Opening Statement
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT
May it please the court,
Your Honor, opposing counsel, citizens of Redmont, this is a textbook demonstration of a lack of evidence. The entire case rests on circumstantial claims. The plaintiff claims three things that all lack evidence:
- My client killed the plaintiff on the plaintiff's property.
- That the alleged killing obstructed the plaintiff's ability to complete construction.
- That the alleged obstruction actually materially damaged the plaintiff.
Let us examine each claim individually.
The Murder
The plaintiff has submitted evidence showing Naezaratheus killing MysticPhunky. This was a crime that was already handled by the Department of Homeland Security, and not at issue here. The important issue to this case is where the murder took place. The plaintiff unfortunately failed to submit any evidence that the murder was committed on his property. The plaintiff failed to use discovery to appropriately obtain logs and other data pointing the murder to be on the plaintiff's property. All the plaintiff attaches are images of random buttons and redstone wires. These could have been placed by the plaintiff to frame my client. Furthermore, there is only one murder in question here, yet several redstone wires and buttons are shown in the basement of the plaintiff's property. If these buttons and redstone wires are actually crime scene evidence pieces, why is my client being singled out? The exhibits suggest one of two outcomes:
- The plaintiff placed the buttons and redstone wires to frame my client for this case, or
- Several murders took place on the property leaving several crime scenes, and the plaintiff is choosing to assign 100% of the blame to my client despite one or more other parties being involved.
Without proof of which murderer is responsible for each alleged crime scene, we cannot know which, if any, were actually the fault of my client. Were they placed as an elaborate effort to frame an innocent man? Was there another serial killer, or an assortment of killers, that are actually at fault instead? Who knows. The burden of proof in this case is on the plaintiff. We do not want to set the precedent that placing a few buttons and attaching a murder log automatically entitles a murder victim to claim thousands of dollars in damages.
Construction Obstruction
Even if the plaintiff was able to prove that my client killed the plaintiff on his own property, leaving behind one of the redstone wires / buttons shown in the evidence above, there is still no proof this actually obstructed construction. Not only are there the other crime scene pieces that would also share blame if this were an obstruction, but the plaintiff has failed to show how the murder actually impeded construction. Was the plaintiff able to work on other areas of the property while the murder investigation was underway? Was the plaintiff able to work around the crime scene evidence pieces and simply fix up a few blocks when the crime scenes were cleared? A reasonable person would answer yes to all of these questions.
In any case, the obstruction is alleged to only be eight hours according to the note Dartanman left in the evidence attachment. This is not a lot of time, and certainly not enough time to warrant any significant disruption to a construction project. The plaintiff has not shown their construction plans, so we don't even know that construction was occurring except according to their word, which is not admissible since the plaintiff will not be testifying in this case. Without knowing what construction was occurring, it is impossible for the court to assume there was a disruption. Even if a spot was impacted, surely other aspects of the project could have been getting worked on. It is a ubiquitous principle in common law that if someone helps create their own damages, the defense is not liable. In this case, the plaintiff perhaps chose to give up on work altogether for the night rather than working around the alleged crime scenes. The plaintiff created his own delay.
Material Damages
The plaintiff is demanding a staggering $65,000 in damages, which includes compensatory, consequential, and punitive damages, in addition to legal fees. This amount is grossly disproportionate to any alleged harm suffered. Even if an incident did occur between my client and the plaintiff, the financial consequences claimed by MysticPhunky are unsupported by concrete evidence. Speculative future losses or theoretical missed rental income do not meet the legal standard for consequential damages. As pointed out before, the presence of other alleged crime scenes (assuming they weren't placed there by the plaintiff to frame my client) would also spread any damages out to the other murder. Without knowing the full picture, the Court cannot accurately assign a proportion of the blame to my client. Even if my client was at fault, there is no situation where an eight hour delay causes a loss of over $60,000.
Most rentable spaces go for under $1,000 a month. The space featured in the screenshot is small, which means it would not go for much on the market. Assuming it could fetch good coin, there is no proof of a buyer/tenant lined up that would have secured it in that eight hour timespan. There is no proof the plaintiff would have even finished the construction if the alleged murder did not happen. Both the claims and the damages themselves rest on speculation, not evidence. The reasonable person test would certainly not permit $20,000 in loss of enjoyment damages for being unable to mine and replace one crime scene impacted block, in any event. The punitive portion of murder is already factored into the criminal element of the crime, and surely the Court does not want to open the door to every murder victim in existence filing a case for additional punitive damages. Therefore, all requested damages rest on either speculation or a disregard for logic and reason.
The facts are clear. The plaintiff brought a case lacking evidence in three essential areas: the cause of action, the manner of the tort, and the damages of the alleged tort itself. With all three critical pillars of the plaintiff's case crumpled, the Court has no choice but to find my client not liable of these accusations and to award my client with the requested legal fees. Thank you.
