Constitutional Freedom X

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


xLayzur et al.
Plaintiff

v.

Politico
Defendant


MOTION TO DISMISS
This case is an attack on the constitutionally enshrined freedom of the Press and Media (X).

Freedom of the press and media is a vital pillar of any thriving democracy. It serves as the guardian of transparency, accountability, and the public's right to know. Media outlets, such as Politico, must have the freedom to operate independently, without undue influence or censorship, in order to fulfill their crucial role as information disseminators and watchdogs of power. Through their work, they shine a light on both the triumphs and failings of public officials, ensuring that no wrongdoing goes unnoticed and the truth is brought to the forefront.

The press acts as a conduit for the free flow of ideas, enabling citizens to make informed decisions and engage in robust public discourse. By protecting freedom of the press and media, we safeguard the very foundation of democracy, nurturing an informed citizenry capable of holding those in power accountable and ensuring a government that truly serves the people.

If we prosecute newspapers like Politico, we prosecute the press, we supress the vehicle of transparency and information dissemination.

No news outlet should be scared to publish allegations and suspicions when there is a reasonable cause for the credibility of the information, particularly when it is probable.

Therefore, this case should be dismissed by the court.

Spoiler: Motion to Dismiss 4 - Assumed Reputational Damage

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


xLayzur et al.
Plaintiff

v.

Politico
Defendant

MOTION TO DISMISS

The plaintiff has failed to provide any evidence that suggests that their reputation has been damaged. The plaintiff is merely assuming such and suing on the basis of an assumed truth.

Spoiler: Motion to Dismiss 4 - Presence of Facts

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


xLayzur et al.
Plaintiff

v.

Politico
Defendant


MOTION TO DISMISS
The Plaintiff claims that there is no factual basis to the article's statements. As provide above, the evidence suggests otherwise.

xLayzur did engage in misconduct - he was censured by the House of Representatives for closing the Congressional Discord without approval of Congress.

xLayzur was alleged to have solicited a bribe - evidence and witnesses support there being probable cause that this occurred. The government even charged him with it, but the charges fell through.

There is a well known and established political relationship between the Plaintiffs that extends across multiple years and political parties. It was well known that at the time these concerns were raised in political circles that the Chief Justice was presiding over a friend and political ally's case. You cannot suggest that there was no suspicion of favouritism in the decision to throw out evidence which would normally be accepted (screenshots) and the prospect that there was witness tampering and obstruction of justice.

What Politico has published are statements of fact.

COUNTER CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Legal Fees - Politico will pay $5000 in legal consultancy and representational fees to its legal representative(s). This includes my time as the legal representative of the company.
2. Punitive Damages - $20,000 for what is a frivolous case and a waste of the Court's resources.
3. That the Plaintiff's - individual or collective - publish an apology letter in #news which recognises the importance of the freedom of the press and media, as well as the freedom of political communication, to the maintenance of democracy.

Witnesses, if Required
Hugebob
Alexthelillion

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 10th day of July, 2023.

 

[Banana]

With regard to the Motions to Dismiss:

• Motion to Dismiss 1 - Standard of Proof, is denied. This is a defense and not a claim of procedural error or jurisdiction.
• Motion to Dismiss 2 - Constitutional Freedom VI, is denied. This is a defense and not a claim of procedural error or jurisdiction.
• Motion to Dismiss 3 - Constitutional Freedom X, is denied. This is a defense and not a claim of procedural error or jurisdiction.
• Motion to Dismiss 4 - Assumed Reputational Damage, is denied. After consideration, the Court has formed the opinion that this motion is based on a lack of evidence argument, which is not grounds for dismissal. Furthermore, this is based on lack of evidence for damages, as opposed to lack of evidence for libel itself. Plaintiffs must prove damages in order to receive an award. If they do not, that will result in a reduced award, not the dismissal of the case.
• Motion to Dismiss 4 - Presence of Facts, is denied. This is a defense and not a claim of procedural error or jurisdiction.

That taken care of, we will now move on to opening statements. The Plaintiff may present their opening arguments.

 

[Matthew100x]

Good afternoon Your Honor,

Am I safe to assume this is a 48 hour timing for opening statements?

 

[Banana]

That is correct, counselor.

 

[Matthew100x]

Good Afternoon Your Honor,

I am going to split this opening statement up into a few points and label them for your convenience. These are the categories:

1. On Harms Against the Plaintiff and the Legal Theory.
2. On Defenses made by the Defendant.
3. On the Counterclaim and why it Should be Denied.
4. On Witnesses and why They Should be Denied.

On Harms Against the Plaintiff and the Legal Theory:

Your honor,

I want to begin this section by stating that while the plaintiff understands that lack of proof requires that a judge deny awards, however, I want to point that definition of “Consequential Damages” is for damages that otherwise are incalculable (see 7.1(a) and 7.3(a), Act of Congress - Legal Damages Act.). In this case, we are arguing that publishing the article against the plaintiffs resulted in harm that is incalculable, but the proof that it happened indeed exists. We are looking for a remedy on this issue, because while we believe in the right to political communication and the right to freedom of the press, we do not believe in the right to publish false statements against people.

To begin with, let’s look at the issue and rules involved. The issue is that the defendant made an article which slammed the plaintiffs for past issues to damage their reputation during an election. The article discussed issues that the plaintiff was found not guilty of and attacked the co-plaintiff by making the assertion it was due to their efforts when it was a unanimous Supreme Court decision. The rule is that if you publish a false statement that is damaging to a person’s reputation. Court cases have established further facets regarding libel. In Olisaurus123 Vs. GoldenDiamonds4 [2022] DCR 17, it is the plaintiff’s burden of proof that damages occurred in order to collect an award, in Keegan7om v. FriedPotaters [2021] DCR 21, the question is whether or not the defendant intended to cause harm to the reputation, and Lord_Donuticus v. FriedPotaters [2021] FCR 22, where there must be a sufficient explanation for statements made by the defendant to prove that the accusations were not libel (See Lawsuit: Adjourned - Olisaurus123 Vs. GoldenDiamonds4 [2022] DCR 17, Lawsuit: Adjourned - Keegan7om v. FriedPotaters [2021] DCR 21 and Lawsuit: Adjourned - Lord_Donuticus v. FriedPotaters [2021] FCR 22 respectively).

In accordance with the rules, let’s break down the issue for the application. The plaintiffs had a false statement published against them. Our burden of proof for damages is that the damages are otherwise incalculable, which is acceptable per the Legal Damages Act, this rule was enacted after the Olisaurus123 decision making it obsolete. Per Keegan7om, the defendant published the article during the election cycle, right before the voting began, thus we argue that we meet this issue since the defendant’s article came at a critical time attempting to harm the plaintiffs’ (since the co-plaintiff was also running for an elected position) reputation to harm their chances of being elected. Thus we need to ask what was the defendant’s explanation for posting such articles? Their justification is that they are enabled by rights VI and X to be able to publish what they would like and that it is their right to publish what they want and communicate how they want.

We disagree. We believe that the defendant should be careful of publishing information that can otherwise be proven false. The issue at hand is accusing the plaintiff of crimes that they were acquitted for (hence not guilty), using political evidence that was declared not fit for court. The same goes with the co-plaintiff being accused of getting the plaintiff off when it was the decision of the entire court. While it is within the right of the Defendant to post whatever they believe, we hold that if the defendant purposely posted an attack using false statements, they should be held accountable to the standards of libel and be fined for damages.

In the event we are unable to prove Consequential Damages, we would also like to make mention now that we request for $5,000 dollars of Nominal Damages ($2,500 dollars for both the plaintiff and co-plaintiff).


On Defenses made by the Defendant:

Your Honor,

I will break this into each of their subparts for easier reading:

Spoiler: Defense 1 - Standards of Proof

Defense 1 - Standards of Proof

While the defendant is correct that the proof was considered not fit for criminal trials and that we are dealing with two very different standards in this case, that being the balance of probabilities for civil cases and beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases, they are incorrect about the evidence about veracity of the evidence. The Supreme Court, in an unanimous decision, decided that the evidence was not considerable for any court because it was political in nature and thus is not usable. The Defendant decided to take said evidence that was not acceptable and knowingly used it to attack the plaintiff despite fully knowing that this statement was shot down by the Court previously.

Thus we ask that the court ignore this defense since the defendant blatantly used evidence to attack the plaintiff in spite of the issue having already been resolved in my client’s favor.

Spoiler: Defense 2 - Constitutional Freedom VI

Defense 2 - Constitutional Freedom VI

The defense argues that this case is “an attack on the constitutionally enshrined freedom of Political Communication”, we believe this claim to be hyperbole.

Certainly we all agree that the right to Freedom of Political Communication is an incredibly important cornerstone of our Democracy, however, we do not believe that publishing falsehoods is considered political communication. Indeed, we believe that the defendant agrees with us on this statement, since they did not argue that libel is unconstitutional because it violates the principles of this right.

That being said, the defendant also stated that the article is based on factual information that the main plaintiff had political actions taken against them because of these allegations. This is true, the plaintiff was impeached, however I would like to take the time to remind the Court that impeachment is an entirely political process. The plaintiff was removed for political reasons, not legal ones, where truth doesn’t necessarily matter and perceptions of issues matter more than whether or not the issue is true. However, when push came to shove and the evidence was used in a criminal prosecution against him, it was found that the evidence was not sufficient because of errors in its truthfulness to prosecute the plaintiff and he was acquitted. That same evidence is now being used again to libel the plaintiff.

While it is within the right of the Defendant to post whatever they believe, we hold that if the defendant purposely posted an attack using false statements, they should be held accountable to the standards of libel and be fined for damages and that the freedom of political communication does not cover published false statements.

Spoiler: Defense 3 - Constitutional Freedom X

Defense 3 - Constitutional Freedom X

We would like to begin with this section by again restating that we agree with the plaintiff that The freedom of the Press and Media is an incredibly important cornerstone of our Democracy, however, we do not believe that publishing falsehoods is allowable for the Press or Media. Indeed, we believe that the defendant agrees with us on this statement, since they did not argue that libel is unconstitutional because it violates the principles of this right.

While it is within the right of the Defendant to post whatever they believe, we hold that if the defendant purposely posted an attack using false statements, they should be held accountable to the standards of libel and be fined for damages and that such an action does not violate the principles of this constitutional right.

Spoiler: Defense 4 - Assumed Reputational Damage

Defense 4 - Assumed Reputational Damage

We reiterate the point we made in Section 1, On Harms Against the Plaintiff and the Legal Theory. The definition of “Consequential Damages” is for damages that otherwise are incalculable (see 7.1(a) and 7.3(a), Act of Congress - Legal Damages Act.). In this case, we are arguing that publishing the article against the plaintiffs resulted in harm that is incalculable, but the proof that it happened indeed exists.

We understand that because the humiliation damages are hard to prove that this can result in a lowered award, the plaintiffs still push forward on this issue for other plaintiffs who may find themselves in this issue in the future where a clear false statement has been made against them but they have otherwise incalculable damages, thus we push forward for a judicial resolution on this issue.

If need be, we would also like to make mention now that we request for $5,000 dollars of Nominal Damages ($2,500 dollars for both the plaintiff and co-plaintiff) in the event we are unable to prove the Consequential Damages.

Spoiler: Defense 5 - Presence of Facts

Defense 5 - Presence of Facts

The defendant makes a mistake in saying that we claimed that “there is no factual basis to the article’s statement”. We’ve never made such an assertion. We’re arguing that the evidence used in the article had already been disproven legally and it’s being used anyways against the plaintiff. Thus the claim of a false statement. Since the article that they published was also an attack article, we argue that it harmed the plaintiffs reputation.

All other points in this defense do not need to be addressed since the defendant clearly misunderstood the points we made in this section of his defense.

On the Counterclaim and why it Should be Denied:

Your honor,

I am going to again break this into subparts to make this easier to read:

Spoiler: On Legal Fees

On Legal Fees

The Legal Damages Act was created to help lawyers understand damages and how to calculate them for their client. Legal Fees were specifically created so that lawyers can receive payment for their work if their client could not pay. Hence why it is capped at 20% of the case’s overall value. What it was not intended to do was allow pro-se defendants the right to collect legal fees on the behalf of themselves. Hence the definition is “the fees paid to the attorney for his/her time and effort” and that the award can be given to “either directly to the lawyer or to the client” (see 9.1(a) and 9.2(a) Act of Congress - Legal Damages Act., respectively).

I and many others have a heavy suspicion that the defendant’s counsel is pro-se representing and is actually the owner of the defendant. Thus we would like to request a subpoena on Politico to verify its ownership to prove that they are eligible for a legal fee claim.

Spoiler: On Punitive Damages

On Punitive Damages

Per the Legal Damages Act, as a counter claim if a party believes the case to be frivolous and “outrageous” (see Act of Congress - Legal Damages Act.). We do not believe that our conduct is “outrageous” and that the defendant is incorrect in this assessment. Thus we request the denial of this damage.

On Witnesses and why They Should be Denied:

We request that the list for witnesses be denied that they are not active players with very little playtime at the moment. Calling dead players would not be fair as they are unlikely to respond to the case and thus be charged with the crime of contempt of court. We believe this would be unfair to them. Please see the attached files below at the bottom of this response.

Our Witness List if not Denied:

If the defendant is allowed their witness list, then we would like to request the following witnesses:

Dusty_3
The_Donuticus
Nacholebraa

 

[Banana]

Does the Defendant wish to respond to the request for removing witnesses?

 

[End]

OPENING STATEMENT

On Harms Against the Plaintiff and the Legal Theory.

There are three legal questions in here:

1. Did Politico publish false statements against xLayzur and Krix?
Reference the arguments I made previously in my response to the complaint:
a. The events which Politico published were true and correct.
b. The article is footnoted with All individuals in this article are innocent until proven guilty and allegations remain unproven in a court of law.
c. This was a public interest disclosure article which discussed suspicions, allegations, and accusations.
How is any of this claiming someone did something? I would encourage the Judge to ask the Plaintiff what exactly they are claiming Politico said their clients did.

2. Were there incalculable damages?
a. Considering the Plaintiff is asking for Nominal Damages - 'a trivial sum of money' - as well, I'd argue that they know their arguments for consequential damages are weak.
b. What possible damages occurred? The plaintiff keeps referring to the fact that the article was published in an election cycle before the voting period. The candidate plaintiff was elected with the highest vote count by a significant margin and 55.6% of the vote. So for what the plaintiff claims is a politically damaging article, the results of the election don't reinforce that.

3. Was the plaintiff acquitted?
a. A case dismissed on evidence which is insufficient is not an declaration that the plaintiff was not guilty, the charges were just thrown out in a case that didn't even go to trial.
b. Politico is publishing accusations which are founded on evidence which wasn't presented to the Court. Only (one?) piece of evidence was submitted to the court in this case which the courts have already seen. The article encompasses interviews (witnesses), hardcopy evidence (submitted in response to this case), and a congressional investigation.

On Defenses made by the Defendant.

Defense 1 - Standards of Proof
a. The Supreme Court determined that the evidence provided to them was political in nature - that being the congressional investigation and congressional analysis of the screenshots.
b. The screenshots of chats between the plaintiff and the alleged person the plaintiff was soliciting a bribe with are not political, they are snippets of communication provided by one of the parties involved. If the court considers screenshots political then I suppose the court will need to reconsider 90% of the verdicts it has posted based on screenshots.
c. The Supreme Court was ruling over a criminal case which had criminal penalties and a standard of proof for beyond a reasonable doubt. The supreme court threw the evidence out as insufficient (remembering the evidence they threw out was only one of the submissions made in this case as far as politico is aware).
d. The Supreme Court was not dealing with the standard of proof for a civil case so the argument that the evidence is not applicable is irrelevant and a poor attempt to discard evidence.
e. If the court feels that the Supreme Court's evidence dismissal should remain, then it can throw out one piece of the evidence we have submitted and consider the rest of the evidence not seen by the court.

Defense 2 - Constitutional Freedom VI
a. The Plaintiff is basing their entire case on the fact that the Supreme Court dismissed charges due to a lack of evidence. Well politico has provided significantly more evidence and we are prepared to have the witness involved testify as to how the plaintiff obstructed justice.
b. Politico reports on political happenings. The suggestion that Politico's publications must all be at a standard of proof equal or greater than beyond reasonable doubt to disclose that someone was accused or allegations were made is ridiculous. Journalism is not a courtroom.

Defense 3 - Constitutional Freedom X
a. Again, the plaintiff is suggesting Politico posted something which was not factual. Again, we ask what Politico has claimed the plaintiff has done other than reporting that the Plaintiff has been accused of certain crimes (which politico has evidence for) and that the Plaintiff was removed for abusing their power. The plaintiff must prove that this did not happen.
b. As for the Fmr. CJ, Politico published that there was a public sentiment of suspicions of favouritism in political and legal circles - this was reinforced by the Government's reply to not being able to submit screenshots as evidence, something which is almost always allowed in every other case. Whether it was a Supreme Court decision or not, the Chief Justice was presiding over the case and the Chief Justice has considerable sway in the Court's decision making.
c. The Court did not publish the Justice's individual verdicts as required by law and Politico is therefore unable to determine who ruled on the case. As far as we are concerned, there was one opinion posted and that was by the Chief Justice.

Defense 4 - Assumed Reputational Damage
a. Again, what damages? There are clearly no damages in this case to present:
b. Reputational? Both plaintiffs won a seat with considerable vote margins.
c. Humiliation? How can you be humiliated by a news agency publishing the fact that you were accused of something and then go on to make the claim that the court found you not guilty? If you were supposedly found not guilty, what is there to be humiliated about?

Defense 5 - Presence of Facts

We’re arguing that the evidence used in the article had already been disproven legally and it’s being used anyways against the plaintiff.

a. The plaintiff is assuming that Politico has used only evidence previously submitted to the court. Politico has interviews and other screenshots which have been provided to the court which the court has not already seen. We will bring in a witness to testify the conversation we had.

On the Counterclaim and why it Should be Denied:

Legal Fees
The Defence is paying $5,000 to a law firm for legal consultation. As for legal representation, Politico will be paying me, as an employee of Politico, for my time. I have a right to be remunerated for my time as does everyone else. I have spent time away from my other ventures to defend the company in this case.

You can check politico's ownership in the publicly available business portal.

Punitive Damages
This is a politically charged frivolous case. The plaintiff should be penalised for wasting the court's time.

On Witnesses and why they should be accepted:

The Defence is calling relevant parties to the case. If the players are inactive and do not respond to a subpoena, then the Judge can use some latitude and not impose sanctions on them for not responding while still giving the defendant the benefit of the doubt.

The Defence is not calling upon banned players. The Plaintiff is.

If the Defence is not allowed to call upon witnesses, it will seek their testimony outside of the courtroom and submit it as evidence. So it will be far more beneficial for everyone involved to just have them respond here in the eyes of the court.

Conclusion
This whole case is based on whether Politico relied on content which was denied as evidence by the Supreme Court in a criminal case to support it's claims that the plaintiff was accused of soliciting bribes.

The answer is no. Politico has already produced more evidence than what was put forward to the Supreme Court and frankly, journalism is not at a standard of evidence equal to that of a criminal trial.

Politico didn't even claim that the soliciting of bribes is true, merely that the plaintiff was accused of it.

Politico's reporting is public interest disclosure and to rule against politico would be an incredibly dangerous precedent to set in the freedom of journalism.

 

[End]

@Banana

 

[Banana]

Thank you for the ping, counselor, but I have not forgotten about this case.

I have been considering both sides' arguments as to the legitimacy of witnesses. I have reached a decision, as follows. Players with low activity, or "dead" players, may still be sued. This has been set as precedent in many cases. Thus, by the fact that they have the right automatically to respond to their being sued, their statements must be admissible in court. As their statements are admissible, I will allow players with low playtime to be summoned as witnesses. I will leave it as the responsibility of the counsel summoning them to ensure that they appear.

Should I consider the Defense's earlier post an opening statement as well as the response to the motion I requested?

 

[End]

Your honour, I have edited the title of our most recent post to be the opening statement. Please consider the answer to complaint as additional arguments to support the opening statement.

 

[Banana]

Thank you. We will now be moving on to witness testimony.

 

[Banana]

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

@Dusty_3, @TheDonuticus, @Nacho, @HugeBob, and @AlexTheLion are required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of xLayzur & Krix v. Politico as witnesses.

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 all witnesses have declared themselves present, the Plaintiff may begin with questions to their witnesses.

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​

 

[Nacho]

I am present your honor and have read over the case.

 

[Matthew100x]

Your honor,

I am pleased to report that Donut and Dusty are both ready for questions.

 

[End]

OBJECTION

Witness testimony should be made in the eyes of the court and not in direct messages. Additionally, these witnesses have both been deported and should be disqualified from testifying before a Redmont Court.

 

[HugeBob]

I am present. *Waves to the crowd*

 

[AlexTheLion]

I am present.

 

[Matthew100x]

OBJECTION

Witness testimony should be made in the eyes of the court and not in direct messages. Additionally, these witnesses have both been deported and should be disqualified from testifying before a Redmont Court.

ANSWER TO OBJECTION

While the witnesses may have been deported, I am communicating with them via satellite communications and they are able to join the discussion without violating the terms of their deportation. They have direct knowledge of the situation at hand and will be helpful in helping this court in making a determination.

 

[Banana]

The Defense's objection is sustained and I will not allow the witnesses to testify in this format. It is contrary to the procedures of the Courts to allow witnesses to DM lawyers with their answers to questions. Furthermore, after consulting with staff, I have confirmed that permanently deported players are not given the privilege of appearing in court. So, the two deported witnesses will be dismissed.

With that said, the Plaintiff may now present questions to their witness.

 

[Matthew100x]

To confirm, just to Nacho and not to Alex nor Hugebob correct?

 

[Banana]

Correct. You may question them during cross-examination after Defense makes questions to its witnesses.

 

[Matthew100x]

For Nacho:

Did you, Joe, and Krix unanimously vote to dismiss the case against xlayzur?

There may be follow-up questions.

 

[Nacho]

For Nacho:

Did you, Joe, and Krix unanimously vote to dismiss the case against xlayzur?

There may be follow-up questions.

I do believe it was a unanimous decision to dismiss the case. I would have to refer back to discussions about the case within the Judiciary Discord to be 100% certain about the matter as the discussion occurred 9 months ago.

 

[Matthew100x]

So, since it was a unanimous decision. Would you characterize the statement "suspicions of favoritism from the Chief Justice at the time cast doubt on the investigation, leading to no conviction" as untrue?

 

[Nacho]

So, since it was a unanimous decision. Would you characterize the statement "suspicions of favoritism from the Chief Justice at the time cast doubt on the investigation, leading to no conviction" as untrue?

I wouldn't classify anything as untrue, favoritism can occur on any level at any time. However, I would agree in this instance that it was unlikely due to the three of us agreeing to dismiss. I believe at the time, we even all agreed that it was either we all agreed, or it didn't happen due to the importance of the case.

 

[Matthew100x]

We have no further questions your honor.

 

[Banana]

The Defense may cross-examine.

 

[Matthew100x]

Your honor,

I request that the defense examine their witness before we cross-examine mine as the information they provide may be pertinent to the cross-examination for both sides.

 

[Banana]

Denied at this time, however I will consider re-opening direct examination after Defense's witnesses.

 

[End]

OBJECTION
Speculation

I respectfully object to the witness's testimony on the grounds of speculation. Throughout their statements, the witness repeatedly used the phrases 'I believe' and the term 'it was unlikely' to present their version of events. However, belief and subjective opinion do not constitute admissible evidence in a civil action. The witness's statements lack concrete facts and their assertions are based on personal assumptions of events that happened almost a year ago rather than information which they are able to self-verify or that the court is able to verify.

The rules of evidence require that witnesses provide reliable and relevant information to assist the court in reaching a fair and just decision. Speculative testimony has the potential to mislead the proceedings. Therefore, I urge the court to disregard the witness's statements, as they do not meet the necessary standard of admissibility.

It is crucial that we uphold the principles of a fair trial, and allowing speculative testimony may lead to an unjust outcome. The witness's subjective beliefs should not influence the judgment in this matter, and I request that the court gives due consideration to this objection to ensure the integrity of the proceedings.

 

[End]

Your honour, I'd just like to note to the court that the defence is waiting on a ruling on the above motion before it proceeds cross-examination.

 

[Matthew100x]

Answer to Objection

 

[Matthew100x]

(I'm going to leave my error up, apparently hitting ctrl + enter causes the post to automatically send)

Answer to Objection

The Defense does not appropriately use the Speculation Objection. The Speculation objection is for when "a witness is asked to testify about something they have not directly observed. Witnesses are only allowed to testify about their own direct experiences and thoughts." Yet we did not ask a question to the witness about something they did not directly observe. They were an associate justice at the time of the case and voted on it. Witness are allowed to testify about their experiences and thoughts. We argue that this can includes beliefs and opinions since they can explain thoughts and experiences that they are being questioned on. Thus, between the inappropriate use and the fact that the answer fits the definition of what a witness is allowed to speculate on, we ask that the court rejects this motion.

 

[Banana]

Objection is overruled, the witness is not speculating beyond their experiences. You may proceed with cross-examination.

 

[End]

Cross Examination

@Nacho Where was the discussion held between Justices about the verdict you would deliver in this case?

Who lead the Discussion?

I do believe it was a unanimous decision to dismiss the case. I would have to refer back to discussions about the case within the Judiciary Discord to be 100% certain about the matter as the discussion occurred 9 months ago.

 

[Nacho]

Cross Examination

@Nacho Where was the discussion held between Justices about the verdict you would deliver in this case?

Who lead the Discussion?

The supreme court practiced at the time regular discussions about cases within the Supreme Court channel of the Judiciary Discord or over the Supreme Court vc. I wouldn't say a specific individual would lead the discussion. It would be more based on asked and answered questions that Justices routinely ask throughout cases.

 

[End]

Was this specific case discussed in VC at all?

 

[Nacho]

Was this specific case discussed in VC at all?

Yes, we did discuss a portion of this case over a VC at one point. I believe we discussed a handful of things at the time.

 

[End]

Yes, we did discuss a portion of this case over a VC at one point. I believe we discussed a handful of things at the time.

Are you aware of the constitutional requirement that requires all Justices to deliver a verdict on a case - with the majority rule standing?

 

[Nacho]

Are you aware of the constitutional requirement that requires all Justices to deliver a verdict on a case - with the majority rule standing?

Yes, I am aware of the constitutional requirement. The Supreme Court operates under the clause that entering into a verdict is considered drafting a verdict which is oftentimes what the Supreme Court does. We would have one justice draft the verdict, and if we can agree that the verdict is to our liking, we enter into that verdict as our own. If a justice did not align with the wording of the verdict would draft a dissent.

 

[End]

So under this scenario, the Supreme Court is not following the constitution which plainly states that all Justices must individually deliver a verdict:

"Each‌ ‌Justice‌ ‌makes‌ ‌their‌ ‌own‌ ‌verdict‌ ‌on‌ ‌cases,‌ ‌

and‌ ‌

where‌ ‌decisions‌ ‌are‌ ‌not‌ ‌unanimous,‌ ‌the‌ ‌decision‌ ‌of‌ ‌the‌ ‌majority‌ ‌prevails ‌

if‌ ‌a‌ ‌majority‌ ‌is‌ ‌not‌ ‌attainable‌ ‌the‌ ‌Chief‌ ‌Justice’s‌ ‌ruling‌ ‌shall‌ ‌prevail.‌" ‌

No where does it mention draft verdicts or opinions.

However, I'll entertain the system which you claim the Supreme Court uses... Do you believe that signing onto a verdict satisfies 'making your own verdict' if you are merely agreeing with another Justice's interpretation of the law?

 

[End]

@Banana I would like to request that the court issues a subpoena for the following:

Any and all draft verdicts from Commonwealth v. xLayzur [2022] SCR 19.

Any and all opinions given by the Justices ruling on Commonwealth v. xLayzur [2022] SCR 19.

Any conversation surrounding signing on to a verdict or dissenting to the verdict delivered by the Chief Justice.

The witness mentioned previously that a 'portion' of the case was discussed over VC, implying that the court did undertake its due diligence in placing their legal opinions and verdicts (verdicts as required by law) in writing.

This information is pertinent in establishing whether the separate Justices each delivered an individual verdict and whether the Chief Justice pushed certain legal opinions on other Justices that may have favoured the defendant while they were forming their verdicts.

 

[Nacho]

So under this scenario, the Supreme Court is not following the constitution which plainly states that all Justices must individually deliver a verdict:

"Each‌ ‌Justice‌ ‌makes‌ ‌their‌ ‌own‌ ‌verdict‌ ‌on‌ ‌cases,‌ ‌

and‌ ‌

where‌ ‌decisions‌ ‌are‌ ‌not‌ ‌unanimous,‌ ‌the‌ ‌decision‌ ‌of‌ ‌the‌ ‌majority‌ ‌prevails ‌

if‌ ‌a‌ ‌majority‌ ‌is‌ ‌not‌ ‌attainable‌ ‌the‌ ‌Chief‌ ‌Justice’s‌ ‌ruling‌ ‌shall‌ ‌prevail.‌" ‌

No where does it mention draft verdicts or opinions.

However, I'll entertain the system which you claim the Supreme Court uses... Do you believe that signing onto a verdict satisfies 'making your own verdict' if you are merely agreeing with another Justice's interpretation of the law?

Yes, as a justice agreeing on the wording of the interpretation of another justice and affixing their name to the verdict is equivalent to them posting the same thing, not copy pasted. It's a practice the court has actioned for the past year or so.

 

[End]

Yes, as a justice agreeing on the wording of the interpretation of another justice and affixing their name to the verdict is equivalent to them posting the same thing, not copy pasted. It's a practice the court has actioned for the past year or so.

The Supreme Court serves as the final court of appeal. What the Supreme Court says is final.

With that in mind, the Court was structured so that three of the top Judges in the nation would all individually interpret the law and then give their opinion. What seems to have occurred a year ago is the Supreme Court has started cutting corners and it has continued to regress.

We went from three Justices individually delivering a verdict (as seen in Lawsuit: Adjourned - Greenish9 v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2022] SCR 5, Lawsuit: Adjourned - Yeet_Boy v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2022] SCR 11, Lawsuit: Adjourned - xEndeavour v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2021] SCR 3, to name a few)

to delivering a full verdict to which Justices are signing on to

Lawsuit: Adjourned - Corporate Security Union v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2022] SCR 15

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT CIVIL ACTION Corporate Security Union (xlayzur representing) Plaintiff v. Department of Education & Commerce Defendant COMPLAINT The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows: The Department of Education & Commerce Secretary...

www.democracycraft.net

to delivering a full verdict to which Justices are signing on to without telling us who has ruled what way

Lawsuit: Dismissed - The Commonwealth v. xLayzur [2022] SCR 19

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT CRIMINAL ACTION The Commonwealth Prosecution v. xLayzur Defendant COMPLAINT The Prosecution alleges criminal actions committed by the Defendant as follows: The Defendant in this case was asked "Whats your price" for voting nay on a...

www.democracycraft.net

How is the public to know who is ruling on their case if the Chief Justice won't tell them or provide their opinions?

How is the public able to maintain trust in the Supreme Court when individual verdicts are being delivered behind closed doors outside the eyes of the public, and better yet, in VCs where there is no written record of conversation?

And by extension, how is the public able to trust a court which is throwing out a case because Congress collected the evidence in hearings and denying screenshots as evidence?

Do you not agree that there are grounds for the public to be concerned about the running of the court and the impartiality of the Chief Justice based on the fact that:
a. he did not provide what was constitutionally required of him when making the verdict on behalf of the court, and
b. he threw out a case which used screenshots as evidence, which is common practice across the remainder of the court, particularly when we have means and ways to confirm those screenshots, and
c. when the Chief Justice has clear historical and contemporary political links with the individual that they were ruling on.

Do you not agree that the public and media voicing their concerns is exercising their freedom of communication?

 

[Banana]

@Banana I would like to request that the court issues a subpoena for the following:

I will grant a subpoena for the following:
- Any draft verdicts for the case Commonwealth v. xLayzur [2022] SCR 19.
- Any opinions given by Justices presiding over Commonwealth v. xLayzur [2022] SCR 19.
- Any discussion surrounding signing onto a verdict or dissenting to a verdict.

Per the Classification Act, any discussion of ongoing court cases is classified by default, until the announcement of a verdict. As the verdict has been made, I believe it is within reason to request the above information, and will not include any potentially confidential evidence. I will summon the Chief Justice as the head of the Courts to provide the information shortly.

 

[Matthew100x]

The Supreme Court serves as the final court of appeal. What the Supreme Court says is final.

With that in mind, the Court was structured so that three of the top Judges in the nation would all individually interpret the law and then give their opinion. What seems to have occurred a year ago is the Supreme Court has started cutting corners and it has continued to regress.

We went from three Justices individually delivering a verdict (as seen in Lawsuit: Adjourned - Greenish9 v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2022] SCR 5, Lawsuit: Adjourned - Yeet_Boy v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2022] SCR 11, Lawsuit: Adjourned - xEndeavour v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2021] SCR 3, to name a few)

to delivering a full verdict to which Justices are signing on to

Lawsuit: Adjourned - Corporate Security Union v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2022] SCR 15

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT CIVIL ACTION Corporate Security Union (xlayzur representing) Plaintiff v. Department of Education & Commerce Defendant COMPLAINT The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows: The Department of Education & Commerce Secretary...

www.democracycraft.net

to delivering a full verdict to which Justices are signing on to without telling us who has ruled what way

Lawsuit: Dismissed - The Commonwealth v. xLayzur [2022] SCR 19

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT CRIMINAL ACTION The Commonwealth Prosecution v. xLayzur Defendant COMPLAINT The Prosecution alleges criminal actions committed by the Defendant as follows: The Defendant in this case was asked "Whats your price" for voting nay on a...

www.democracycraft.net

How is the public to know who is ruling on their case if the Chief Justice won't tell them or provide their opinions?

How is the public able to maintain trust in the Supreme Court when individual verdicts are being delivered behind closed doors outside the eyes of the public, and better yet, in VCs where there is no written record of conversation?

And by extension, how is the public able to trust a court which is throwing out a case because Congress collected the evidence in hearings and denying screenshots as evidence?

Do you not agree that there are grounds for the public to be concerned about the running of the court and the impartiality of the Chief Justice based on the fact that:
a. he did not provide what was constitutionally required of him when making the verdict on behalf of the court, and
b. he threw out a case which used screenshots as evidence, which is common practice across the remainder of the court, particularly when we have means and ways to confirm those screenshots, and
c. when the Chief Justice has clear historical and contemporary political links with the individual that they were ruling on.

Do you not agree that the public and media voicing their concerns is exercising their freedom of communication?

Objection
Counsel is Testifying, Inflammatory, Badgering, Argumentative, and Calls for a Conclusion.

Your honor, this is a textbook bad witness question.

Pretty much every one of these statements are either leading, argumentative, or assumes facts not in evidence.

Additionally, these statements are designed to cause prejudice by provoking a response. Every sentence is a pointed rhetorical question and assumes information.

Multiple question does not ask for a fact related to the case at large but instead calls for an opinion.

The witness has answered the question and the defendant counsel has decided to go on a tirade. There is no explanation to which question the witness should answer and which one they shouldn't answer.

 

[End]

Response
Your honour, none of the questions I have presented are leading.

How is the public to know who is ruling on their case if the Chief Justice won't tell them or provide their opinions?

How is the public able to maintain trust in the Supreme Court when individual verdicts are being delivered behind closed doors outside the eyes of the public, and better yet, in VCs where there is no written record of conversation?

And by extension, how is the public able to trust a court which is throwing out a case because Congress collected the evidence in hearings and denying screenshots as evidence?

Do you not agree that there are grounds for the public to be concerned about the running of the court and the impartiality of the Chief Justice based on the fact that:
a. he did not provide what was constitutionally required of him when making the verdict on behalf of the court, and
b. he threw out a case which used screenshots as evidence, which is common practice across the remainder of the court, particularly when we have means and ways to confirm those screenshots, and
c. when the Chief Justice has clear historical and contemporary political links with the individual that they were ruling on.

Do you not agree that the public and media voicing their concerns is exercising their freedom of communication?

I've plainly stated the facts and asked my question based on that.

 

[Banana]

How is the public to know who is ruling on their case if the Chief Justice won't tell them or provide their opinions?

If this is a question intended for the witness to answer, you are going to have to rephrase it to make it relevant to the witness's position and scope of this case.

How is the public able to maintain trust in the Supreme Court when individual verdicts are being delivered behind closed doors outside the eyes of the public, and better yet, in VCs where there is no written record of conversation?

Objection sustained, this is argumentative.

And by extension, how is the public able to trust a court which is throwing out a case because Congress collected the evidence in hearings and denying screenshots as evidence?

Objection sustained, this is both hostile and leading.

Do you not agree that there are grounds for the public to be concerned about the running of the court and the impartiality of the Chief Justice based on the fact that:
a. he did not provide what was constitutionally required of him when making the verdict on behalf of the court, and
b. he threw out a case which used screenshots as evidence, which is common practice across the remainder of the court, particularly when we have means and ways to confirm those screenshots, and
c. when the Chief Justice has clear historical and contemporary political links with the individual that they were ruling on.

Objection sustained, this is incredibly leading.

Do you not agree that the public and media voicing their concerns is exercising their freedom of communication?

I fail to see how this is a relevant question for this witness, Counselor.
You may attempt to rephrase your questions if you wish, but keep it relevant and non-hostile.