IN THE COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION
LilDigiVert
Plaintiff
v.
Krix
Defendant
COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows: The defendant SLANDERED the Plaintiff in a public space, tarnishing the latter’s reputation to certain swaths of the population.
WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF
I. PARTIES
1. Krix
2. LilDigiVert
II. FACTS
1. Plaintiff launched an advertisement in #campaign, positing the factually grounded argument that members of their political party passed legislation to outlaw slavery in Redmont. [Ev1]
2. When a civilian asked about the issue at hand, the Defendant claimed that the Plaintiff started slavery; a heinous accusation. [Ev2]
3. Certain members of the public expressed their displeasure with the Plaintiff, based on false narratives created by the defendant.[Ev2]
III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Defendant is in direct violation of the slander clause within "Defamation Act October 2020" sponsored by the esteemed Rep. Krix. [Ev3]
2. Defendant is also definitionally in violation of every other slander court verdict and legislation.
IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. A heartfelt, formal apology by President Krix in the #campaign channel in the main Discord and in the “[book emoji] Krix’s Office” voice call channel within the “Democratic Reformist Party” Discord channel.
2. Damages of $420.69
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 21st day of March 2021
NOTE: I would prefer if we could schedule an in-game trial. I feel that this decision could have implications on generations to come and should be treated as such.
IN THE COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
SUMMONS
The defendant is required to appear before the court in the case of LilDigiVert v Krix. Failure to appear within 72 hours of this summons will result in a default judgment in favour of the plaintiff.
(Gif requested specially with the judge stating "Hmmm only if it was a case with some spice" - This case has spice)
IN THE COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO LAWSUIT
LilDigiVert
Plaintiff
v.
Krix (Donut Law Firm Representing)
Defendant
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT: ”My guy, you need to recognise jokes when you see it.”
Your Honor, this lawsuit is nothing but an attempt by the Plaintiff to turn this court into a campaign studio, a phrase usual attributed to have originated on this server by my Client the current President of Redmont Krix, this case is steeped in politicalnessness, it’s oozing with political intent. As such I am going to try and put this matter to bed as quickly as I can so that everyone involved can get back to doing what they do best, the Plaintiff rapping in congress and my client running the nation.
For the clarity of the court the defence has taken the time to compile the entire conversation that took place with regards to the content applicable to this suit, something that the Plaintiff was obviously unable to do at the time of this suit's creation. It is attached at the end of the ‘Answer to Lawsuit’ and I would advise reading in its entirety before continuing with this answer.
As for the Plaintiff request for an ingame trial I am afraid we will have to deny this as my client is extremely busy attending to matters such as reading bills, and further due to the time difference between the Plaintiff and the Defence.
DEFENCES:
The Defamation Act October 2020 specifies in no uncertain terms that ”A person may sue for defamation, however, damages from slander and libel are not presumed and must be proven in a court of law.”, well your honor the defence asks where have any damages been proven? The Plaintiff says that “members of the public expressed displeasure with the Plaintiff”, well the defence does not see this. In fact when you look at the greater context of the conversation it would appear the only other person who is in the evidence provided by the Plaintiff actually states “I sure wish that slavery was economically feasible here” & ”Objectivally, slavery is neither good or bad, slavery is good for the employer, slavery is bad for the worker”, and while he may state ”though i lean against” I believe it is pretty clear that he supports slavery. Therefore no damages are proven to be done to the reputation of the Plaintiff by the claim ”the the Plaintiff started slavery” which is the specific argument that the Plaintiff is alleging slander. The factual nature of the statement is irrelevant here because the only individual the Plaintiff could possibly be referring to with the claim that “Certain members of the public expressed their displeasure with the Plaintiff” would see the statement in a positive light, and defamation has to have a negative effect on reputation!
The Defamation Act October 2020 also specifies that “On Top of proving harm, the Plaintiff must present evidence for intent to harm reputation”, where is this proof? The statements alone do not prove that my client wanted to harm the reputation of the Plaintiff, clipped out of context the words alone may appear to do this however in context an entirely different story is apparent. By claiming that my client slandered him the Plaintiff is saying that my client intended to hurt his reputation, however later in the conversation the Plaintiff states ”my guy you need to recognize jokes when you see it” clearly acknowledging it is the belief of the Plaintiff that the intention of my client was humor, not to hurt his reputation. Your Honor, the Plaintiff believes that the statements of my client were jokes,
Your Honor, this entire case is completely frivolous!
The claim that it is a fact from the Plaintiff that ”Certain members of the public expressed their displeasure with the Plaintiff” is quite contentious. “Members” where are these membersof the public? In the evidence provided we see one member of the public, and we’ve already established that the only member of the public shown in the evidence does not show any displeasure towards the Plaintiff for the alleged ”slander”. The Plaintiff claims these members of the public exists, but does not provide any evidence there within. The entire case for slander is built upon this statement, however no evidence is provided to back it!
Another contentious “fact” of this case is the Plaintiff’s that they “positing the factually grounded argument that members of their political party passed legislation to outlaw slavery in Redmont.”, your Honor, the choice of words here is very contentious. The word used should be ”proposed” or ”helped pass” as The Abolition Act was passed by members of many political parties, not just the Political Party of the Plaintiff. This statement alone goes to show how this Plaintiff is attempting to turn this court into a campaign studio to further his political party and goals, well your Honor I’m sure we will both agree that we will not let him!
Regardless of any claim of slander here the statements of my client are protected under the constitution, the constitution guarantees “Freedom of Political Communication”. You see your Honor, as seen by the evidence provided by the Plaintiff the statements were spoken in the discord channel #politics, the description of said channel? ”Discussion relating to the political affairs of the server.”, this was a political discussion your Honor and therefore it is protected regardless of the fact already established that the statements weren’t even slanderous!
However further evidence can be found in the claims for relief by the Plaintiff that show this entire case to be one of a political nature, where is it that the Plaintiff asks for the ”heartfelt, formal apology” to be made? Why in ”#campaign channel in the main Discord and in the “[book emoji] Krix’s Office” voice call channel within the “Democratic Reformist Party” Discord channel.” and the Plaintiff changes to refer to my client by their job role as ”President Krix”. Your Honor, this is nothing less than a complete revelation of this entire case as a political farce! The fact that the Plaintiff wants my client to make the apology in a political area, using their political term clearly shows the political nature of the original statements! Thus it is clearly protected under the constitution.
Not only that your Honor, but what the Plaintiff is asking for here is both impossible and illegal! It is impossible for this court to order the Plaintiff to be heartfelt, feelings of the heart being uncontrollable, and secondly to compel my client to speak in these channels would be compelling them to communicate politically, which my client has freedom of under the constitution, is illegal!
Finally your honor we come to the other claim for relief, the amount of $420.69, while the defence will conceded that the number is indeed humourous we have to raise that the inclusion of this comedic touch clearly shows there is no “serious legal intent or purpose”, the operative word their being ”serious”, to this case and thus the case is frivolous.
Further even if this comedic touch is deemed as non frivolous the Plaintiff has provided no evidence that they have suffered damages to the amount of $420.69 so therefore it should not be considered.
And given that both claims for relief have no basis and neither should be considered even in the case that this court somehow finds my client guilty of slander, despite the fact that there was no slander as the defence has previously laid out, there is nothing in the claims for relief that can be rewarded.
So your Honor, thus conclude the opening defence. Not only, hopefully the opening defence, but the last word in this lawsuit as the defence will now move to introduce a Motion to Dismiss.
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.
IN THE COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS
LilDigiVert
Plaintiff
v.
Krix (Donut Law Firm Representing)
Defendant
Case no: 03-2021-21-03
MOTION TO DISMISS
Defendant move that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:
1. No recognisable or sustainable damages can be found in the original complaint.
2. No intention to harm the Plaintiffs reputation can be found in the original complaint, however the Plaintiff does appear to concede the intention to make comedy in the statements, thus marking this case as frivolous.
3. The facts presented in the case are not factually correct and therefore the case is built on unsturdy foundations.
4. The statements were made in a channel for political communication so slander cannot apply as they are protected under the constitution with the right to ‘Freedom of Political Communication’.
5. The claims for Relief are either impossible & illegal, in the case of the apology, or unproven & comedic - and thus frivolous -, in the case of the $420.69.
As such the defence would move to dismiss this entire suit as frivolous, furthermore convention normally states that in cases such as this the Plaintiff would pay the legal fees of the Defendant, which can be assured are quite high due to the fact that the Defendant has sought some of the most expensive legal help on the server, however as a gesture of goodwill the Defendant will settle this themselves and instead request that the best rapper in Congress, the Plaintiff, do what he does best and author a top class rap about how great a President my client is.
Furthermore, as to protect the Plaintiffs right to Political Communication these words do not have to be heartfelt, sincere or even true in the Plaintiffs eyes. The Plaintiff can disavow the words before and immediately after - but my client would request that this happen, to show goodwill in both directions.
Thank you your Honor.
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.
I thank both parties for this case. Slander is difficult to prove, and I am swayed by the argument of the defendant that there is no intent to harm reputation here. I accept the statement made by Krix was false, but within it's context I don't find it to have been made with an intent to harm reputation. Due to this, the matter is dismissed.
While it is not a fact in issue, I am very dissuaded by the concept that slander would not apply in the #politics channel. It is my opinion that extending the right to freedom of political communication to all words uttered in this channel would be an overreach by far. That said, that is not this is not an issue to be decided today.
I order the plaintiff to pay $100 in legal fees to the defendant.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
