Lawsuit: In Session Unseatedduke1 v. The Radish [2024] DCR 26

IncompleteRiver

IncompleteRiver

Citizen
Grave Digger Statesman
Joined
Jul 16, 2023
Messages
46
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

CIVIL ACTION

Unseatedduke1 (Represented by Lead Attorney IncompleteRiver from Prodigium | Attorneys at Law)
Plaintiff

v.

The Radish
Defendant

COMPLAINT

The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

I. PARTIES

  1. Plaintiff: Unseatedduke1, a respected judge in the Commonwealth of Redmont.
  2. Defendant: The Radish, an organization based in Redmont.
  3. Owner of Defendant: AugustusPlays (Amended)
  4. Owner of Defendant: Dartanboy (Amended)
II. FACTS

  1. On 7/24/2024, The Radish published a post titled "Judge Unseatedduke1 Joins Fight Against Big Media" as one of their articles. (see P-001/P-005)
  2. The article makes a claim on the behalf of the Plaintiff that he has taken a stance against “big-media” and supports The Radish. (see P-001/P-005)
  3. The Plaintiff does not support the stance The Radish claims the Plaintiff supports. (see P-002)
  4. The Plaintiff is a federal judge and wishes to maintain a neutral stance.
  5. Plaintiff sent a Cease and Desist letter to The Radish on 7/24/2024 requesting the article be taken down. (see P-003/P-004)
  6. The Radish refused to comply with the demands to retract their statements and issue a public apology. (see P-003)
  7. On 7/25/24, AugustusPlays sent a message that included statements about Plaintiff. (See P-006) (Amended)
  8. The defendant published a second article, falsely claiming there was a protest against the plaintiff. (See P-007) (Amended)
  9. The defendant publishes a third article titled “Not The Radish: Judge Unseatedduke1 Sues The Radish,” claiming that this article is not satire. (See P-008) (Amended)
  10. AugustusPlays is an alt (Alternate Account) of the player Dartanboy. (See P-009) (Amended)
  11. The Defendant published an article titled “New Management,” in which the defendant detailed the change in ownership of The Radish, and falsely quoted both IncompleteRiver and Unseatedduke1. (See P-010) (Amended)
  12. The Plaintiff Unseatedduke1 sent a message on 7/24/2024 saying “I like real news topics fake news shouldn’t be in the news channel” (See P-001) (Amended)
III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

  1. The Defendant’s publication constitutes libel as defined under the Defamation Act of October 2020, Section 2 (see Act of Congress - Defamation Act October 2020), which states that defamation is “a false and unprivileged statement of fact that can negatively impact someone's reputation.”
  2. The Defendant’s actions show a disregard for the plaintiff’s true stance and cause harm.
  3. The Plaintiff's reputation and professional standing as a Judge have been harmed due to the defendant’s libel.
  4. The Plaintiff seeks relief for the Defendant's violation of copyright law. The Defendant used and published Unseatedduke1’s message in their article “Judge Unseatedduke1 Joins Fight Against Big Media” without obtaining proper permission, thereby infringing upon the Plaintiff's exclusive rights under Section 5(1)(f) of the Intellectual Property Act, which states that publishing an individual's work on the internet without permission constitutes a breach of copyright along with 5(1)(d) which states that publishing an individual’s work in public without permission constitutes a breach of copyright. (Amended)
IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

The Plaintiff seeks the following from the defendant:

  1. A public retraction and apology, clearly stating that the statements made were false and without basis.
  2. The Defendant removes all copies of the aforementioned article from public domain.
  3. Legal fees of $5,000 dollars (see Act of Congress - Legal Damages Act.).
  4. The Plaintiff seeks 11,000 dollars in compensatory damages for the defendant's misuse of the plaintiff's intellectual property. (Amended)
V: EVIDENCE
P-001:

AD_4nXduTlUGnGw5MtNgdcI0DTfBSLCqK11o5Hhpprd9oGdRVY8GOfF8Z9lLkbW7VCMhaP5VLJrlCumbJCfXx3rB8x7GcgYWA7eCTv_yJehY8shFbXTAVgX98vLu7AyQ_8ipKLu-jDiEdM5UJCpe-ePaM3uQhK5Z


P-002:

AD_4nXfjnUnKEh-5h1Yi2JzyFII7bmza6EECvTgNQG6n-LzopU4mlYtUqKl17wxw55v1eOmTVro8dG-IcCMOuRU7IuwqDKLE27rFrs_Yy5zWWrMV8ssAS4L1FyRFIvrI358m1RGnS7wBTQoJUcqBjVqSix_xvXs


P-003:

AD_4nXcQHP9rGUJiVt6HAplTmfn1_nIbvHOg_Aa4_2vRNQ3ekax2UXnc8KHtiY-FBm3Xn6_Myd1QP5FusfIFO06HXfs5TrVEr_UVzsYKBMKLYIF6AZQq7onbNa8Q3XJR62yMGXnlnvWB5vntOYWuTS4BwODuql7M


P-004:

Cease and Desist against The Radish

P-005:

Discord - Group Chat That’s All Fun & Games

RETAINER:

AD_4nXdXOq8rhcLd_KkW-jnHOF4STPoBA-WYcinxGpki62NmSysJKY0qwGs0w7m86HBwYnhYgWMj_1wKIMNr0IEfk793KRHJQg_zKk1Ypdmp4voslB5ugYzWPuczZvi7UDJwFz9u46M_euurWkPDk5iVEa0y_rEf


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 24th day of July 2024
 
Last edited:

pgyfUC4.png

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

@AugustusPlays is required to appear before the District Court in the case of Unseatedduke1 v. The Radish [2024] DCR 26. Failure to appear within 72 hours of this summons will result in a default judgment 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.​
 
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

Unseatedduke1
Plaintiff

v.

The Radish (Represented by AlexanderLove and Jakovus)
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. The defense AFFIRMS that "on 7/24/2024, The Radish published a post titled "Judge Unseatedduke1 Joins Fight Against Big Media" as one of their articles."
2. The defense DISPUTES that "the article makes a claim on the behalf of the Plaintiff that he has taken a stance against “big-media” and supports The Radish." The article is satire, as written in the disclaimer on the article, and the defense contends that the article made no actual claims, according to a reasonable person.
3. The defense DISPUTES that "The Plaintiff does not support the stance The Radish claims the Plaintiff supports." as it is not true that the Radish claimed anything.
4. The defense AFFIRMS that "the Plaintiff is a federal judge", but CANNOT AFFIRM whether or not the plaintiff "wishes to maintain a neutral stance."
5. The defense AFFIRMS that the "plaintiff sent a Cease and Desist letter to The Radish on 7/24/2024 requesting the article be taken down."
6. The defense DOES NOT DISPUTE that "The Radish refused to comply with the demands to retract their statements and issue a public apology."

II. DEFENSES
1. According to the Defamation Act (link), "damages from slander and libel are not presumed and must be proven in a court of law." Not only were proof of damages not offered, no damages were even alleged. This lawsuit appears to be a frivolous case meant to intimidate a new satire news network, not actually sue for damages.
2. According to the same law, "the Plaintiff must present evidence for intent to harm reputation." Not only was proof of intent not offered, proof of non-intent is in evidence! The disclaimer at the bottom of the article explicitly tells viewers that the contents of the article is not factual, and therefore there is no intent to harm the reputation of the plaintiff. The contents were not passed off as true, and any reasonable person would have no reason to look negatively upon the plaintiff as a result of this article.

III. MOTION TO DISMISS
The defense motions to dismiss under rule 5.5, lack of claim. Without there being allegations of damages or intent to harm reputation, the plaintiff lacks basis to file a defamation case and seek remedy. All elements of defamation must be addressed, or the case cannot proceed. With two crucial elements being completely ignored by the plaintiff, this case should be dismissed with prejudice as it is frivolous and serves only to harass 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 25th day of July, 2024.


---


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


The Radish (Represented by AlexanderLove and Jakovus)
Counter Plaintiff

v.

Unseatedduke1
Counter Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:
The defendant is entitled to legal fees due to hiring attorneys to defend it from this frivolous case.

I. PARTIES
1. Unseatedduke1 (Plaintiff)
2. The Radish (Defendant)
3. AlexanderLove (Defense Attorney)
4. Jakovus (Defense Attorney)

II. FACTS
1. The plaintiff filed a frivolous case against the defendant.
2. The defendant retained AlexanderLove for $5,000.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The Legal Damages Act entitles the prevailing party to legal damages at 30% of the value of the case or $5,000, whichever is higher.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. $5,000 in legal damages, as that is the minimum award per the Legal Damages Act.

V. SUPPORTING EVIDENCE
1721951293027.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 25th day of July, 2024.
 
OBJECTION

Purjury.

The Plaintiff objects to the Defendant's dispute of Fact 3 on the grounds of perjury, as the Plaintiff has already provided irrefutable proof substantiating the claim (See P-002). The Defendant's denial of this fact constitutes a false statement under oath, and we request the court to acknowledge the evidence presented.
 
The motion to dismiss is denied. The court finds that the Plaintiff has competently alleged the essential factors of a defamation claim. The Plaintiff has presented specific facts indicating that the Defendant published a fake statement that could harm the Plaintiff's reputation. The Plaintiff has also detailed the refusal of the Defendant to comply with a Cease and Desist letter, which further suggests a potential disregard of the Plaintiff's reputation. While the Defendant claims that the article is satire and contains a disclaimer, these matters must be evaluated during the trial and are not reasons to dismiss the case.
 
IncompleteRiver said:
OBJECTION

Purjury.

The Plaintiff objects to the Defendant's dispute of Fact 3 on the grounds of perjury, as the Plaintiff has already provided irrefutable proof substantiating the claim (See P-002). The Defendant's denial of this fact constitutes a false statement under oath, and we request the court to acknowledge the evidence presented.
Click to expand...
The objection of the Plaintiff on the matter of perjury is noted. The Court acknowledges the Plaintiff's concern and will take it into consideration when writing the verdict.
 
Aladeen said:
The motion to dismiss is denied. The court finds that the Plaintiff has competently alleged the essential factors of a defamation claim. The Plaintiff has presented specific facts indicating that the Defendant published a fake statement that could harm the Plaintiff's reputation. The Plaintiff has also detailed the refusal of the Defendant to comply with a Cease and Desist letter, which further suggests a potential disregard of the Plaintiff's reputation. While the Defendant claims that the article is satire and contains a disclaimer, these matters must be evaluated during the trial and are not reasons to dismiss the case.
Click to expand...
Motion to Reconsider
Your honor, respectfully, the law should be followed. The claim needs damages and intent. It doesn’t have it.
 
The Court has reviewed the Defendant's motion to Reconsider and finds that the Plaintiff has presented a sufficient foundation for the defamation claim to proceed. The allegations made by the Plaintiff, accompanied by the refusal of the Defendant to retract the statement, suggest a potential indifference to the Plaintiff's reputation, which validates further examination. While the specifics of damages and intent will be carefully evaluated throughout the trial, they are not grounds for dismissal. Therefore the motion to reconsider is denied.
 
We will now be moving into a 3-Day Discovery period.
 
Interrogatory
1. Isn’t it true that you said the quote that is pictured in the article?
2. Would you say that being a patron of a company is a bad thing?

The defense reserves the right to ask up to three more questions.
 
IncompleteRiver said:
P-002:
Click to expand...
Objection, your honor.
Hearsay

This is an out of court statement that should be heard in witness testimony, not a piece of evidence that cannot be cross examined.
 
The objection is sustained. The statement in question constitutes hearsay, as it is an out-of-court statement and it is not subject to cross-examination. As such it cannot be considered as evidence. The plaintiff must provide admissible evidence or witness testimony for this court to appropriately evaluate the claims.
 
Motion to Compel
Your honor, the plaintiff is requesting legal fees, yet the fee structure has not been disclosed. Legal fees are not grantable without the fee structure being disclosed, so I motion that the Court compel the plaintiff to affix the contents of their retainer agreement as evidence.
 
The motion to compel is sustained. The plaintiff is requesting legal fees but has not provided the details of the fee arrangement with their attorneys. To grant these legal fees, the Court requires full disclosure of the fee structure. Therefore, the Plaintiff is ordered to submit the retainer agreement as evidence to validate the request for legal fees.
 
Aladeen said:
The motion to compel is sustained. The plaintiff is requesting legal fees but has not provided the details of the fee arrangement with their attorneys. To grant these legal fees, the Court requires full disclosure of the fee structure. Therefore, the Plaintiff is ordered to submit the retainer agreement as evidence to validate the request for legal fees.
Click to expand...
Your Honor, here is the link and file to the full retainer agreement between Prodigium and Unseatedduke1. For convenience to the court, I've also attached a screenshot of the channel #attorney-hours as stated in the retainer.

docs.google.com

UnseatedDuke Prodigium & Partners at Law Case Retainer

This Agreement is a Retainer Agreement made between the client, Unseatedduke1, referred to as “You”, and Prodgium and Partners at Law, referred to as “Prodigium”. Legal Services Provided: You agree that Prodigium will represent your interests in this matter and/or case: Cease & Desist Letter to ...
docs.google.com docs.google.com
 

Attachments

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
SUBMISSION OF DISCOVERY
Under rule 4.6 the plaintiff submits voluntary discovery evidence.

P-006:

1722044438823.png


P-007:

1722044544827.png


P-008:

1722044614378.png


P-009:

1722044704058.png


P-010:

1722044744972.png
 
Alexander P. Love said:
Interrogatory
1. Isn’t it true that you said the quote that is pictured in the article?
2. Would you say that being a patron of a company is a bad thing?

The defense reserves the right to ask up to three more questions.
Click to expand...
1. Isn’t it true that you said the quote that is pictured in the article?
Yes

2. Would you say that being a patron of a company is a bad thing?
The issue in this case is not about being a patron of a company, it's about the misrepresentation and defamatory implications made by The Radish in their article.
 
IncompleteRiver said:
2. Would you say that being a patron of a company is a bad thing?
The issue in this case is not about being a patron of a company, it's about the misrepresentation and defamatory implications made by The Radish in their article.
Click to expand...
Your honor, I motion to compel the plaintiff to answer the question rather than deflecting it. I motion to strike his response.
 
Your honor, we answered the question as presented. If we are going to be asked to compel we would like to submit an objection to the question for the following reasons:

1. The question was leading.
2. The question calls for a conclusion.
3. The question was inflammatory.

The defense asked this question and we answered. We request that the motion to compel be denied under reason of discovery rule 4.8. The plaintiff would request that the defense is only allowed to ask 5 questions.
 
IncompleteRiver said:
Your honor, we answered the question as presented. If we are going to be asked to compel we would like to submit an objection to the question for the following reasons:

1. The question was leading.
2. The question calls for a conclusion.
3. The question was inflammatory.

The defense asked this question and we answered. We request that the motion to compel be denied under reason of discovery rule 4.8. The plaintiff would request that the defense is only allowed to ask 5 questions.
Click to expand...
Objection, your honor
Breach of Procedure

A response here was not warranted.
 
This court believes that there is merit in the arguments presented. Furthermore, the defendant's motion to compel and motion to strike are overruled. The court agrees with the points given by the plaintiff. The plaintiff's original response to the defendant's question will stand.
 
Alexander P. Love said:
Objection, your honor
Breach of Procedure

A response here was not warranted.
Click to expand...
The objection is overruled. The response given by the plaintiff was necessary to address the motions presented.
 
Aladeen said:
This court believes that there is merit in the arguments presented. Furthermore, the defendant's motion to compel and motion to strike are overruled. The court agrees with the points given by the plaintiff. The plaintiff's original response to the defendant's question will stand.
Click to expand...
Motion to Reconsider

Quit making up law. I asked a clear question and instead of answering, he refused to answer. The objections he cited are only for witness testimony as supported by several cases in which similar questions were asked, and objections to them were overruled. I ask that the court compel the plaintiff to answer the question provided. It’s a simple yes or no question. If the objections do have “merit”, I am happy to go through each one separately:

1. Question wasn’t leading. The question leaves room for the plaintiff to answer affirmatively or negatively, and does not suggest an answer in the question.
2. The question is ascertaining the plaintiff’s thought process regarding speech and how that speech affects others. It therefore has incredible probative value.
3. Inflammatory? Did he even read the objections guide? I ironically just wrote an inflammatory statement to show what an inflammatory question actually is. Politely asking about one’s thoughts is not inflaming in any way, to a reasonable person.
 
The motion to reconsider is sustained. The court finds that the objection raised by the plaintiff does not justify refusing to answer the question. The plaintiff is therefore compelled to provide a straight answer to the question given by the defendant.
 
MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT

The Plaintiff respectfully requests this honorable Court to grant leave to amend the original Complaint pursuant to Rule 3.3.

Amendments Sought:

  1. Addition to Parties:
    • The Plaintiff requests to formally add AugustusPlays as a party to this case.
    • The Plaintiff requests to formally add Dartanboy as a party to this case. (See P-009)
  2. Addition of New Facts:
    • The Plaintiff seeks to add the following new facts to the case:
      • On 7/25/24, AugustusPlays sent a message that included statements about Plaintiff. (See P-006)
      • The defendant published a second article, falsely claiming there was a protest against the plaintiff. (See P-007)
      • The defendant publishes a third article titled “Not The Radish: Judge Unseatedduke1 Sues The Radish,” claiming that this article is not satire. (See P-008)
      • AugustusPlays is an alt (Alternate Account) of the player Dartanboy. (See P-009)
      • The Defendant published an article titled “New Management,” in which the defendant detailed the change in ownership of The Radish, and falsely quoted both IncompleteRiver and Unseatedduke1. (See P-010)
      • The Plaintiff Unseatedduke1 sent a message on 7/24/2024 saying “I like real news topics fake news shouldn’t be in the news channel”
  3. Addition of a New Claim for Relief:
    • The Plaintiff seeks relief for the Defendant's violation of copyright law. The Defendant used and published Unseatedduke1’s message in their article “Judge Unseatedduke1 Joins Fight Against Big Media” without obtaining proper permission, thereby infringing upon the Plaintiff's exclusive rights under Section 5(1)(f) of the Intellectual Property Act, which states that publishing an individual's work on the internet without permission constitutes a breach of copyright along with 5(1)(d) which states that publishing an individual’s work in public without permission constitutes a breach of copyright.
  4. Addition of a New Prayer for Relief:
    • The Plaintiff seeks 11,000 dollars in compensatory damages for the defendant's misuse of the plaintiff's intellectual property.
For the reasons stated above, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court grant this motion to amend the Complaint to include the new party, facts, and claim and prayer for relief as specified.
 
Aladeen said:
The motion to reconsider is sustained. The court finds that the objection raised by the plaintiff does not justify refusing to answer the question. The plaintiff is therefore compelled to provide a straight answer to the question given by the defendant.
Click to expand...
2. Would you say that being a patron of a company is a bad thing?

Depending on the company and the perception of an individual, being a patron of a company could be either good, bad, or neutral.
 
WITNESS LIST SUBMISSION

Witnesses for the Plaintiff are as follows:

1. Unseatedduke1
 
The motion is sustained, the plaintiff is allowed to amend the complaint.
 
Discovery has now ended. The Plaintiff has 72 hours to provide an Opening Statement.
 
Aladeen said:
Discovery has now ended. The Plaintiff has 72 hours to provide an Opening Statement.
Click to expand...
Your honor, the defense requests an extension of discovery by 24 hours to address the amendment to the complaint. We need to amend ours and find evidence, and the few minutes between their amendment and end of discovery is not reasonable.
 
Extension granted
 
Your Honor, the 24-hour extension has passed. The Plaintiff requests we move forward.
 
Your honor, if I am party to this case, am I entitled to a Defense?
 
Aladeen said:
Is Mr.Love not representing your newspaper organization?
Click to expand...
Your honor, it is my newspaper organization now. Furthermore, Dartanboy is not a party in this case and his name should be struck from the complaint.

My amendment is being posted in the next couple minutes btw.
 
Aladeen said:
Is Mr.Love not representing your newspaper organization?
Click to expand...
Your honor,

Mr. Love represents the Radish - a company, not me. I believe Mr. Love owns The Radish as well (although he didn't always).

I'm not sure why I'm party to the case, but if I am, I request I be permitted to defend my name.
 
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

Unseatedduke1
Plaintiff

v.

The Radish (Represented by AlexanderLove and Jakovus)
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. The defense AFFIRMS that "on 7/24/2024, The Radish published a post titled "Judge Unseatedduke1 Joins Fight Against Big Media" as one of their articles."
2. The defense DISPUTES that "the article makes a claim on the behalf of the Plaintiff that he has taken a stance against “big-media” and supports The Radish." The article is satire, as written in the disclaimer on the article, and the defense contends that the article made no actual claims, according to a reasonable person.
3. The defense DISPUTES that "The Plaintiff does not support the stance The Radish claims the Plaintiff supports." as it is not true that the Radish claimed anything.
4. The defense AFFIRMS that "the Plaintiff is a federal judge", but CANNOT AFFIRM whether or not the plaintiff "wishes to maintain a neutral stance."
5. The defense AFFIRMS that the "plaintiff sent a Cease and Desist letter to The Radish on 7/24/2024 requesting the article be taken down."
6. The defense DOES NOT DISPUTE that "The Radish refused to comply with the demands to retract their statements and issue a public apology."
7. The defense DOES NOT DISPUTE that "on 7/25/24, AugustusPlays sent a message that included statements about Plaintiff."
8. The defense DISPUTES that "the defendant published a second article, falsely claiming there was a protest against the plaintiff", as the Radish made no actual claim, as highlighted in the footer of the article.
9. The defense DOES NOT DISPUTE that "The defendant publishes a third article titled “Not The Radish: Judge Unseatedduke1 Sues The Radish,” claiming that this article is not satire."
10. The defense DOES NOT DISPUTE that "AugustusPlays is an alt (Alternate Account) of the player Dartanboy", but would like to note that this information is irrelevant.
11. The defense AFFIRMS that "The Defendant published an article titled “New Management,” in which the defendant detailed the change in ownership of The Radish", but DOES NOT DISPUTE that it "falsely quoted both IncompleteRiver and Unseatedduke1" noting that the article did say these were not real facts.
12. The defense AFFIRMS that "The Plaintiff Unseatedduke1 sent a message on 7/24/2024 saying 'I like real news topics fake news shouldn’t be in the news channel.'"

II. DEFENSES
1. According to the Defamation Act (link), "damages from slander and libel are not presumed and must be proven in a court of law." Not only were proof of damages not offered, no damages were even alleged. This lawsuit appears to be a frivolous case meant to intimidate a new satire news network, not actually sue for damages.
2. According to the same law, "the Plaintiff must present evidence for intent to harm reputation." Not only was proof of intent not offered, proof of non-intent is in evidence! The disclaimer at the bottom of the article explicitly tells viewers that the contents of the article is not factual, and therefore there is no intent to harm the reputation of the plaintiff. The contents were not passed off as true, and any reasonable person would have no reason to look negatively upon the plaintiff as a result of this article.
3. As for intellectual property, there is no claim here as IP protects creative works. Commentary is not a "creative work", and simply quoting what someone said is not an infringement of intellectual property. Copyrights are meant to protect creative effort from being passed as one's own for commercial gain; it is not meant to just suppress someone from quoting someone else. It is an absurd argument.


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 30th day of July, 2024.
 
Motion to Dismiss
Your honor, I motion to dismiss the intellectual property claim under rule 5.5 as the law completely does not apply to these facts. Quoting someone's opinions does not come close to intellectual property infringement. I therefore move to strike the compensatory prayer for relief under this claim.
 
IncompleteRiver said:
P-007:
Click to expand...
Objection, Your Honor
Relevance

This article is irrelevant to a case about defamation involving alleged misquoting of the plaintiff. This article appears to be about the Courts moreso than the plaintiff.
 
Witness List Submission
The defense tenders AugustusPlays / Dartanboy as a witness in this case.
 
Last edited:
Request for In-Game Trial
The defense would like to request an in-game trial.
 
I am requesting a sidebar with the plaintiff's attorney, the defendant's attorney and Dartanboy.
 
Aladeen said:
The witness list has been submitted past the discovery extension.
Click to expand...
Your honor, I was at work and got off later than expected. It was only by a few minutes. Considering the surprise claim filed against the defense, I think a little leniency is to be awarded.
 
Alexander P. Love said:
Objection, Your Honor
Hearsay

This evidence includes out of court statements that cannot be cross examined.
Click to expand...
COUNTER OBJECTION

The Hearsay exception is applied because the statement in question is evidence of AugustusPlays/Dartanboy's reputation and/or character. Cite Objections Guide.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top