Lawsuit: Dismissed The_Donuticus v. Dartanman [2022] FCR 74

[Lord_Donuticus]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

The_Donuticus
Plaintiff

v.

Dartanman
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

Your honor,

The RBA election is not meant to be a political show, it is meant to be a simple one of electing individuals to provide a administrative function. It is not political. This changed however this election as when in the RBA channels I believe I was slandered by Dartanman for the purposes of sabotaging my campaign for Chairperson in order to assist in the election of the candidate they supported Milqy. In this lawsuit I will demonstrate exactly how and why Dartanman has slandered my reputation and cast a shadow over the RBA elections.

Repeatedly when requested Dartanman has refused to provide any evidence of their claims stating that they would only do so in a lawsuit, meaning I have no choice but to file a suit against Dartanman in order to find out if they have the evidence they so suggest - which I sincerely doubt they do have - I acknowledge I cannot remember everything I said and perhaps something I said in the past 5 days has been misunderstood by Dartanman, or perhaps even I did actually say the statement and have simply forgotten, if Dartanman had simply done the task of sharing their 'proof' this whole song and dance would not be necessary, however as it stands I am left with no recourse. However I do not think this is the case, I believe this was an act of malicious slander and will elaborate on as such.

Furthermore your honor I will be filling a Emergency Injunction for a Writ of Mandamus to be delivered to the State Department in order to postpone the elections of the RBA until such a time as this issue is resolved as it has already had an effect on the results of the election, meaning that the only way to undo the damage if there is found to be slander is to restart the election.

I. PARTIES
1. The_Donuticus
2. Dartanman

II. FACTS
1. Yesterday at 22:56 GMT Dartanman posted to the RBA General Chat that "Donut does not believe the RBA should head the Legal Education Program." This post was made right at the opportune moment to sway voters not to vote for me, as it happened right as the polls opened. [Evidence Article 1]
2. I was only made aware of this when I received a message asking me not to close the Legal Education Program - already the statement had taken hold. [Evidence Article 5]
3. Shortly after Dartanman doubled down on these claims stating I was either lying that I supported it now, or lying before when they claim I said I did not support it. [Evidence Article 2]
4. Prior to this Dartanman had shown support for my only opponent Milqy by 'liking' their post announcing their candidacy. [Evidence Article 3]
5. In the short time after various members of the RBA started displaying varying degrees of vocal opposition to myself and my candidacy. [Evidence Article 5]
6. In the next few hours following I went back and read every single message I have sent in the following channels: The RBA Discord, The DemocracyCraft Discord, all private discord messages - to the best of my knowledge I did not make any statements stating the RBA should not head the Legal Education Program. [Evidence Article 6 & 7]
7. In fact in this attempt I discovered that on the 25th I had actually praised the RBA as a Education Institution. [Evidence Article 4]

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. In the 'Defamation Act October 2020' Slander is outlined as the following:

Spoiler: Defamation Law

3 - Slander
(1) Slander is a false statement which defames another person.
(2) In the form of spoken communication. For Minecraft purposes and realism we include regular Minecraft text in the server (General Chat) and discord chat as spoken communication.

...

5 - Suing
(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.
(2) On Top of proving harm, the Plaintiff must present evidence for intent to harm reputation.

2. The statement "Donut does not believe the RBA should head the Legal Education Program." is, to the best of my knowledge, false as seen by Evidence Articles 4, 6 & 7. If a statement on this topic was somehow made by myself outside of the channels listed above which I checked through then I am happy to be proven wrong - however I'm 99% sure it has not been made as I do not remember discussing this topic by the specific term 'Legal Education Program' in the last 5 days since I returned to the server.
3. Evidence Article 5 clearly shows how the above statement has made damages to the reputation and the campaign of myself for RBA Chairperson. With this statement being made right as the polls opened the actual damage in terms of individuals who voted for my opponent instead of me because of this statement cannot be measured, however the reaction is clear to see and thus proves harm has been done.
4. On the topic of proving intent to harm reputation I think the fact that Dartanman is a supporter of my opponent in this election, coupled with the fact that the statement was made at the exact moment in which polls should be being opened would suggest a calculated move in order to do the most damage to my campaign and thus total vote share - the statement could have been made or debated at any moment, however it was made right as the polls opened in order to do harm.
5. Lastly the attempts after the fact to scare me into not challenging him in a lawsuit shows a clear acknowledgement in the mind of Dartanman that they have committed slander, which in turn further proves the attempt to cause harm.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. The court approve an Emergency Injunction to pass a Writ of Mandamus to the State Department in order to halt the continuation of this election until this lawsuit has been concluded.
2. $10,000 in damages from Datanman in order to cover the cost of my time for the 4 hours I have spent reading through all my old messages and the writing this lawsuit - actually a reduction on my usual rate of $4,000 an hour.
3. The court approves a second Writ of Mandamus to the State Department once this lawsuit has concluded to request that they throw out all existing cast ballots for the RBA elections and begin the 24 election window again in order to ensure the legitimacy and integrity of the election - free of any slander.

V. EVIDENCE

Spoiler: Article 1: Initial Statement

Spoiler: Article 2: Doubling Down

Spoiler: Article 3: Dartanman support for Milqy

Spoiler: Article 4: The_Donuticus support for RBA education

Spoiler: Article 5: Effect on The_Donuticus Campaign

Spoiler: Article 6: All The_Donuticus RBA Chatlogs Since Return

RBA Chat Logs - Google Drive

Spoiler: Article 7: All The_Donuticus DC Main Chatlogs Since Return

DC Chat Logs - Google Drive

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 28th day of September 2022

 

[dygyee]

I will be recusing myself from this case due to recent DMs with one of the players involved about a related topic. Another Judge or Justice will preside over this case.

 

[Banana]

The emergency injunction is denied.

 

[Banana]

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

@Dartanman is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of The_Donuticus v. Dartanman [2022] FCR 74.

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.​

 

[Dartanboy]

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

The_Donuticus
Plaintiff

v.

Dartanman
Defendant

The defense moves that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges that this case is frivolous.

Here are multiple quotes from the Plaintiff’s case filing showing just how frivolous this is:
a. “I believe I was slandered by Dartanman” – Indicates the Plaintiff is suing me based on their beliefs, not a fact, such as “I was slandered by Dartanman.”
b. “[P]erhaps even I did actually say the statement and have simply forgotten” – Here, the Plaintiff admits it is possible they said the statement. Your honor, if the Plaintiff is willing to admit that it is possible that they said what I claim they said, then it is impossible to prove what I said is false, therefore this cannot be slander.
c. “I'm 99% sure it has not been made” – Once again, the Plaintiff admits the possibility that they did in fact make the statement (even if it is a very small possibility). Once again, the Plaintiff is fully admitting that my statement could be true.
d. “I have no choice but to file a suit against Dartanman in order to find out if they have the evidence they so suggest” – Your honor, the Plaintiff here tells us that this lawsuit’s purpose is to force me to provide the evidence. That’s right – the Plaintiff’s purpose of this suit may not have anything to do with slander, but it may be an attempt to force me to provide evidence. This further exemplifies how frivolous this case is.

Obviously, the Plaintiff has left so much room for doubt as to whether I slandered them or not. Your honor, it is for this reason I recommend you dismiss this case as frivolous, and dismiss it with prejudice.

Additionally, as I’ve had to spend nearly two hours on this case, I ask for a counter prayer for relief:
The Defendant seeks the following from the Plaintiff:
1. $5000 (the same hourly compensation the Plaintiff seeks from the Defendant).

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 28th day of September 2022

 

[Lord_Donuticus]

Your Honor, the Plaintiff would like the opportunity to respond to this motion on grounds of objections, points of law and precedence.

 

[Banana]

You may respond.

 

[Lord_Donuticus]

In the absence of a timeframe for this response being given the Plaintiff would like to request a timeframe of 48 hours from this point, in order to not cause confusion down the line.

The reason for requesting such a long time is that the Plaintiff has real life work commitments over the next two days which will eat up the vast majority of their time outside of sleep. The Plaintiff will attempt to construct an adequate response to the Motion in freetime they have.

 

[Banana]

The request is granted, and for future notice, the courts generally operate on a 48-hour assumed timeline unless specifically indicated.

 

[Lord_Donuticus]

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

The_Donuticus
Plaintiff

v.

Dartanman
Defendant

I. RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS
1. The Court Rules and Procedures outlines a Frivolous Court Case as:

Spoiler: Frivolous Court Case

1. Frivolous Court Case
If you start a court case or lawsuit and it does not have any serious legal intent or purpose, the case will be dismissed. In addition, you will be fined $60 for breaking this law.

There is no other definition provided for a Frivolous Court Case, thus seeing as one the legal purposes of this suit is for the court to decide if it believes that damages have occurred due to Slander on the part of Defendant this suit cannot be Frivolous as the degree of damage from Slander is nearly unique in that it can only be decided in court, as outlined in the 'Defamation Act October 2020':

Spoiler: Defamation Act October 2020

5 - Suing
(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.

Thus to deny the Plaintiff the opportunity to attempt to prove these damages in a court of law, the only place it can be ascertained, would be to deny the Plaintiff their right to equal benefit of the law pursuant to the constitution.

Spoiler: CONSTITUTION - SECTION IV - RIGHTS & FREEDOMS - XIII.

XIII. Every citizen is equal before and under the law and has the right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law without unfair discrimination and, in particular, without unfair discrimination based on political belief or social status.

2. The Defendant suggests that the Plaintiff stating they believe Slander has been committed somehow nullifies it:

Spoiler: a.

a. “I believe I was slandered by Dartanman” – Indicates the Plaintiff is suing me based on their beliefs, not a fact, such as “I was slandered by Dartanman.”

The Plaintiff would like to ask the court to draw its attention to the president on Defamation cases, in the case of 'Lord_Donuticus v. FriedPotaters [2021] FCR 22' in the initial filing of the case the Plaintiff claimed "For the time being terrorism is not actually a crime, but slander and libel are. That is what the Plaintiff believes the Defendant is guilty of" this had no baring on the case and the case resulted in a verdict affirming that defamation took place.

Furthermore, more recently, in the case of 'Aladeen21 v. Lawanoesepr [2021] DCR 63' the Judge on that case in their verdict wrote "This court believes that the statement that lawanoesepr made about Aladeen21 hurt the reputation of Aladeen21. This court also believes that this statement is false".

This is important your Honor because truly there is no such thing as absolute truth, nobody can know anything for certain, only a Sith deals in absolutes - to borrow a phrase. The Plaintiff in this case, or any other case, or even a judge, stating they believe slander occurred means to admit that conclusions they draw in their own minds are not facts, but beliefs. Furthermore, and bear with me here because this is a bit complicated: It is only fair for the Plaintiff to be allowed to state they believe slander has happened because slander can only be proven in a court of law, thus technically to make the statement that slander has happened only for it later to be proven it has not would actually be slander. The statement would be false, the intention would be to damage character with the slander charge, and the damage would be the lawsuit itself - although that charge would the need to be proved in a court of law.

3. The Defendant makes the following statement, and I'm sorry for how long this is going to be but there is so much wrong with this:

Spoiler: b.

b. “[P]erhaps even I did actually say the statement and have simply forgotten” – Here, the Plaintiff admits it is possible they said the statement. Your honor, if the Plaintiff is willing to admit that it is possible that they said what I claim they said, then it is impossible to prove what I said is false, therefore this cannot be slander.

i) Firstly your honor, this is the first attempt by the Defendant to take a statement made by the Plaintiff and take it out of context in order to discredit the very real argument towards Slander, rather than respond to the charges of whether or not the statement made by the Defendant was false or not, the Defendant instead tries to wage a war of semantics - because they know they have no other way out of this suit. The full context of the quote is as follows, "I acknowledge I cannot remember everything I said and perhaps something I said in the past 5 days has been misunderstood by Dartanman, or perhaps even I did actually say the statement and have simply forgotten...However I do not think this is the case, I believe this was an act of malicious slander and will elaborate on as such.", the operative phrase here being "However I do not think this is the case" you see your Honor, in the full context it is clear that the Plaintiff does not in anyway believe anything other than the statement made by the Defendant being Slanderous. Instead it is merely a statement explaining the different possibilities as to why the Defendant made the statement that the Plaintiff believes to be Slander, ending with an affirmation that of all these options the Plaintiff believes it is "an act of malicious slander" - disproving these explanations is actually imperative to a defamation verdict being rendered!

ii) Secondly even in context the statement is immaterial. The Defendant states "Your honor, if the Plaintiff is willing to admit that it is possible that they said what I claim they said, then it is impossible to prove what I said is false, therefore this cannot be slander." The thing is whether or not the Plaintiff is sure of the truth of the statement the onus is not on them to decide, it is down to the court. The court decides on the statement being true or false based on the arguments provided by the Defendant and Plaintiff, in criminal cases the guilt of a Defendant must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt - however in civil cases we follow the 51% rule, whichever argument is the stronger one is the side of the court. Therefore it doesn't matter if the Plaintiff cannot prove beyond a doubt that the statement was false, the Plaintiff doesn't even need to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. The Plaintiff just has to argue that it is false better than the Defendant can argue it is not.

iii) Lastly, in this court we end our arguments with the following: "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." so if the Defendant was to say "I did not make that statement" and then in discovery over the course of the suit it was discovered that the Defendant had made that statement they would have opened themselves up to Perjury. The key element of the statement made at the end of these submissions is "knowingly" we cannot knowingly present a lie to this court. The interesting thing about this is that it is possible to lie without knowing you are lying, lying is just telling a mistruth, but this court does not punish that. It punishes willful mistruth. Following on from that it is perfectly reasonable for the court to allow anyone who appears before it to make a statement and acknowledge when they make it that if that statement is incorrect it is not done so knowingly, statements like "To the best of my knowledge", "I'm 99% sure", "I think so", "I believe that is true" are all statements that mean "This is what I accept to be fact, however I acknowledge that as a human being I may have been misled or mistaken" and in my opinion the ability to do this is protected by the constitution:

Spoiler: CONSTITUTION - SECTION IV - RIGHTS & FREEDOMS - V.

V. No citizen is to be made to produce self-incriminating evidence in a court of law, Congressional hearing, subpoena, or impeachment trial.

Forcing citizens to make every statement in court an absolute statement of fact would be in violation of their constitutional rights by forcing them to potential produce self-incriminating evidence in a court of law as perjury.

4. In this next section the Defendant makes the following statement:

Spoiler: c.

c. “I'm 99% sure it has not been made” – Once again, the Plaintiff admits the possibility that they did in fact make the statement (even if it is a very small possibility). Once again, the Plaintiff is fully admitting that my statement could be true.

i) One again the Defendant is taking a statement made by the Plaintiff out of context. The full context of this quote is: "The statement "Donut does not believe the RBA should head the Legal Education Program." is, to the best of my knowledge, false as seen by Evidence Articles 4, 6 & 7. If a statement on this topic was somehow made by myself outside of the channels listed above which I checked through then I am happy to be proven wrong - however I'm 99% sure it has not been made" The channels listed above were the chatlogs for the Plaintiff in the main DC discord and RBA discord. What the Plaintiff is saying that outside of these areas which make up the bulk of their communication there is a 99% that this was not said. Meaning there is a 1% chance that in all the other little places the statement claimed by the Defendant where it could have been made. That's even less that a very small possibility, hell its even less than a very, very, very small possibility.

But lets examine where the Defendant says "the Plaintiff is fully admitting that my statement could be true.", and what is so wrong with that? As we have ascertained the Plaintiff has said they do not believe it is true. They have stated as such repeatedly. However once again the Defendant seems slaved to this idea of absolute truth, the thing is your honor there is no such thing. "The only statement that can be proven to be absolutely true is this one", to coin a phrase. There are some people who don't believe our blocky world is flat your honor, they believe it is round - but tell me have you ever seen a circle? I know I haven't. But surely the court wouldn't force the Plaintiff to state their belief on the existence of circles absolutely, I know circles don't exist - but they might, I just might not have seen them. So to say that absolutely they don't exist would be denying reality and my own limitations. We live in an uncertain world, but eh that's why we have courts.

ii) Please refer also our previous arguments on the usage of this statement in a court of law.

5. The Defendant then made this statement:

Spoiler: d.

“d. “I have no choice but to file a suit against Dartanman in order to find out if they have the evidence they so suggest” – Your honor, the Plaintiff here tells us that this lawsuit’s purpose is to force me to provide the evidence. That’s right – the Plaintiff’s purpose of this suit may not have anything to do with slander, but it may be an attempt to force me to provide evidence. This further exemplifies how frivolous this case is.”

i) This is another misrepresentation of what the Plaintiff has said and a cherry picking of certain sections of the argument. The full context is as follows: "Repeatedly when requested Dartanman has refused to provide any evidence of their claims stating that they would only do so in a lawsuit, meaning I have no choice but to file a suit against Dartanman in order to find out if they have the evidence they so suggest" you see the statement made was in reference to the fact that the Defendant did not want to engage the claims of slander in any other medium that this lawsuit. The only reason the Plaintiff wanted the evidence that the Defendant claimed they had was to give them the opportunity to disprove the charge of slander they levied against the Defendant, the Plaintiff was trying to be civil however the Defendant wouldn't play ball.

ii) The purpose of this suit is to prove the Defendant made a statement that was false, part of that is exploring the fact that the Defendant may have made a statement that was true and disproving it. As it is the belief of the Plaintiff that they did not they need to have all the available facts towards this goal, part of that is any evidence the Defendant claims they have.


And with that I close this response to the Motion and ask the court to reject the Motion with the extreme prejudice it deserves. Furthermore the Plaintiff would like the court to please warn the Defendant to stop taking their statements out of context, full understanding of someones beliefs are very important and focusing in on a single part of a larger truth can be deceiving.

We wouldn't want anyone coming to a false conclusion and make a statement that is false based on something taken out of context now would we?

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 2nd day of October 2022

 

[Banana]

There has been no frivolity proven in the motion to dismiss, and by this virtue I will be rejecting it. The Plaintiff may now present their opening statements.

 

[Lord_Donuticus]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

The Plaintiff would like to take this opportunity to reiterate the criteria for what constitutes slander.

1) The statement must be false.
2) There must be intent to do harm.
3) There must be harm.

So lets evaluate the statement made by the Defendant, "Donut does not believe the RBA should head the Legal Education Program" now this statement is false, as seen in 'Article 4' of the evidence provided the Plaintiff sung the virtues of the RBA as a education tool on the 24th. It has come to light for the Plaintiff that what the Defendant is referring to is this poll that they put up in the RBA, that the Plaintiff would like to submit into evidence.

Spoiler: Article 8

Let us evaluate this, does the opinion that the Plaintiff chose mean they do not think the RBA should head the Legal Education Program? At a glace this may look to be the case however it is not. To clarify the Plaintiff thinks that the Legal Education Program is a good idea, it provides a great basis for a lawyer starting off - however nothing replaces actual experience, and that can only really come from apprenticing to a private firm. Now if the Legal Education Program was to expand its focus to partner with private entities to provide apprenticeships that would be amazing in the eyes of the Plaintiff, its that simple. The scope of the poll does not provide the context to the answers, and thus the Defendant was making a false statement when they said "Donut does not believe the RBA should head the Legal Education Program" without even knowing it. Therefore it is unfortunately Slander.

Secondly we evaluate the intent to do harm, the Defendant made their statement directly as polls opened up along side a statement they would be voting for the opponent of the Plaintiff. This was because the Defendant wanted to see the Plaintiff lose the election, thus the false statement was made at a time when it would be most damaging.

Finally what harm was done? Well the Plaintiff shows in the evidence that there was a negative response from others in the legal field. And the Plaintiff lost the election. For all we know those three individuals changed who they were going to vote for because of the statements of the Defendant. Now the Plaintiff lost the election by 4 votes, meaning it that was the case then the Plaintiff would have won the election if those 3 people had not changed their votes.

And so the Plaintiff believes that Slander was committed and damage has been done and would like to ask the court to see this corrected.

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 4nd day of October 2022

 

[Banana]

The Defense may now present their opening statements.

 

[Dartanboy]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

Good day, your honor, opposing counsel.

There is absolute evidence showing that this is not slander.

In tandem with the Plaintiff’s Evidence Article 8, here it is:

Obviously, the Plaintiff already provided their screenshot of this same information, but theoretically, anyone could have taken that screenshot. This screenshot proves, without a doubt, that the Plaintiff did indeed opt to respond to this poll with option C.

As you can see, the Defendant asked everyone, “Is The Legal Education Program A Good Idea?” and the Plaintiff chose to respond with the following: “Eh, it’s okay [but] really this should be done by private entities.”

Your honor, let us take a look at the Plaintiff’s arguments against me:
1) “Let us evaluate this, does the opinion that the Plaintiff chose mean they do not think the RBA should head the Legal Education Program? . . . The scope of the poll does not provide the context to the answers, and thus the Defendant was making a false statement when they said ‘Donut does not believe the RBA should head the Legal Education Program’ without even knowing it. Therefore it is unfortunately Slander.”

Your honor, this poll was not mandatory. The Plaintiff opted to respond of their own free will, and opted to respond with the option that said the Legal Education Program should be done by private entities, as opposed to the RBA (since the RBA is not a private entity). If the Plaintiff did not feel that this answer suited how they wished to respond, they should have either a) not responded or b) said something along the lines of, “Hey Dart, maybe add an ‘other’ option. I’d really like to <insert opinion here>.” Your honor, given all of this, by looking at this poll and the Plaintiff’s response, any reasonable person could reasonably assume that the Plaintiff believes private entities, not the RBA, should head the Legal Education Program.

It is not the Defendant’s responsibility to know if the Plaintiff has lied. It is not the Defendant’s responsibility to know if the Plaintiff later changed their mind. To suggest that the Defendant may be found guilty of slander for echoing what the Plaintiff said less than a week before is, quite frankly, one of the silliest arguments I’ve ever heard.

2) “[T]he Defendant made their statement directly as polls opened up along side a statement they would be voting for the opponent of the Plaintiff. This was because the Defendant wanted to see the Plaintiff lose the election, thus the false statement was made at a time when it would be most damaging.”

Your honor, while it is true that I was supportive of the Plaintiff’s opponent, this was not a motivator to say, “Because Donut does not believe the RBA should head the Legal Education Program.” In fact, it is quite the opposite – because the Plaintiff had communicated to me that they do not believe the RBA should support the Legal Education program, I supported their opponent, Milqy.

3) “Finally what harm was done? Well the Plaintiff shows in the evidence that there was a negative response from others in the legal field. And the Plaintiff lost the election. For all we know those three individuals changed who they were going to vote for because of the statements of the Defendant. Now the Plaintiff lost the election by 4 votes, meaning it that was the case then the Plaintiff would have won the election if those 3 people had not changed their votes.”

Well, your honor. First of all, this argument made by the Plaintiff is purely speculation. The Plaintiff has no idea who those three people may have voted for. In fact, the Plaintiff might not even know if those three people voted at all. Thus, this does not count as proof of damages.

Regardless, the Plaintiff lost the election by four votes – this means if three voters who voted for Milqy instead voted for the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff would have won the election. Well, your honor, there is a big hole in the Plaintiff’s argument: one of the three people in the Plaintiff’s argument did vote for the Plaintiff, and another one of the three voted before seeing my message. Whilst I do not have proof of this, I will be calling them as witnesses when the time comes for that.

Finally, the most basic form of the argument that shows this is not slander:
Your honor, the Defendant never claimed that the Plaintiff opposed the Legal Education Program. The Defendant never claimed that the Plaintiff opposed the RBA as an Education Institution. The Defendant only claimed that the Plaintiff “does not believe the RBA should head the Legal Education Program,” which, given that the Plaintiff opted to say it should be done by private entities (and the RBA is not a private entity), proves that the Plaintiff communicated that the RBA should not head the Legal Education Program.

Whilst it is possible that the Plaintiff has changed their mind or lied to me, this is not slander, as I was only affirming what the Plaintiff already communicated.

Thank you, your honor and opposing counsel, for your time.

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 4th day of October 2022

 

[Banana]

Thank you to both parties. We will now move on to witness testimonies. If either party wishes to call witnesses, they may respond with a list of individuals to summon. Alternatively, they may declare that they do not wish to call witnesses.

 

[Dartanboy]

The Defendant calls Admin23 and ultrapvpnoob as witnesses.

 

[Dartanboy]

Your honor, it has been nearly 72 hours. Can we move on without the Plaintiff calling witnesses?

 

[Banana]

Yes, we will be moving on to testimonies now.

 

[Banana]

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

@Admin23 and @ultrapvpnoob are required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of The_Donuticus v. Dartanman 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.​

 

[Admin23]

I am present, your Honor.

 

[ultrapvpnoob]

Present.

 

[Banana]

I apologize, I made a mistake in the summons to say the Plaintiff would ask questions once witnesses declared themselves present. This was incorrect. The Defendant may make their questions.

 

[Dartanboy]

For Admin23:
1. Did you cast your vote for RBA chairperson before or after seeing my message, "Donut does not believe the RBA should head the Legal Education Program"?

For ultrapvpnoob:
1. Who did you vote for in the election for RBA chairperson?

 

[ultrapvpnoob]

1. I voted for Donuticus

 

[Admin23]

I voted after your aforementioned message, however I did not see the message until after I voted. I just jumped into the conversation about suing Dartanman for slander but did not scroll up to see the actual basis for the discussion until a bit after I joined the conversation.

 

[Banana]

Does the Defense have any more questions for the witnesses?

 

[Dartanboy]

No, your honor.

 

[Banana]

The Plaintiff may cross-examine the witnesses.

 

[Lord_Donuticus]

Your honor,

Myself and the Defendant have reached an agreement on this matter outside of court and wish to end this suit amicably.

 

[Dartanboy]

Your honor,

Myself and the Defendant have reached an agreement on this matter outside of court and wish to end this suit amicably.

I confirm this.

 

[Banana]

This case is dismissed at the request of the Plaintiff.