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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Thank you both for your responses.

The Plaintiff now has 48 hours to provide their Closing Statement.
 
Your Honor,

May I request a 12 hour extension? This came up at a rather busy time for me.
 
xLayzur said:
Your Honor,

May I request a 12 hour extension? This came up at a rather busy time for me.
Click to expand...
You may have 12 hours from now.

EDIT: I misread the times. You may have an  extra 12 hours (so 9:52 PM Central Time, Saturday)
 
Last edited:
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

CLOSING STATEMENT

Your Honor,

As we have meticulously demonstrated throughout this trial, the defendant's article contained defamatory falsehoods that sought to tarnish our reputations and undermine our standing within our community. The very essence of libel is the publication of false statements that inflict harm upon an individual's reputation. In this instance, the harm inflicted upon us was substantial, both personally and professionally.

The evidence, including the legal proceedings in The Commonwealth v. xLayzur [2022] SCR 19, has unequivocally shown that the allegations made in the defendant's article were baseless and without merit. Our acquittal in the highest court of this Commonwealth, after careful consideration of all available evidence, speaks volumes about the falsity of the claims against us.

Furthermore, the defendant's attempt to attribute the outcome solely to one individual, co-plaintiff Krix, is misleading and inaccurate. The decision rendered by the Supreme Court was a collective judgment, reflecting the thorough examination and consensus of the entire bench. The defendant's assertion otherwise is a clear misrepresentation of the facts.

Your Honor, we have sought nothing more than justice in this courtroom. We have asked for the restoration of our good names, damaged by the defendant's reckless and false publication. We have requested reasonable compensation for the humiliation and distress caused by these unfounded accusations.

In making your final determination, we ask that you consider not only the legal principles but also the impact of this case on the reputation of the plaintiffs. We are not merely individuals seeking compensation; we are citizens of this Commonwealth, dedicated to its values and its people.

Thank you, Your Honor, for your time and consideration, We await your verdict with hope and the belief that justice will prevail.
 
Thank you to the Plaintiffs for the Closing Statement.

The Defense now has 48 hours to provide their Closing Statement.
 
The Defendant has failed to provide a Closing Statement within 48 hours.

I hereby charge xEndeavour with Contempt of Court and order the Department of Justice to fine/jail him appropriately.

We will now be moving on. This court is in recess until a verdict is delivered.
 

Verdict


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT
xLayzur & Krix v. Politico [2023] FCR 62

I. PLAINTIFF'S POSITION
1. The Defendant wrote and published an article in #news that depicted the Plaintiffs in a defamatory way (libel).
2. The Defendant did this by:
a. Claiming 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”
b. Alleging a scandal called “VOTEGATE” and saying “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.”
3. The Plaintiff was found Not Guilty by the Supreme Court in regard to the alleged actions above, in the case of [2022] SCR 19, and thus, these allegations are false.
4. Because the Supreme Court came to a decision together, the statement “suspicions of favoritism from the Chief Justice at the time cast doubt on the investigation, leading to no conviction” is false.

II. DEFENDANT'S POSITION
1. The Defendant did, in fact, publish the article and make the statements the Plaintiff claims they did.
2. The article did not claim that the Plaintiff committed the specific actions, but claimed that he allegedly committed them.
3. The article did not claim that the Co-Plaintiff committed the specific actions, but claimed that there were suspicions that he did so.
4. The Plaintiff was not found Not Guilty by the Supreme Court – the case was dismissed.
5. Even if the Supreme Court came to a conclusion together, the Co-Plaintiff was still the Chief Justice presiding over the case.
6. The article is protected by the 6th and 10th rights in the Constitution.
7. The reputational damage is assumed, not proven.

III. COURT OPINION
Recall that this is a civil case – not a criminal case – and the standard of proof is a balance of probabilities, not proof beyond reasonable doubt. Furthermore, this case is extensive and carries with it numerous arguments and things that must be ruled upon. For this reason, the Court Opinion will not follow the typical numbered list you would typically see in Federal Court cases, but will mirror the format of a Supreme Court opinion and have headers depicting sections of the opinion. With that, Justice Dartanman delivers the opinion of the Federal Court:

On The Facts of the Case
On July 7, 2023, Politico did publish an article claiming that xLayzur “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.” Furthermore, it claims that “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.” The Plaintiff and Co-Plaintiff allege that these statements are libel – “A published false statement that is damaging to a person’s reputation … usually in the form of a document, sign, newspaper or other physical communication.”

On The Standards of Libel (1)
Therefore, there are three facts that must be shown for a statement to be libel:
1. The statement must be published.
2. The statement must be false.
3. The statement must have caused damage.

Both parties agree that the statements were published, so the Court will assume that is true.

Let us first examine the statement that xLayzur “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.”

The Plaintiff argues that xLayzur was found Not Guilty of misconduct and abuse of power. The Defendant argues that xLayzur was not found Not Guilty. The Supreme Court dismissed xLayzur’s prosecution – it did not go to trial. This is not a Not Guilty verdict – nor is it a Guilty verdict. Regardless of this, the fact that there was a prosecution bolsters the fact that misconduct was alleged. Even if xLayzur was found Not Guilty, the allegations were certainly in existence, and certainly under some level of public scrutiny. Thus, not only has the Defendant shown that the statement might be true – the Defendant has shown that the statement is true.

Because it is shown that the statement is true, it does not matter whether damage was caused.

On The Standards of Libel (2)
Let us examine the second statement in question: “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.”

Once again, it is well and proven to be true that “witness accused [xLayzur] of attempting to sell his votes for a substantial sum of money.” To be clear, the Court is not saying that xLayzur did these actions, but that it is true that he was, in some way, accused of doing so. The portion of this statement that catches the Court’s attention is “Despite having witnesses and evidence, suspicions of favoritism from the Chief Justice at the time cast doubt on the investigation, leading to no conviction.” This statement, boiled down, says “suspicions of favoritism lead to no conviction.” The Court understands that former Justice Nacholebraa explained that this was “unlikely due to [the three Justices] agreeing to dismiss” and that all three Justices were required by law to provide their opinion. This case is a balance of probabilities, and it is more likely that “suspicions of favoritism” did not skew the case in any direction, thus this is likely a false statement.

Now that it is established that this is probably false (as required for a balance of probabilities), the Court must examine the damages. It is understood that the statement in question is defamatory towards Krix – not xLayzur – so this will be where the Court focuses its attention.

The only Prayer for Relief (apart from nominal damages) in this case was Humiliation Damages – defined by the Legal Damages Act as “situations in which a person has been disgraced, belittled or made to look foolish.” Furthermore, the Legal Damages Act explains that the court must “review the available evidence and deny awards that do not have sufficient proof.”

So the question is this: Was Krix “disgraced, belittled or made to look foolish” by this article? The Federal Court understands that to be “disgraced” you must lose respect, honor, and/or esteem as a result. To be “belittled” you must have suffered from the intentional and successful actions of another to make you feel worthless and/or disrespected. To be “made to look foolish” you must have been made to appear unable to act or think as a reasonable person.

The Plaintiff and Co-Plaintiff claim “[the article] resulted in harm that is incalculable, but the proof that it happened indeed exists,” however, they never proceeded to provide any “proof that [the humiliation] happened.” Particularly, there were no arguments supporting the idea that Krix was “disgraced, belittled, or made to look foolish.” And thus, the Court cannot award Humiliation Damages.

On The Constitutional Freedoms of Political Communication and Press and Media
The Freedom of Political Communication and the Freedom of the Press and Media are both foundational freedoms to our democracy. Any infringement of these rights must be carefully examined, and it must be determined whether they are “reasonable limits prescribed by law that are justified in a free and democratic society.”

The Federal Court understands that all of the statements are inherently political communication and were made in the press/media, and that at least the statement about Krix was defamatory (libel) in nature, however it must now be decided whether this is protected by the Constitution or not.

In this case, we see specific claims the Defendant made about Krix, that are nearly proven false, and certainly rise to the level of proof required to meet the standard of a balance of probabilities. Because these are specific, false claims about specific actions and results, the court believes that it is not protected by these Constitutional rights. A more vague claim such as “Krix betrayed our country” may have been protected as it does not have any definitively specific claims, but the Freedom of Political Communication and the Freedom of Press and Media cannot protect you when making direct, specific, defamatory statements.
Click to expand...

IV. VERDICT
The Federal Court hereby rules in favor of the Plaintiff, and grants a modified Prayer for Relief.

The Federal Court orders the Department of Justice to fine the Defendant $2,500 (Nominal Damages) and unfine Co-Plaintiff Krix the same amount.

The Federal Court thanks all involved.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top