Appeal: Pending [2025] DCR 1 - Appeal

[End]

Username: End

I am representing myself

What Case are you Appealing?: [2025] DCR 1

Link to the Original Case: Lawsuit: Dismissed - xEndeavour v. AlexanderLove [2025] DCR 1

Basis for Appeal: Magistrate made an incorrect assumption and immediately dismissed the case without further clarification.

Magistrate: Specifically for damages to reputation I find none provided. The evidence shows a player being told an alleged defamatory comment. Even if the comment was false the information was not new to the person as they "remember that" meaning this person's image of the plaintiff most likely did not change as no new information was provided. As for everyone else, they were unchanged or ignored the comment.

Appeal Reason: The Magistrate’s reasoning suggests that no damage occurred simply because the comment may not have been new to the person who heard it. However, the issue of reputational harm should not be dismissed so lightly, especially when the slanderous statement made by the defendant was concerning obstruction of justice—an extremely serious accusation. Whether or not the individual hearing the comment had prior knowledge of it is not the key factor; rather, it’s the potential effect of a high-ranking official in the Department of Justice using their position to spread false information during a politically sensitive time. This wasn't just spoken to the new person that the official went on to message, it was spoken to the world and it will continue to have an ongoing impact for anyone who sees it in future.

The Magistrate has made an assumption about what the new person meant by saying 'I remember that.' The new person was likely referring to leaking of documents from the day prior, not referring to the slanderous comment concerning obstruction of justice. You simply cannot remember obstruction of justice if it didn't occur.

Magistrate: Meaning this person's image of the plaintiff most likely did not change as no new information was provided.

Appeal Reason: The Magistrate again, has made an incorrect assumption of something which is immeasurable and also based on another incorrect assumption. You can't always specifically measure reputational damage, but what you can measure is potential impact and contextual factors. Thats why the case was filed with consequential damages.

Appeal Reason: The defendant admitted to using their position in the Dept. of Justice for political benefit in raising the topic, because the charges were pending and this was not public information - in fact, I was not aware these charges were pending. To have a member of the Dept. Justice making these false and slanderous accusations during an election campaign is malicious and using a public office for personal and political gain.

The Magistrate has made an incorrect assumption and dismissed the entire case based on this assumption, as well as dismissed the legal damages act in it's definition of consequential damages.

Supporting Evidence: