Lawsuit: Adjourned AlexanderLove v. The Department of Justice [2021] FCR 115

[Alexander P. Love]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


AlexanderLove
Plaintiff

v.

The Department of Justice
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

On November 21st, 2021, I was warned by a member of the Department of Justice for an infraction arising under an unconstitutional law: the Fair Campaigning Act. The law dictates who I can and cannot freely communicate to. This is a violation of several constitutional rights as I will outline throughout this filing action.


I. PARTIES
1. AlexanderLove (Plaintiff)
2. The Department of Justice (Defendant)
3. awwimnicki (Witness)
4. lawanoesepr (Witness)

II. FACTS
1. I campaigned my bid for RBA Chairman to lawanoesepr, who is on the Do Not Contact List.
2. I was warned by awwimnicki for illicit campaigning on the 21st.
3. Illicit campaigning is unconstitutional, as it interferes with my rights.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The Constitution states: "Freedom of Political Communication" is a right granted to all citizens.
2. The Constitution states: "Freedom of the Press and Media" is a right granted to all citizens.
3. Campaigning is political communication as it is communication about a matter of political significance.
4. Campaigning is expressing one's ideas in a written manner, which is a form of press and media.
5. Therefore, campaigning is protected by both of these Constitutional rights.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. The Fair Campaigning Act to be declared unconstitutional and struck down. Section Three could remain as it does not add any provisions by itself that violate rights.
2. The warning received on the 21st to be cleared from my criminal record.

V. Evidence
I hereby tender the following exhibit into evidence: https://tickettool.xyz/direct?url=h...0/912114312028512256/transcript-doj-0186.html

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 23rd day of November, 2021


Edit: changed a typo - January —> November

 

[JoeGamer]

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

The Attorney General is required to appear before the court in the case of the AlexanderLove v. The Department of Justice. Failure to appear within 72 hours of this summons will result in a default judgment in favor of the plaintiff.

I'd also like to remind both parties to be aware of the Court Rules and Procedures, including the option of an in-game trial should both parties request one.​

 

[nnmc]

To the Hon. Judge Joe and the Plaintiff,

Would an in-game trial interest you? I am available for most of this week.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

I agree to and request an in-game trial.

 

[nnmc]

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

AlexanderLove
Plaintiff

v.

Department of Justice
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. AFFIRM that AlexanderLove was warned by the DoJ for illicit campaigning
2. DISPUTE that the Fair Campaigning Act is unconstitutional

II. DEFENCES
1. The Redmont Charter of Rights and Freedoms clearly states that all rights are subject to reasonable limits.
2. The Do Not Contact List is one of those reasonable limits, to ensure that citizens are not harassed by campaigners if they do not want to be.
3. The Plaintiff claims protection under the Right of Press and Media, however, he is not a member of the Press/Media.


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 24 day of November 2021

 

[JoeGamer]

Thank you for your response Mr. Attorney General.

Seeing as both Mr. Love and the State would like an in game trial, we will be holding an in game trial.

On the 27th of November at 3:00 PM Eastern Standard Time, the Federal Court will hold an in game trial. Please prepare your statements prior to this date and have digital copy of any pre written statements available for submission to the court.

Please refer to the Court Rules and Procedures of the Judicial Library for the additional procedures of an in game trial.​

 

[Courts]

IN THE COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
In-Game Trial Briefing

As per the in-game trial process, a briefing of what occurred in-game is to be made with the verdict.

This case occurred in a voice-chat format, which made it a bit more difficult than usual to ensure that everything is noted.

Opening Statement​

Plaintiff:

The plaintiff says the following: the government supports a law that infringes on the freedom of press/media and the freedom of political communications.

The Department of Justice warned him in a discord ticket by citing the fair campaign act. However the plaintiff notes that the fair campaign act (minus section 3) itself is unconstitutional as it prevents people from exercising their freedom of press/media as well as political communications because campaigning is a form of political communication. The government has said that freedom of press/media does not apply to campaigning but the plaintiff notes that press is defined as any written communication.

The plaintiff posed the question; if any potential minor harassment such as a single campaign message which can easily be ignored or muted, justify the violation of these rights? The plaintiff notes that he will call two witnesses which will answer this question.

The plaintiff seeks for the court to strike down the fair campaign act (minus section 3) as well as strike the warning from the department of justice from his criminal record.



Defendant:

The Defense begins their opening statement by citing the following section of the charter of rights and freedom.

“The Redmont Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it, subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law that are justified in a free and democratic society.”

The defense poses the question; is the fair campaign act such a reasonable limit? Do you want to be bothered or harassed by a random politician or one of their supporters that is begging for your vote? Isn’t security and happiness a right?

The defense argues that the plaintiff claims he is a member of the press however he is not a journalist or works for a media company. Therefore he should have no protection under the freedom of press/media. Political communications is granted to everyone but is subject to a reasonable limit.

The defense states that Alexander love might not be the worst example of campaign harassing but someone even worse could do much more harm. You can ban/lock people on discord but that is not possible in-game.

Notes:

Someone makes a remark during opening statements that players are able to do /ignore in-game. The defense was not aware of this but follows that it’s still a burden to block someone

During the opening statements the defense had a carrot stuck in his throat

Objection by Plaintiff:

The Plaintiff claims that the defendant committed perjury in his opening statement by saying that the plaintiff claimed that he was a member of the press even though he never claimed he was. The defense argued that he did not say the plaintiff claimed that just that he was explaining that that freedom shouldn’t apply to the plaintiff. The objection was overruled

WITNESS & TESTIMONIALS​

Dygee:

The plaintiff asks Dygee what harassment means to him. Dygee gives the following definition “consistent annoyance of something” The plaintiff asks if a one time campaign-ad is consistent. Dygee answers no. The plaintiff poses the question; Because a one time ad is not consistent would you say it’s a right of the people to freely give off one ad if it’s not a harassment?

The Defendant objects: Asked and Answered. – Overruled

The Plaintiff repeats the question; Because one time ad is not consistent would you say it’s a right of the people to freely give one ad if it’s not harassment? Dygee agrees. The plaintiff has no further questions.



The defendant asks; Isn’t it true that under the current law there is no distinction between one and or multiple laws? Dygee answers by saying that political campaigning is 1 or multiple ads. The defense asks; If the law is stricken down does that mean I could send you 100 ads? Dygee agrees.

The plaintiff objects: Speculation – Overruled

The defence asks; Isn’t it true that you may consider 1 ad not harassment, but that some citizens do?

The plaintiff objects: Speculation – Sustained

The defense asks the question; Is it true that you are not the ultimate authority on what is and what is not harassment? Dygee answers by saying; I don’t think people are the final authority to decide what is harassment, it's the judiciary. The defense claims that that does not properly answer his question.

The Plaintiff objects: Arguing with the witness – Overruled

Dygee answers the original question by saying that he thinks people are entitled to their own opinion.



Nacho:

The plaintiff asks what harassment means to nacho. Nacho defines harassment as an unwelcome action done towards me. The plaintiff asks How would you define unwelcome, would someone disagreeing with you in politics be unwelcome. Nacho answers by saying; No, it’s an action that I just really don’t want. When someone is interacting with you but you don’t want that. Something I didn’t ask for or want to continue.

The plaintiff asks; would you say, sending a one time political ad is harassment? Nacho responded by saying; Truly depends, I don’t know. When I never had a conversation, then I would consider it a mild form of harassment but I personally wouldn’t get bent over it. The plaintiff asks if nacho agrees it’s trivial if not sustained? Nacho answers by saying; Very unwelcome, extremely annoyed. I don’t think it’s dramatic cause I’m not dramatic. The plaintiff asks; would you say 1 time add is harassment enough to restrict rights?

The defense objects: Asked and answered – Overruled

At the request of nacho the plaintiff rephrases the question; Would consider mild harassment to restrict rights? Nacho answers, depending on the situation. You want me to answer in this specific context? The plaintiff: General context. Nacho says he can’t answer the question in a general context. The plaintiff asks if he can answer in this specific context. Nacho says he doesn’t see it as a right that is infringed upon.

The defense objects: Speculations, nacho doesn’t know the specific context – Sustained.

The plaintiff has no further questions. The defense asks nacho if he would agree that people can think differently on what harassment means? Nacho agrees. The defense asks if nacho thinks that if people put themselves on the do not contacts list they are saying that do not wish to be contacted

The plaintiff objects: Speculation - Sustained

Closing Statement​

Plaintiff:

Today the government is trying to support a law that causes censorship. The idea that anybody can express their political values without government consequences. Press is defined as a written statement or communication. This contradicts the claim that press/media only applies to journalists. Witnesses couldn’t agree on much except for that 1 time add is trivial harassment so why should rights be restricted.

The defense objects: Perjury – Overruled because it’s a closing statement.

According to the charter it should not be a reasonable restriction. A new law can be made that makes repeated harassment illegal, but this law is not narrowly tailored enough. So fair campaign should be struck down except section 3 and legislation can make a new law. The warning should be stricken from my criminal record. Citizens shouldn’t be expected to know everyone who is not on the do not contact list. There was little to no harassment

The Defense:

When someone puts themselves on the do not contact list they say they don’t want to be harassed/ politically communicated to. One witness claimed they said it was okay, one of them said it was not okay to be spoken to. It was the right action according to law to warn the plaintiff. According to the United States Supreme Court; when privacy isn’t an explicit right, the 1st and 4th amendment can be combined to derive/imply citizens should have the right to live undisturbed and are entitled to privacy/security.

Plaintiff objects: New evidence – Overruled, persuasive precedent isn’t evidence just speech and the judge can overrule that if the new evidence being introduced is beneficial to the facts of the case.

These are the official notes to Case No. 11-2021-23

 

[JoeGamer]

Verdict

I. PLAINTIFF’S POSITION

1. The plaintiff argues that the government is supporting and enforcing a bill that violates the constitution. The Fair Campaigning Act violates citizens’ freedom of political communication and freedom of the press and media. Because of its unconstitutionality, the law (with the exception of Section 3) should be struck down.
2. The plaintiff argues that he has the freedom of the press and media. The plaintiff defines press as a written statement or communication. Because these actions met this definition, he was entitled to press and media protections.
3. The plaintiff argues that because the Fair Campaigning Act violates the constitution, his warning given by the Department of Justice was unconstitutional and should be removed.

II. DEFENDANTS POSITION

1. The defendant argues that the Constitution does guarantee these rights and freedoms, however, are subject to limitation. Under the reasonable limits clause of the constitution, rights and freedoms may be limited. This limitation would apply to the Fair Campaigning Act
2. The defendant argues that the plaintiff was not acting as a member of the press or media and therefore is not entitled to the freedom of press and media.

III. THE COURT OPINION

1. The Consitution very clearly outlines that every citizen is granted the right to political communication within a reasonable limit. The court also recognizes that citizens can limit direct messages being sent from different Discord servers under the privacy settings. While citizens can limit who can direct message them, many times it is necessary to keep direct messaging available in the event of business. This court believes that it is within the limits of the constitution for the government to provide a Do Not Call list to allow citizens to block campaigns from reaching out to these citizens. Therefore it is important to have the Do Not Call list regulated and for people who do not want to be contacted to have their wishes respected. It is in the opinion of this court that the Fair Campaigning Act in its entirety is constitutional under the reasonable limits clause of Section IV of the constitution. There is plenty of government-provided channels to reach an audience outside of direct messaging including but not limited to the RBA #general or Democracycraft #campaign.
2. In the opinion of the court, the right of political communication is subject to limitations outside of government-run channels. Players forfeit their right of political communication when talking in a private business or direct message. All businesses must write out what political communication isn’t allowed in a public area in order for the below to be applicable. Direct message channels qualify for government by putting their name down in the Do Not Call list. If a player proceeds to campaign in channels that violates the above terms, the offendee is entitled to government intervention as laid out in the Fair Campaigning Act. Because the plaintiff campaigned to a player on the Do Not Call list, the government was in their authority under the Fair Campaign Act to authorize such a warning.
3. In the opinion of this court, the plaintiff was not entitled to the protection of the press and media as the plaintiff at the time was not operating the press or the media; the plaintiff was acting alone, as an individual running for public office. Press isn’t simply a written statement or communication. Considering the medium that Redmont uses, discord and in-game chat, the press is not simply a written statement. With the definition provided by the plaintiff, every citizen would be acting as the press which is very much unreasonable. The right to press does not give citizens the right to direct message players about their campaign. Again, there are appropriate channels for the press and media to use including but not limited to #news.

IV. VERDICT
I hereby rule in favor of the defendant. As shown by the defense, there are reasonable limits in place and the Fair Campaigning Act would fall under the reasonable limits clause of the constitution.

The court thanks each party for their time. The case is now adjourned.