Lawsuit: In Session Vernicia v.Tonga1 [2025] FCR 24

I

Insaneperson876

Citizen
.Insaneperson876
.Insaneperson876
Solicitor
Joined
Feb 15, 2025
Messages
1

Case Filing



IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

Vernicia (Represented by Dragon Law Firm)
Plaintiff

V.

Tonga1
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:
Tonga1 has engaged in a deliberate slander campaign in order to lower public support of Vernicia, causing them to lose the election.

I. PARTIES
1. Vernicia (Plaintiff)

2. Tonga1 (Defendant)

II. FACTS
1. On January 31st, 2025, Tonga1 posted a campaign poster that states ‘Don’t surrender our country to fascists’, with the names ‘Vernicia’ ‘Bezzer’ clearly visible in the background.
2. Tonga1 proceeded to share this image a total 10 times over two weeks in the campaign channel, gaining a maximum 13 ‘fire’ reactions on their first post.
3. Tonga1 swayed public opinion of Vernicia, even causing the propagation of this outrageous accusation, with another citizen publicly stating “Vern is pure facism.”
4. Vernicia lost the most recent presidential election, coming in third place.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. A fascist is someone who practices or supports fascism. Fascism, according to the Oxford dictionary, is “an extreme right-wing political system or attitude that is in favour of strong central government, aggressively promoting your own country or race above others, and that does not allow any opposition.” This is a gross misrepresentation of the Plaintiff, as the RPP political party policies support centrist views, such as “Increas[ing] UBI, Balanced Taxes, Improving Workers’ Rights”. She has certainly not attempted to aggressively promote her race or country above others, and it’s clear that significant opposition does exist in the form of other political parties, proving that she isn’t suppressing opposition.
2. Tonga1 deliberately started this campaign on the 31st of January, deliberately close to the beginning of the presidential campaign declaration period, as an attempt to derail Vernicia’s presidential campaign. The first image garnered 13 ‘fire’ reactions, with subsequent posts gaining upwards of half as much. While most of the members reacting were associated with opposition political parties, some were from people with no political affiliation that were likely swayed by the aggressive advertising. Additionally, the impressions are in all likelihood larger than the people recorded, as many actively monitor the channel without responding, and seeds of doubt were likely planted in more than those who reacted. Just 5 negative impressions, relegated to another candidate due to the offensive messages, caused Vernicia to be removed from the Presidential Election as a 3rd place candidate.
3.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
Compensatory Damages
$38400 in lost wages due to losing the presidential election, elevating her 15-minute pay from level 2 (65/15 min) to level 1 (75/15 min). She has accumulated 10 days worth of playtime over the last 30 days, for a total of 3840 payments of $10 each.

Consequential Damages
$10,000 for emotional damages caused by the loss of a presidential election, the highest office in the nation of the Commonwealth of Redmont, and the torment of time wasted in an ultimately futile effort that lost by only five votes, which could have been swayed by Tonga1’s slander campaign.
$8,000 for the humiliation of being belittled as a ‘fascist’, and by extension an authoritarian and untrustworthy player.
$5,000 for loss of enjoyment of Redmont, as the ability to serve the democracy-supporting citizens of the nation is an immense responsibility that brings the joy of giving, as well as missed interactions with players who feel the need to avoid her due to this campaign.

Punitive Damages
$20,000 for the outrageous act of unfairly subverting the opinions for the sole purpose of ruining a players election chances, and causing irreparable injury to the Plaintiff regarding her reputation as a friendly player who is always ready to help out new players.

Legal Fees
$24,420 for legal fees equaling 30% of this case’s value to cover the costs the Plaintiff incurred by hiring Dragon Law Firm as legal representation.
Evidence:
I:

1740573078216.png

II:
1740573211047.png

 

Attachments

  • 1740573174382.png
    1740573174382.png
    6.8 KB · Views: 48
Last edited by a moderator:

Writ of Summons


@Tonga1 is required to appear before the Federal Court of the Commonwealth of Redmont in the case of Vernicia v. Tonga1.

Failure to appear within 72 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.

 
I have come by request of the Judge I will be represented by @zLost
 

Motion


Nolle Prosequi

The plaintiff would like to formally rescind their complaint, as Sen. Vernicia is no longer represented by Dragon Law Firm.

 
Your honour, I will be representing Senator Vernicia and we do not want to motion to Nolle Prosequi.

Stop_This_Communism_2.png
 
Kaiserin_ said:

Motion


Nolle Prosequi

The plaintiff would like to formally rescind their complaint, as Sen. Vernicia is no longer represented by Dragon Law Firm.

Click to expand...
Motion denied, the Plaintiff does not want to dismiss the case.

I'm also warning Dragon Law Firm not to make such a claim as "the Plaintiff would like to formally rescind their complaint" without first verifying that this is true. I have half a mind to charge you with Perjury, but have decided not to since you did qualify it with "Vernicia is no longer represented by Dragon Law Firm," but in the future I may not be so lenient.
 

Objection


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - PERJURY

Insaneperson876 said:
gaining a maximum 13 ‘fire’ reactions on their first post.
Click to expand...
Insaneperson876 said:
The first image garnered 13 ‘fire’ reactions
Click to expand...

This statements are false, as we can see in the Plaintiff's own evidence, the campaign message received a total of 11 'fire' reactions, not 13. The Plaintiff provided this evidence themselves and even repeated this statement, and therefore the Defence alleges that this is a gross misrepresentation of what actually happened in order to favour the Plaintiff.

 

Motion


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

The defence moves that the complaint in this case be dismissed under Rule 5.14 (Factual Error), and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

1. The Plaintiff has stated an easily proveable false fact in their complaint, stating that the first campaign post had 13 'fire' reacts when in actuality there were only 11. There is clear evidence given by the Plaintiff themselves proving that this is not the case, therefore the Defence asks for this case to be dismissed.

 
Your honour, may I have permission to reply to the defendants 1st objection?
 

Objection


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - RELEVANCE

Insaneperson876 said:
This is a gross misrepresentation of the Plaintiff, as the RPP political party policies support centrist views, such as “Increas[ing] UBI, Balanced Taxes, Improving Workers’ Rights”.
Click to expand...

These statements are irrelevant, due to the fact that the Plaintiff ran as an independant and the RPP's policies are not being brought into question.

 
Your Honor, I apologize for this but I ask for a 24 hours extension due to exams IRL.
 
Savannahs said:
Your honour, may I have permission to reply to the defendants 1st objection?
Click to expand...
You need not ask to respond to an Objection, only to a Motion.
 
zLost said:

Objection


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - PERJURY



This statements are false, as we can see in the Plaintiff's own evidence, the campaign message received a total of 11 'fire' reactions, not 13. The Plaintiff provided this evidence themselves and even repeated this statement, and therefore the Defence alleges that this is a gross misrepresentation of what actually happened in order to favour the Plaintiff.

Click to expand...
Your Honour, The first statement was "gaining a maximum of 13 fire reactions" which implies that the number of fire reactions could have been fewer but not more than 13. As for "ganered 13 fire reactions," statement, the original statement of "gaining a maximum of 13 fire reactions" still holds. This phrasing suggests that 13 was the highest possible number of fire emojis that could have been sent, rather than a definitive count. Therefore, this is not perjury.
 
zLost said:

Objection


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - PERJURY



This statements are false, as we can see in the Plaintiff's own evidence, the campaign message received a total of 11 'fire' reactions, not 13. The Plaintiff provided this evidence themselves and even repeated this statement, and therefore the Defence alleges that this is a gross misrepresentation of what actually happened in order to favour the Plaintiff.

Click to expand...
Overruled, although the number 13 is unfounded, there's no evidence the statement  never had 13 fire reactions, as reactions can be removed.
 
zLost said:

Motion


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

The defence moves that the complaint in this case be dismissed under Rule 5.14 (Factual Error), and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

1. The Plaintiff has stated an easily proveable false fact in their complaint, stating that the first campaign post had 13 'fire' reacts when in actuality there were only 11. There is clear evidence given by the Plaintiff themselves proving that this is not the case, therefore the Defence asks for this case to be dismissed.

Click to expand...
Overruled, same reason as the objection.
 
zLost said:

Objection


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - RELEVANCE



These statements are irrelevant, due to the fact that the Plaintiff ran as an independant and the RPP's policies are not being brought into question.

Click to expand...
Sustained, the sentence is struck.
 
Dartanboy said:
Sustained, the sentence is struck.
Click to expand...

Motion


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

the relevance objection applies to testimony and evidence, not to arguments. as will be shown in this case, the RPP and the plaintiff are linked and it is very relevant. thank you!

 
Twilight2660 said:

Motion


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

the relevance objection applies to testimony and evidence, not to arguments. as will be shown in this case, the RPP and the plaintiff are linked and it is very relevant. thank you!

Click to expand...
Who are you? As far as I can tell, you're not part of this lawsuit.
 
Twilight2660 said:

Motion


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

the relevance objection applies to testimony and evidence, not to arguments. as will be shown in this case, the RPP and the plaintiff are linked and it is very relevant. thank you!

Click to expand...
Twilight2660 said:
View attachment 52359
Click to expand...
Twilight2660 said:
im sorry if i am not understanding it correct
Click to expand...


In the future, please keep this all in one message.

You're right, relevance does not apply in this situation. Sustained, the sentence will be un-struck.
 

Answer to Complaint


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

Vernicia (Represented by Dragon Law Firm)
Plaintiff

v.

Tonga1 (Represented by zLost)
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. The Defence affirms Fact 1, however denies that the names ‘Vernicia’ ‘Bezzer’ were clearly visible in the background.
2. The Defence neither affirms nor denies Fact 2.
3. The Defence denies Fact 3.
4. The Defence affirms Fact 4.

II. DEFENCES
1. First of all, the Plaintiff alleges that Tonga1's statement, even if directed at Vernicia's campaign, were true. Let us analyze the definition of a fascist:

an extreme right-wing political system or attitude that is in favour of strong central government, aggressively promoting your own country or race above others, and that does not allow any opposition.

From this, it's clear that there are _ conditions required by definition for someone to be a facist:
a. Extremely right-wing (Exhibit A)
b. Favouring a strong central government (Exhibit B)
c. Aggressively promoting your own country or race above others (Exhibit C)
d. Not allowing opposition (Exhibit D)

Condition a. Vernicia herself has stated that they are right-wing, and that they are choosing to be a capitalist, which is widely considered to be right wing.
Condition b. Vernicia's campaign ran on policies that would theoretically benefit the government. Central government is defined as:

the government of a whole country, rather than local government

As a majority of these policies would benefit the government, therefore strengthening it, it's safe to assume that Vernicia supports a strong central government.
Condition c. Vernicia has degraded "westerners" and "americans" many times, therefore it is fair for the Defendant to assume that Vernicia supports her race over others, specifically westerners. Vernicia has also said that they are better than everyone else, by stating that everyone else is lesser.
Condition d. Vernicia has said that they don't support the SWP (a former party), simply due to the fact that they wouldn't "kneel" to her.
2. The Defendant is protected by the right to political communication. Stating the ideology you believe someone follows is a political statement, similar to how someone would state that [party] is left-leaning or [player] is a capitalist.
3. In regards to the ending sentence of Claim for Relief 2, Compensatory Damages, and Consequential Damages 1 and 3, of the 11 people who reacted in support to the first message, there were 9 WPR members, 1 GER member and 1 RRP member (Exhibit E). Members of these parties are highly unlikely to have considered voting for Vernicia in the first place. Following this, there was only one time when an independent reacted in support of the message, this independent being A29_2. However, even they are not likely to have been swayed due to their disdain for Vernicia because of their previous encounters with them (Exhibit F). There is currently zero explicit evidence that anyone's vote changed simply due to the campaign post.
4. In regards to Argen_Lee's statement, Argen_Lee was presumably already a member of the WPR before Tonga1's campaign message was sent (Exhibit G). Therefore, it's very possible that they held this political opinion before the campaign message and that their vote nor opinion was swayed by the campaign post. Correlation is not causation.
5. In regards to Consequential Damages 2, Fascism does not constitute untrustworthiness by its definition. If someone were to regard a fascist as untrustworthy, it is not the fault of the Defendant.
6. In regards to Punitive Damages, the Legal Damages Act (link) stipulates:

Punitive damages will not be awarded unless they are either authorized by statute or unless the conduct of the other party in causing the party’s harm is outrageous.

The Defendant has not shown outrageous conduct, having simply stated their political opinion of the Plaintiff. As a matter of fact, no evidence regarding the Defendant's alleged conduct is given by the Plaintiff's counsel. Therefore, there is no basis for asking for punitive damages. Besides that, the whole point of campaigning is to increase your chances of winning, therefore it does not make any sense as to how campaigning in order to increase your chances of winning is outrageous conduct.

1741117871475.png
1741122220011.png
1741117835700.png
1741117849094.png
1741117944705.png
1741117974536.png
1741117997639.png
1741118015780.png
1741118203722.png
1741118299651.png
1741118396291.png
1741118410530.png
STRUCK
1741120812619.png
STRUCK
1741120983134.png
1741122106129.png

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 March 2025

 

Attachments

  • 1741122073860.png
    1741122073860.png
    22.7 KB · Views: 34
Last edited by a moderator:
We will now enter a 72 hour Discovery period.
 

Objection​


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - improper evidence

one of the exhibits is cropped and modified with new text. many of the other exhibits are multiple exhibits that are smashed together which is also image editing and makes it hard to refer to specific images.
 
Twilight2660 said:

Objection​


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - improper evidence

one of the exhibits is cropped and modified with new text. many of the other exhibits are multiple exhibits that are smashed together which is also image editing and makes it hard to refer to specific images.
Click to expand...
Sustained, Exhibit E is struck.
 

Objection


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE

Twilight2660 said:
only e? what about all the combined ones
Click to expand...

This is not a motion nor an objection, therefore the defendant asks for this statement to be struck.

 
The Defence wishes to submit the following evidence:
1741286641901.png
1741286655212.png
 
zLost said:

Answer to Complaint


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

Vernicia (Represented by Dragon Law Firm)
Plaintiff

v.

Tonga1 (Represented by zLost)
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. The Defence affirms Fact 1, however denies that the names ‘Vernicia’ ‘Bezzer’ were clearly visible in the background.
2. The Defence neither affirms nor denies Fact 2.
3. The Defence denies Fact 3.
4. The Defence affirms Fact 4.

II. DEFENCES
1. First of all, the Plaintiff alleges that Tonga1's statement, even if directed at Vernicia's campaign, were true. Let us analyze the definition of a fascist:

an extreme right-wing political system or attitude that is in favour of strong central government, aggressively promoting your own country or race above others, and that does not allow any opposition.

From this, it's clear that there are _ conditions required by definition for someone to be a facist:
a. Extremely right-wing (Exhibit A)
b. Favouring a strong central government (Exhibit B)
c. Aggressively promoting your own country or race above others (Exhibit C)
d. Not allowing opposition (Exhibit D)

Condition a. Vernicia herself has stated that they are right-wing, and that they are choosing to be a capitalist, which is widely considered to be right wing.
Condition b. Vernicia's campaign ran on policies that would theoretically benefit the government. Central government is defined as:

the government of a whole country, rather than local government

As a majority of these policies would benefit the government, therefore strengthening it, it's safe to assume that Vernicia supports a strong central government.
Condition c. Vernicia has degraded "westerners" and "americans" many times, therefore it is fair for the Defendant to assume that Vernicia supports her race over others, specifically westerners. Vernicia has also said that they are better than everyone else, by stating that everyone else is lesser.
Condition d. Vernicia has said that they don't support the SWP (a former party), simply due to the fact that they wouldn't "kneel" to her.
2. The Defendant is protected by the right to political communication. Stating the ideology you believe someone follows is a political statement, similar to how someone would state that [party] is left-leaning or [player] is a capitalist.
3. In regards to the ending sentence of Claim for Relief 2, Compensatory Damages, and Consequential Damages 1 and 3, of the 11 people who reacted in support to the first message, there were 9 WPR members, 1 GER member and 1 RRP member (Exhibit E). Members of these parties are highly unlikely to have considered voting for Vernicia in the first place. Following this, there was only one time when an independent reacted in support of the message, this independent being A29_2. However, even they are not likely to have been swayed due to their disdain for Vernicia because of their previous encounters with them (Exhibit F). There is currently zero explicit evidence that anyone's vote changed simply due to the campaign post.
4. In regards to Argen_Lee's statement, Argen_Lee was presumably already a member of the WPR before Tonga1's campaign message was sent (Exhibit G). Therefore, it's very possible that they held this political opinion before the campaign message and that their vote nor opinion was swayed by the campaign post. Correlation is not causation.
5. In regards to Consequential Damages 2, Fascism does not constitute untrustworthiness by its definition. If someone were to regard a fascist as untrustworthy, it is not the fault of the Defendant.
6. In regards to Punitive Damages, the Legal Damages Act (link) stipulates:

Punitive damages will not be awarded unless they are either authorized by statute or unless the conduct of the other party in causing the party’s harm is outrageous.

The Defendant has not shown outrageous conduct, having simply stated their political opinion of the Plaintiff. As a matter of fact, no evidence regarding the Defendant's alleged conduct is given by the Plaintiff's counsel. Therefore, there is no basis for asking for punitive damages. Besides that, the whole point of campaigning is to increase your chances of winning, therefore it does not make any sense as to how campaigning in order to increase your chances of winning is outrageous conduct.

View attachment 52384View attachment 52397
View attachment 52382View attachment 52383
View attachment 52385View attachment 52386View attachment 52387View attachment 52388View attachment 52389View attachment 52390
View attachment 52391View attachment 52392
STRUCK View attachment 52393 STRUCK
View attachment 52394
View attachment 52396

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 March 2025

Click to expand...

Motion


it has been 72 hours of discovery so i request to move to default judgment. the zlost broke the rules

1741479539543.png

 

Objection


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE

Twilight2660 said:

Motion


it has been 72 hours of discovery so i request to move to default judgment. the zlost broke the rules
View attachment 52572

Click to expand...
The Plaintiff has not specified what motion they are filing, therefore the Defence asks for this statement to be struck.

 
The Defence wishes to request a 24 hour extension to Discovery.
 
zLost said:

Objection


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE


The Plaintiff has not specified what motion they are filing, therefore the Defence asks for this statement to be struck.

Click to expand...
there is no motion for it, the rules just say i can request the default judgment
 
Hello, and good evening. I will be taking over this case as the previous presiding officer has vacated their position.




Twilight2660 said:
only e? what about all the combined ones
Click to expand...
zLost said:

Objection


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE



This is not a motion nor an objection, therefore the defendant asks for this statement to be struck.

Click to expand...
Approved. Court finds defence's explanation satisfactory. Statement will be struck.




zLost said:

Objection


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE


The Plaintiff has not specified what motion they are filing, therefore the Defence asks for this statement to be struck.

Click to expand...
As I have stated in 2025 FCR 20,
ColonelKai said:
Here, I would normally be inclined to accept the motion to strike and breach of procedure objections on the ground that there should indeed be an appropriate venue for a motion to be filed to the courts in order to request summary judgement. And of course, unsurprisingly, there is, however, a movant raising concerns on 3.7 as pursuant to the motions would guide would reasonably find themselves confused as to the exact use cases of a motion for summary judgement, as the definition given within the guide is very specific to cases where no facts are disputed.

Therefore, I will allow the movant to file this impromptu motion for summary judgement, and therefore consequentially overrule the objection and the motion.
Click to expand...
Therefore, this objection is overruled.








Twilight2660 said:

Motion


it has been 72 hours of discovery so i request to move to default judgment. the zlost broke the rules
View attachment 52572

Click to expand...

Can the movant please further justify their motion? I expect that at least what broke the rules to be included in a significant motion such as this. Apologies if I am missing an obvious point here. Additionally, I will preemptive approve a response to the re-submission of the motion by the defendant. The movant has 24 hours to resubmit a fleshed out motion. Also, for future reference, citing a rule is enough, and pasting in pictures where not necessary should be avoided.
 
Twilight2660 said:
one of the facts is a yellow neither affirms nor denies thing which goes against the rule i cited
Click to expand...
While disallowed by the rules, it is common practice, and I have been instructed to allow such filings. Motion denied.
 
The plaintiff has 72 hours to fill an opening statement.
 
i request a 24 hour extension on the opening while we wait for the rule appeal and i am busy at school
 
Twilight2660 said:
i want to appeal this rule application
View attachment 53143
Click to expand...
Motion denied. You have not provided any substance as to how this does not comply with previous court decisions and have failed to provide any precedence. Also, please refer back to my previous post of;
ColonelKai said:
Also, for future reference, citing a rule is enough, and pasting in pictures where not necessary should be avoided.
Click to expand...
That being said,

Twilight2660 said:
i request a 24 hour extension on the opening while we wait for the rule appeal and i am busy at school
Click to expand...
Granted.
 

Opening Statement


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

Your honor, lets use common sense. When someone says fascist, everyone thinks of people like a certain german ruler. Vernicia comes nothing close to that standard no matter how much we want to play semantics. When discussing humiliation, we need to use the connotative definitions (how people actually understand and associate the word when speaking) of words rather than the denotative form (dictionary definition). The other lawyer makes it out like the dictionary definition is what matters, but most people construct their understandings of what other people say using the connotative. I learned this in freshmen english class, so i am sure this isnt a difficult concept for the court to know.

tonga called vernicia a fascist, which everyone would associate with bad people that want to take total control and brutally oppress the opposition. Vernicia represents none of that and works together collaboratively all the time with other people, even former enemies. These baseless and untrue statements are the very definition of libel especially in such a public place like news. I read the news channel all the time and i think other players do too, and we saw at least 11 people reacted and surely more people saw it if we are using logic.

Vernicia lost the election, and the message gained a lot of traction. While it is hard to quantify how many votes she lost to this we can for sures say that this was a humiliating experience. and just because argen lee was already in wpr (if he was) does not mean he didnt want to vote for vernicia anyways. We cant just simply say you will for sure vote a way just because your in a party, people have independent minds and can vote for whoever they want no matter party membership. freedom of political communication doesnt protect tonga because there are reasonable limitations to this as the Constitution says and libel is a limitation. someone won a libel case before: Lawsuit: Adjourned - xLayzur & Krix v. Politico [2023] FCR 62

as that case says, this is a civil case so the standard of proofs is balance, and any reasonable person would agree that calling someone a fascist and having people believe it is more likely than not to be evidence of losing votes in a popularity contest (election). please be reasonable and please punish tonga for these false and defamatory and damaging remarks. thanks~

 
Please don't ask the court to "use common sense" and "be reasonable". That is our job and the insinuation is that we don't. Thanks.

The defendant has 72 hours for their opening statement.
 

Opening Statement


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

The Plaintiff has stated that we should ignore the dictionary definition, when they themselves were the ones who brought it up in the beginning. Redmont is to use the Oxford Dictionary for defining words as stated by the Clarity Act (link), there is no legal basis to using the connotative definition. However, it is not the fault of the Defendant what other people believe when they saw his message. The Defendant expressed his opinion on Vernicia's ideology from his experiences with her. This is protected under political communication in the Constitution. Not only that, the Defence is using the dictionary definition to prove that Tonga1's statement weren't false, which in this matter the connotative definition does not matter at all. It would be the same as thinking that to be a fascist, you have to literally become the german leader that the Plaintiff has referenced.

The Plaintiff states that Vernicia works together collaboratively with everyone, including her former enemies. However, from the demeanor seen in Exhibit D, it's much more likely that this is not true and there is no evidence that suggests otherwise. Not only that, the Plaintiff's lawyer appears to have a misunderstanding of where these messages were posted. They are talking about the news channel, when in reality this was posted in the campaign channel, as stated earlier many times, which is meant for political propaganda.

Civil cases are a balance of probabilities. There has been no witness testimony, no evidence, basically nothing at all which can prove that the Plaintiff did indeed lose out on votes. It's much more likely that everyone who had seen the message already had their mind made up about their vote, as they were all a member of political parties who had presidential candidates running. There has been no evidence which shows that they had any intention of not voting for their party's presidential candidate. The Plaintiff is correct in that people can vote however they want, but as stated by the Plaintiff themselves and by the Defence earlier, civil cases are a balance of probabilities and it's much more likely that they did not vote for Vernicia. Not only that, there is no guarantee that Vernicia would've won had they survived the first elimination round, and it's actually more likely that they wouldn't have won due to the fact that xEndeavour dislikes Bezzer who was Vernicias Vice Presidental candidate. This would mean that it would be more likely for xEndeavour to endorse 1950 rather than Vernicia.

The Plaintiff would also like to bring attention to the fact that there has been no evidence given for the alleged 10 days of playtime in the past 30 days of the Plaintiff in regards to compensatory damages.

 
As no witnesses have been called, we will move straight to closing statements. The plaintiff has 72 hours.
 

Closing Statement


May it please the Court,

Your honor, opposing counsel, ladies and gentlemen gathered in witness of this case, this is a simple case of common sense. While the Court likely misinterpreted the spirit of the opening, I must reiterate that it is pinnacle to the argument at play. The Court is presumed to use common sense and reason, and it is paramount that the Court continue to do so. The case here is not a complicated one: Tonga1 called Vernicia a fascist -- an incredibly loaded term with a lot of baggage in the eyes of a reasonable person -- in the middle of a high profile election.

To prove libel, we must prove the following elements more likely than not, rather than beyond a reasonable doubt:

  • That the statement was false: Vernicia is not a fascist. She does not advocate for the centralization of power to the point of authoritarianism nor does she actively use policies to suppress all of her opposition (even if she expresses disagreement with members of the opposition). Fascists, when people think of them, are people like certain German rulers. Whether we want to play semantics with the denotative definition or use common sense by evaluating what people actually perceive to be true with the connotative definition, Vernicia does not fit the bill for being a fascist. The whole point of the libel law is to prevent people from untruthfully harming others' reputations. Whether this untruth is done overtly or by exploiting peoples' associations with certain words, falsehood is still present in Tonga's statement.
  • That the statement was damaging: Being labelled a fascist is not a compliment. A reasonable person believes that a fascist is a negative attribute for a politician, and a reasonable person would not vote for a fascist to become President (albeit that is getting harder and harder to claim in certain places!). The false pretense to cause damages negate any rights to free speech as established by the Constitution and case law.
  • That the statement caused damages: Vernicia lost the Presidential election by a narrow margin. We have photo evidence of at least 11 people who agreed with the false sentiment proposed by Tonga, with at least one of those actively perpetuating the rumor in a politics channel. All of these people were potential voters, with many of them actually being once affiliated with Vernicia. Regardless of the Presidential outcome, the claims were humiliating and widespread, impacting her ability to enjoy the political scene free of harassment and to enjoy a good reputation grounded in the truth.
Today, we have met that burden of proof through argumentation and evidence. When we ask the Court to be reasonable, we mean for the Court to look through the facts as a reasonable person, an objective standard used in common law, and award appropriate damages to make my client whole once more. Thank you.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top