IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS
On 08/20/23, the defendant posted a motion to dismiss requesting the case be dismissed on the reasoning that a subpoena that they requested for evidence that they sought yielded a single picture. The plaintiffs of this case find the motion to dismiss to be amusing in the least and a legal misunderstanding from the defendant at best. Simply put, the defendant’s entire assessment of the situation is entirely incorrect.
To begin with, the defendant states “A key tenant to this case is whether the Supreme Court made a legal verdict”, they would be correct. However they then go on to state that ”I think and I believe statements and a court with no records is not conducive to fulfilling a standard of proof of the balance of probabilities” because “ it cannot be determined that he made the verdict according to law (which requires all justices to submit a verdict individually)”. Ignoring the fact that the common law of Redmont does not allow for dismissal of a case for lack of evidence (see
Lawsuit: Dismissed - The_Donuticus vs. Town of Klondike [2022] FCR 99,
Lawsuit: Dismissed - The_Donuticus vs. Town of Klondike [2022] FCR 99 (Motion to Reconsider Rejection),
Lawsuit: Adjourned - xEndeavour v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2023] FCR 69, and
Lawsuit: In Session - xLayzur & Krix v. Politico [2023] FCR 62 (Post #4 Of This Case)), this motion to dismiss has three primary issues with it. One is that it only addresses the second claim of relief made by the co-plaintiff and ignores the first claim of relief made by the plaintiff. Second, and more critically, is that it contradicts already established court testimony and borderlines perjury. Thirdly, it borderlines perjury on the defendant's counsels stance when they were also held the position of Chief Justice .
The charges we alleged against the defendant are two fold. The one that the defendant is using to attempt to dismiss the case in whole is the second claim for relief, which is “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”. Even if this claim for relief were to be denied and dismissed, the case as a whole would not be dismissable as our first open claim for relief “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” would have been unaddressed.
This seems confusing at first glance, but remember, the plaintiff is xLayzur while the co-plaintiff is Krix. The fact supporting the claim of relief for the plaintiff xLayzur is “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”. This is in contrast to the co-plaintiff’s argument for libel, which falls under the fact 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’” and fact 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)". The Defendant’s argument only addresses the claim for relief of the co-plaintiff and not the plaintiff, therefore on this grounds alone, the motion to dismiss the entire case should be denied.
So does this allow for the defendant’s motion to dismiss to be victorious against the co-plaintiff’s case against them? No. The defendant states “The burden to prove otherwise is on the plaintiff and they have failed to provide any credible evidence that the Chief Justice has delivered the verdict in consultation with the other Justices”, this is patently false. The plaintiff called Nacholebraa as a witness. Some might even say as an expert witness since he is both a former chief justice and was one of the Justices who made the [2022] SCR 19 decision. We asked and received the following questions and answers.
1. Did you, Joe, and Krix unanimously vote to dismiss the case against xlayzur?
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.
2. 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.
The testimony regarding whether or not the decision was unanimous went unchallenged. Instead the defendant fruitlessly tries to argue the lack of evidence, while frankly ignoring the witness’s testimony. Nacholebraa, who was a Justice at the time of the discussion, clearly stated that the decision was unanimously made. With that said, the motion to dismiss must be denied as evidence has been provided by the plaintiff regarding whether or not a unanimous decision was made by the Supreme Court.
The defendant then tries arguing that “Chief Justice made a unilateral response to the case without any indication of who supported the verdict or ruled on the case, it cannot be determined that he made the verdict according to law (which requires all justices to submit a verdict individually)”, making the claim that the original verdict was illegal or contradictory to law if not all Justices make a verdict justifying the decision. The plaintiff finds this argument ironic, as when the defendant’s counsel was the Chief Justice, they made unanimous decisions without a “unilateral response” by all justices (see
Appeal: Accepted - FCR 13 - Appeal Request,
Lawsuit: Dismissed - Lawanoesepr v. The Redmont Bar Association [2022] SCR 4, and
Appeal: Denied - FCR 22 - Appeal Request). As Nacholebraa, former Chief Justice, stated, “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”. We suspect that somewhere deep down, the defendant's counsel agrees with this position as well, considering they did so when dismissing cases and rejecting appeal requests.
Your Honor, the arguments made by the defendant borderline perjury because he contradicts his conduct as Chief Justice and due to it blatantly ignoring witness testimony to make a verifiably false claim. This motion to dismiss should be struck and the defendant should be barred from making them considering this is his 6th motion to dismiss.
