Lawsuit: Dismissed Modzy_ v. NotADoctor9217 [2024] FCR 19

[Pciv]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT CIVIL ACTION
Modzy_ (Lovely Law Representing) Plaintiff
v.
NotADoctor9217 Defendant

COMPLAINT

The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:
1. NotADoctor9217 falsely accused my client of being a part of a gang and committing fraudulent activities while a part of the DOJ. He submitted multiple tickets defaming my client in front of his peers and coworkers which inevitably caused my client to lose his job.
2. This loss affected not just my clients stability and pay but also my clients standing in his own field and ruined his reputation.
3. The plaintiff did it solely to take my clients job away and get themself into the police force. After an investigation and a prosecution from the dla, the dla themselves determined that their was not evidence of my client committing the actions falsely accused by the client.

I. PARTIES
Modzy (Lovely Law Representing)
NotADoctor9217
II. FACTS
1.Defendant admitted to being angry at modzy and saying he needed money
2. He admitted to wanting to hide for longer period of time.
He admitted to being on a killing rampage
Modzy telling not doctor that he is a cop and not a gangster.
3.Not doctor asking the gang leader about Modzy and the gang leader agreed that either way Modzy is doing his job as a cop and no lower that what is required to be maintained.
III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1.The Defendant ruined my clients reputation in the DOJ
My Client lost out on the chance of being promoted
2.My client lost interest in dc because of the incident which happened.
3.The defendants actions caused my client emotional damages in his career and reputation as a Police officer making his chances of being rehired very slim and being accepted again near impossible.
IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1.30,000 for Punitive Damages caused by the Defendant
2.30,000 in Emotional Damages caused by the defendant to my client
3.30,000 in humiliation and consequential Damages
4.30,000 for my client losing of enjoyment in democracycraft from the Defendants actions.
5.24,000 capped in legal fees.
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 5th day of February 2024

 

[RelaxedGV]

Firstly, I'd like to ask that any edits that are wanting to be made are asked first before issuing the edits. Consider this an official warning.

Next, do you have proof of Representation?

 

[Pciv]

Firstly, I'd like to ask that any edits that are wanting to be made are asked first before issuing the edits. Consider this an official warning.

Next, do you have proof of Representation?

 

[RelaxedGV]

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

@NotADoctor7819 is required to appear before the court in the case of Modzy_ v. NotADcotor9217. Failure to appear within 72 hours of this summons will result in a default judgment in favour 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.​

 

[Unseatedduke1]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS​

Modzy_
Plaintiff

v.

NotADoctor9217 (Represented by Dragon Law)
Defendant

MOTION TO DISMISS

The Defendant, NotADoctor9217, hereby moves for the dismissal of the plaintiff's complaint under Rule 5.5 for Lack of Claim, citing the following deficiencies inherent in the pleadings:

1. Absence of Identifiable Legal Claims: (Rule 5.5)

a. The entire filing lacks any substantive legal claims. The complaint fails to provide identifiable statements of fact concerning the law, leaving the court and the defendant without a clear understanding of the alleged legal wrongs. It does not articulate specific laws that may or may not have been violated, contributing to a lack of legal foundation for the case.

2. Failure to Establish Damages:

a. The plaintiff's complaint falls short in substantiating damages. Although numerical figures are presented, there is a distinct absence of corresponding claims for relief. The complaint does not articulate how these numbers are linked to the alleged harm suffered by the plaintiff. The damages are arbitrarily presented without a coherent connection to the purported injuries.

3. Arbitrary Categorization of Damages:

a. Again while the complaint provides numerical figures for damages, they are arbitrarily categorized without a clear linkage to the alleged harm. The lack of a specific breakdown or justification for these figures raises doubts about the legitimacy and credibility of the damages claimed.

4. Frivolous Nature of the Complaint:

a. Given the absence of identifiable legal claims, failure to establish damages, and arbitrary categorization of damages, the overall nature of the complaint is frivolous. It lacks a valid legal basis and does not meet the necessary standards for pursuing legal action.

5. Request for Dismissal with Prejudice and Legal Fees:

a. The defendant respectfully requests the court to dismiss the entire complaint with prejudice, considering its frivolous nature. Furthermore, the defendant urges the court to impose legal fees on the plaintiff as a consequence of filing a baseless and unsubstantiated case.


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 February 2024

Spoiler: Client

 

[RelaxedGV]

Plaintiff has 48 hours to respond to the Motion to Dismiss.

 

[Nacho]

Your Honor,

The primary representative within Lovely Incorporated has recently fallen ill. I have temporarily stepped in to ensure our client has adequate representation within this matter and ask that the court notes that I am here as co-counsel.


RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS

1. Absence of Identifiable Legal Claims: (Rule 5.5)
a. The entire filing lacks any substantive legal claims. The complaint fails to provide identifiable statements of fact concerning the law, leaving the court and the defendant without a clear understanding of the alleged legal wrongs. It does not articulate specific laws that may or may not have been violated, contributing to a lack of legal foundation for the case.

The defendant improperly practiced the application of this rule. Rule 5.5 states the following: "A Motion to Dismiss may be filed for failure to state a claim for relief."... Your honor, we listed very clearly 3 claims of relief, and the defendant did not file this motion to dismiss against a specific point thus invalidating the rule 5.5 application.

The court must recognize that while this case appears messy, it can provide a suitable basis for a complaint against an individual, and the claims for relief represent the damages that the defendant did against our client. It is imperative that should the case be dismissed with or without prejudice, the court admits that an individual is allowed to walk into a place of employment and completely tarnish an individual's ability to get a job without the fear of repercussions.

2. Failure to Establish Damages:
a. The plaintiff's complaint falls short in substantiating damages. Although numerical figures are presented, there is a distinct absence of corresponding claims for relief. The complaint does not articulate how these numbers are linked to the alleged harm suffered by the plaintiff. The damages are arbitrarily presented without a coherent connection to the purported injuries.

This point within the Motion to Dismiss should be denied and struck for failure to follow rule 5.1 (Rule Specification). Under the previous Supreme Court ruling in zLost v. The Commonwealth [2023] SCR 21 & The Commonwealth v. Bardiya_King [2023] SCR 23, when a motion to dismiss is made that fails to adhere to Rule 5.1, it is denied and the statements made are struck from the record. Therefore, since the defendant failed to specify rules, we request the court extend the ruling per the precedent to this case as well.

3. Arbitrary Categorization of Damages:
a. Again while the complaint provides numerical figures for damages, they are arbitrarily categorized without a clear linkage to the alleged harm. The lack of a specific breakdown or justification for these figures raises doubts about the legitimacy and credibility of the damages claimed.

This point within the Motion to Dismiss should be denied and struck for failure to follow rule 5.1 (Rule Specification). Under the previous Supreme Court ruling in zLost v. The Commonwealth [2023] SCR 21 & The Commonwealth v. Bardiya_King [2023] SCR 23, when a motion to dismiss is made that fails to adhere to Rule 5.1, it is denied and the statements made are struck from the record. Therefore, since the defendant failed to specify rules, we request the court extend the ruling per the precedent to this case as well.

4. Frivolous Nature of the Complaint:
a. Given the absence of identifiable legal claims, failure to establish damages, and arbitrary categorization of damages, the overall nature of the complaint is frivolous. It lacks a valid legal basis and does not meet the necessary standards for pursuing legal action.

This point within the Motion to Dismiss should be denied and struck for failure to follow rule 5.1 (Rule Specification). Under the previous Supreme Court ruling in zLost v. The Commonwealth [2023] SCR 21 & The Commonwealth v. Bardiya_King [2023] SCR 23, when a motion to dismiss is made that fails to adhere to Rule 5.1, it is denied and the statements made are struck from the record. Therefore, since the defendant failed to specify rules, we request the court extend the ruling per the precedent to this case as well.

5. Request for Dismissal with Prejudice and Legal Fees:
- a. The defendant respectfully requests the court to dismiss the entire complaint with prejudice, considering its frivolous nature. Furthermore, the defendant urges the court to impose legal fees on the plaintiff as a consequence of filing a baseless and unsubstantiated case.

This point within the Motion to Dismiss should be denied and struck for failure to follow rule 5.1 (Rule Specification). Under the previous Supreme Court ruling in zLost v. The Commonwealth [2023] SCR 21 & The Commonwealth v. Bardiya_King [2023] SCR 23, when a motion to dismiss is made that fails to adhere to Rule 5.1, it is denied and the statements made are struck from the record. Therefore, since the defendant failed to specify rules, we request the court extend the ruling per the precedent to this case as well.

 

[RelaxedGV]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS​

Modzy_
Plaintiff

v.

NotADoctor9217 (Represented by Dragon Law)
Defendant

MOTION TO DISMISS

The Defendant, NotADoctor9217, hereby moves for the dismissal of the plaintiff's complaint under Rule 5.5 for Lack of Claim, citing the following deficiencies inherent in the pleadings:

1. Absence of Identifiable Legal Claims: (Rule 5.5)

a. The entire filing lacks any substantive legal claims. The complaint fails to provide identifiable statements of fact concerning the law, leaving the court and the defendant without a clear understanding of the alleged legal wrongs. It does not articulate specific laws that may or may not have been violated, contributing to a lack of legal foundation for the case.

2. Failure to Establish Damages:

a. The plaintiff's complaint falls short in substantiating damages. Although numerical figures are presented, there is a distinct absence of corresponding claims for relief. The complaint does not articulate how these numbers are linked to the alleged harm suffered by the plaintiff. The damages are arbitrarily presented without a coherent connection to the purported injuries.

3. Arbitrary Categorization of Damages:

a. Again while the complaint provides numerical figures for damages, they are arbitrarily categorized without a clear linkage to the alleged harm. The lack of a specific breakdown or justification for these figures raises doubts about the legitimacy and credibility of the damages claimed.

4. Frivolous Nature of the Complaint:

a. Given the absence of identifiable legal claims, failure to establish damages, and arbitrary categorization of damages, the overall nature of the complaint is frivolous. It lacks a valid legal basis and does not meet the necessary standards for pursuing legal action.

5. Request for Dismissal with Prejudice and Legal Fees:

a. The defendant respectfully requests the court to dismiss the entire complaint with prejudice, considering its frivolous nature. Furthermore, the defendant urges the court to impose legal fees on the plaintiff as a consequence of filing a baseless and unsubstantiated case.


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 February 2024

Spoiler: Client

The Motion to Dismiss is Overruled for numerous reasons:

1. There was a claim stated within the original filing thus nullifying the entire argument for lack of a claim. This is a case regarding slander if anything thus showing that there is a claim within the case.

2. To establish reasoning and proof is to be done throughout the trial and although justification, although minor, would be preferred within a case for simplification, it is not required. The charges are primarily decided on and ruled on at the end of the case and not at the start thus no justification is required as of now.

Reasons 3, 4, and 5, are all summed up with the current reasons of 1 and 2. Legal fees for the Defense will not be happening as of now given this case is ongoing.

As for the requests to strike, I will be granting them as there is Court Precedent for this within the Supreme Court and the reasons listed are either repeats or were simply not found. Thus violating rule 5.1 of Failure to State a claim within a Motion or an Objection.

With that, we will be moving onto Discovery. This will last 7 days unless both sides agree to voluntarily extend, or end Discovery early.

Rule 4.2 (Submission Required For Use)​

All material used in legal arguments must have either been included in the case prior to the submission. Material must have been included within the complaint, within the answer, within an amendment to a complaint, within an amendment to an answer, or within a discovery submission. Otherwise the material will be deemed inadmissible and the argument can be voided by the presiding judge.

Rule 4.9 (Witness Protocol)​

A party may submit a list for witnesses at any time before the end of discovery. In order for a witness to be called during witness testimony, they must be announced under this rule, during discovery. Any witness may be objected to according to the objections laid out within rule 6.3.

Failure to adhere to the timelines of this rule may subject that party to a contempt of court charge at the presiding judge’s decision. The presiding judge shall include a warning regarding the timeline when summoning the witness.

 

[Unseatedduke1]

MOTION TO DISMISS​

Your Honor, we respectfully submit an additional, more detailed motion to dismiss, as permitted. The Defendant, NotADoctor9217, formally requests the dismissal of the plaintiff's complaint under Rule 5.5 for Lack of Claim, highlighting the following inadequacies present in the pleadings:

Plaintiff Claim 1: The Defendant ruined my client's reputation in the DOJ. My client lost out on the chance of being promoted.

Defendants Arguments:
a. Lack of Defamatory Statement: The plaintiff fails to identify a specific defamatory statement made by the defendant. The Defamation Act 2020, stipulates that a false and unprivileged statement of fact that can negatively impact someone's reputation is required for a defamation claim. The Act further clarifies that a defamatory statement must be unprivileged, meaning the publisher did not have a privilege or right to make the statement to a third party. The defendant, when opening a ticket to report suspected crime, communicated a privileged message intended for leaders within the ticket, thus not meeting the defamation standard outlined in the law.

b. Absence of Publication: Even if there were a defamatory statement, the plaintiff does not demonstrate that it was published to a third party. As per Rule 5.5, a Motion to Dismiss may be filed for failure to state a claim for relief or against a claim for relief that has insufficient evidence to support the civil or criminal charge. The Defamation Act 2020 emphasizes that defamation can either be libel or slander and requires the false statement to be communicated to others. Without evidence of publication or even a claim it was published to others, a crucial element of defamation claims, this claim is not legally viable under the provisions of the law.

c. Failure to Establish Causation: The plaintiff does not provide sufficient evidence to establish a direct causal link between the alleged actions of the defendant and the purported harm to the client's reputation. Proving causation is essential in establishing liability under the Defamation Act 2020, and the plaintiff falls short in meeting this requirement.


Plaintiffs Claim 2: My client lost interest in DC because of the incident which happened.

Defendants Arguments:
a. No Causation Established: The plaintiff fails to establish a direct causal link between the defendant's actions and the alleged loss of interest. It is essential to demonstrate that the defendant's actions were the proximate cause of the client's loss of interest, which is not adequately supported in the complaint. Under rule 5.5 a Motion to Dismiss may be filed against a claim for relief that has insufficient evidence to support.

b. Insufficient Legal Foundation: The assertion that the client lost interest lacks a legal foundation. Pursuant to Rule 5.5, a Motion to Dismiss may be filed against a claim for relief that has insufficient evidence to support it. In this instance, the complaint falls short in presenting the necessary evidence to establish an intent to harm the plaintiffs reputation, rendering the claim legally insufficient and subject to dismissal under Rule 5.5.


Plaintiffs Claim 3: The defendant's actions caused my client emotional damages in his career and reputation as a Police officer, making his chances of being rehired very slim and being accepted again near impossible.

Defendants Arguments:
a. Lack of Specificity and Evidence for Emotional Damages: The plaintiff's claim of emotional damages lacks specificity and appears speculative, violating Rule 5.5 of insufficiency of evidence to support a claim. Emotional damages must be clearly defined and supported by evidence, which is currently absent in the complaint. Furthermore, the plaintiff fails to establish a clear connection between the defendant's actions and the alleged emotional harm, rendering this claim legally insufficient.

b. Absence of Defamatory Statement Impacting Career: The claim that the client's career was impacted by the defendant's actions lacks legal foundation. A defamation case requires the presence of a false statement of fact that harms the reputation of the plaintiff. In this instance, the absence of a defamatory statement diminishes the ability of the defendant's actions to cause damages in the plaintiffs career.

c. Speculative Nature of Rehire Claims: The assertion that the client's chances of being rehired are near impossible lacks factual support and is speculative. Rule 5.5 emphasizes the necessity of presenting evidence to support a claim, and in this case, there is no concrete evidence to substantiate the claim. It is impossible to definitively state that rehire is unlikely, as new leadership may come into office, and hiring decisions are at the discretion of the department.

Request for Dismissal with Prejudice and Legal Fees:
The defendant respectfully requests the court to dismiss the entire complaint with prejudice, considering its frivolous nature and lack of evidence supporting the claims. Furthermore, the defendant urges the court to impose legal fees on the plaintiff as a consequence of filing a baseless and unsubstantiated case.

​

Your Honor, we respectfully urge the court to grant the motion to dismiss based on the deficiencies in the plaintiff's claims. Each claim lacks critical elements necessary for a valid legal cause of action, as outlined by the Defamation Act 2020 and Rule 5.5.

For Claim 1, the absence of a specific defamatory statement and evidence of publication, paired with the failure to establish causation, renders the defamation allegation legally insufficient under the provisions of the law.

Concerning Claim 2, the plaintiff fails to demonstrate a direct causal link between the defendant's actions and the alleged loss of interest. Additionally, the claim lacks a sufficient legal foundation, as it falls short of providing evidence to establish an intent to harm the plaintiff's reputation.

Lastly, Claim 3, asserting emotional damages and career impact, is marred by a lack of specificity and evidence for emotional damages. The absence of a defamatory statement impacting the career and the speculative nature of rehire claims further weaken the legal foundation of this claim.

In accordance with Rule 5.5, which allows for the dismissal of claims with insufficient evidence, the Defendant respectfully requests the court to dismiss the plaintiff's complaint. This motion is crucial to ensuring that legal proceedings adhere to the established standards, protecting individuals from baseless allegations and safeguarding the integrity of the legal process.

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 22nd day of February 2024

 

[RelaxedGV]

Plaintiff has 48 hours to respond to the Motion to Dismiss.

 

[Nacho]

RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS

Your Honor,

Let's stop and think on this motion to dismiss... Is this a new motion to dismiss or a request to review your ruling on the previous motion to dismiss? It would be improper to dismiss this case at this point. Under law or court directive, the plaintiff is not required to publish our evidence only within Discovery. As established within various cases within the court, does it further support this known fact that individuals do not have to submit their evidence until discovery ([2024] FCR 13, [2023] FCR 108, [2023] FCR 107)? The defense wishes you to throw our case out as they fear being held accountable for their actions.

For Claim 1, the absence of a specific defamatory statement and evidence of publication, paired with the failure to establish causation, renders the defamation allegation legally insufficient under the provisions of the law.

We'd like to provide the evidence to support the claims within the complaint during discovery as it was awarded to us according to the court procedure.

Concerning Claim 2, the plaintiff fails to demonstrate a direct causal link between the defendant's actions and the alleged loss of interest. Additionally, the claim lacks a sufficient legal foundation, as it falls short of providing evidence to establish an intent to harm the plaintiff's reputation.

When I looked it up within my DC legal book of laws, also known as Google. Failing to demonstrate represents that we lost the court case. However, I am confident that we will further demonstrate that the defendant was acting negligently to hinder our client's enjoyment and interest. As for the second half, I feel I am merely repeating the same thing that I stated before evidence will be provided within discovery as dictated by Court procedure.

Lastly, Claim 3, asserting emotional damages and career impact, is marred by a lack of specificity and evidence for emotional damages. The absence of a defamatory statement impacting the career and the speculative nature of rehire claims further weaken the legal foundation of this claim.

I will reaffirm that our client was very emotional when discussing this situation as a whole; they were distraught and tearful. Our client was a proud member of the Department of Justice before being fired shortly after the defendant had his chat with the DOJ. The outrageous comments made by the defendant have taken what he loved and cared so deeply about and thrown it all away.

Rule 5.5 is applied under the following terms...

Did the plaintiff fail to state a claim for relief?
The answer to that is a solid no. We did; not only did we list 1, but we listed 3 claims for relief.

Does the case have insufficient evidence for the civil damages brought before the court?
At this time, the defense cannot claim we don't have enough evidence. We are not required to publish our evidence until discovery as new evidence can be discovered or further supported, including testimony from witnesses.

Under the review of the rules provided by the court, more is needed to meet the requirements to dismiss this case sufficiently under the rule that the defense has quoted. For this, we ask the court to deny the motion and any future motions already taking up so much of this court's time.

Our case is based on the fact that we know that the defense has caused damage to our client, and we would like to prove just that, as we explained to you in our last response to the previously written Motion to Dismiss that your honor denied.

 

[Nacho]

Your Honor,

We would like to have clarification on whether you intend to restart discovery or if we should consider discovery in effect at this time, pending your verdict on the response, of course.

 

[RelaxedGV]

I'll write the Ruling on the Motion to Dismiss, however I am stating that Discovery will continue as expect for now (I can still rule for the Motion to Dismiss hence why the for now is there).

 

[RelaxedGV]

MOTION TO DISMISS​

Your Honor, we respectfully submit an additional, more detailed motion to dismiss, as permitted. The Defendant, NotADoctor9217, formally requests the dismissal of the plaintiff's complaint under Rule 5.5 for Lack of Claim, highlighting the following inadequacies present in the pleadings:

Plaintiff Claim 1: The Defendant ruined my client's reputation in the DOJ. My client lost out on the chance of being promoted.

Defendants Arguments:
a. Lack of Defamatory Statement: The plaintiff fails to identify a specific defamatory statement made by the defendant. The Defamation Act 2020, stipulates that a false and unprivileged statement of fact that can negatively impact someone's reputation is required for a defamation claim. The Act further clarifies that a defamatory statement must be unprivileged, meaning the publisher did not have a privilege or right to make the statement to a third party. The defendant, when opening a ticket to report suspected crime, communicated a privileged message intended for leaders within the ticket, thus not meeting the defamation standard outlined in the law.

b. Absence of Publication: Even if there were a defamatory statement, the plaintiff does not demonstrate that it was published to a third party. As per Rule 5.5, a Motion to Dismiss may be filed for failure to state a claim for relief or against a claim for relief that has insufficient evidence to support the civil or criminal charge. The Defamation Act 2020 emphasizes that defamation can either be libel or slander and requires the false statement to be communicated to others. Without evidence of publication or even a claim it was published to others, a crucial element of defamation claims, this claim is not legally viable under the provisions of the law.

c. Failure to Establish Causation: The plaintiff does not provide sufficient evidence to establish a direct causal link between the alleged actions of the defendant and the purported harm to the client's reputation. Proving causation is essential in establishing liability under the Defamation Act 2020, and the plaintiff falls short in meeting this requirement.


Plaintiffs Claim 2: My client lost interest in DC because of the incident which happened.

Defendants Arguments:
a. No Causation Established: The plaintiff fails to establish a direct causal link between the defendant's actions and the alleged loss of interest. It is essential to demonstrate that the defendant's actions were the proximate cause of the client's loss of interest, which is not adequately supported in the complaint. Under rule 5.5 a Motion to Dismiss may be filed against a claim for relief that has insufficient evidence to support.

b. Insufficient Legal Foundation: The assertion that the client lost interest lacks a legal foundation. Pursuant to Rule 5.5, a Motion to Dismiss may be filed against a claim for relief that has insufficient evidence to support it. In this instance, the complaint falls short in presenting the necessary evidence to establish an intent to harm the plaintiffs reputation, rendering the claim legally insufficient and subject to dismissal under Rule 5.5.


Plaintiffs Claim 3: The defendant's actions caused my client emotional damages in his career and reputation as a Police officer, making his chances of being rehired very slim and being accepted again near impossible.

Defendants Arguments:
a. Lack of Specificity and Evidence for Emotional Damages: The plaintiff's claim of emotional damages lacks specificity and appears speculative, violating Rule 5.5 of insufficiency of evidence to support a claim. Emotional damages must be clearly defined and supported by evidence, which is currently absent in the complaint. Furthermore, the plaintiff fails to establish a clear connection between the defendant's actions and the alleged emotional harm, rendering this claim legally insufficient.

b. Absence of Defamatory Statement Impacting Career: The claim that the client's career was impacted by the defendant's actions lacks legal foundation. A defamation case requires the presence of a false statement of fact that harms the reputation of the plaintiff. In this instance, the absence of a defamatory statement diminishes the ability of the defendant's actions to cause damages in the plaintiffs career.

c. Speculative Nature of Rehire Claims: The assertion that the client's chances of being rehired are near impossible lacks factual support and is speculative. Rule 5.5 emphasizes the necessity of presenting evidence to support a claim, and in this case, there is no concrete evidence to substantiate the claim. It is impossible to definitively state that rehire is unlikely, as new leadership may come into office, and hiring decisions are at the discretion of the department.

Request for Dismissal with Prejudice and Legal Fees:
The defendant respectfully requests the court to dismiss the entire complaint with prejudice, considering its frivolous nature and lack of evidence supporting the claims. Furthermore, the defendant urges the court to impose legal fees on the plaintiff as a consequence of filing a baseless and unsubstantiated case.

​

Your Honor, we respectfully urge the court to grant the motion to dismiss based on the deficiencies in the plaintiff's claims. Each claim lacks critical elements necessary for a valid legal cause of action, as outlined by the Defamation Act 2020 and Rule 5.5.

For Claim 1, the absence of a specific defamatory statement and evidence of publication, paired with the failure to establish causation, renders the defamation allegation legally insufficient under the provisions of the law.

Concerning Claim 2, the plaintiff fails to demonstrate a direct causal link between the defendant's actions and the alleged loss of interest. Additionally, the claim lacks a sufficient legal foundation, as it falls short of providing evidence to establish an intent to harm the plaintiff's reputation.

Lastly, Claim 3, asserting emotional damages and career impact, is marred by a lack of specificity and evidence for emotional damages. The absence of a defamatory statement impacting the career and the speculative nature of rehire claims further weaken the legal foundation of this claim.

In accordance with Rule 5.5, which allows for the dismissal of claims with insufficient evidence, the Defendant respectfully requests the court to dismiss the plaintiff's complaint. This motion is crucial to ensuring that legal proceedings adhere to the established standards, protecting individuals from baseless allegations and safeguarding the integrity of the legal process.

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 22nd day of February 2024

I am going to be blunt within this reasoning for overruling this Motion to Dismiss, this is basically a copy and paste of the previous with some added arguments of lack of evidence.

The argument of lack of evidence should not even be considered as since the installation of Discovery all evidence has been provided within Discovery thus voiding the entire argument. Now, if that was used at the end of Discovery that would be a different argument entirely, given this was posted not long after this has started I would not be able to in good faith dismiss this case on those answers.

Yes, the Motion to Dismiss has new statements with arguments however just on the argument of lack of evidence alone is this reason for overruling along with most of the arguments being copy pastes with new writing.

 

[Nacho]

I'll write the Ruling on the Motion to Dismiss, however I am stating that Discovery will continue as expect for now (I can still rule for the Motion to Dismiss hence why the for now is there).

I appreciate the clarification your honor.

 

[Nacho]

Your Honor,

We request the following documents under discovery be provided by the defendant and/or the respected government departments.

1. Ticket Transcript (DOJ-11965)
- The ticket was the defendant. The individuals would have been given a transcript of the ticket if it was closed. If the ticket has not been closed, we request the court permit us access to the ticket during the duration of the case. The ticket contents contain the complaint of the individuals to the DOJ by the defendant.

2. Criminal Record of NotADoctor9217
- We request the record as we intend to call the individual as a witness in the defendant's crimes against our client. We believe that the defendant is acting out of retaliation towards our client for his respected position within the Department of Justice.

(We will be filing further information following the document acquisition)

 

[Unseatedduke1]

Your Honor,

We request the following documents under discovery be provided by the defendant and/or the respected government departments.

1. Ticket Transcript (DOJ-11965)
- The ticket was the defendant. The individuals would have been given a transcript of the ticket if it was closed. If the ticket has not been closed, we request the court permit us access to the ticket during the duration of the case. The ticket contents contain the complaint of the individuals to the DOJ by the defendant.

2. Criminal Record of NotADoctor9217
- We request the record as we intend to call the individual as a witness in the defendant's crimes against our client. We believe that the defendant is acting out of retaliation towards our client for his respected position within the Department of Justice.

(We will be filing further information following the document acquisition)

OBJECTION
Relevance​

Your Honor, we object to the request for the criminal record of NotADoctor9217 on grounds of relevance. The plaintiff asserts that they intend to call the defendant as a witness in the context of alleged crimes against their client, suggesting a connection between the defendant's criminal history and the current case. The relevance of the defendant's entire criminal record is questionable in this matter. The specific crimes or incidents that the plaintiff alleges against our client are not clearly identified, and a blanket request for the entire criminal record may lead to the disclosure of irrelevant and prejudicial information.

As well, the plaintiff's claim of retaliation lacks a clear factual basis and is speculative. Without a specific and credible link between the defendant's criminal history and the alleged retaliation, the requested information is not directly relevant to the issues at hand. We respectfully request that the court denies the request for the defendant's criminal record as it lacks relevance to the claims made by the plaintiff in this case.

Thank You

 

[Unseatedduke1]

Your Honor,

We request the following documents under discovery be provided by the defendant and/or the respected government departments.

1. Ticket Transcript (DOJ-11965)
- The ticket was the defendant. The individuals would have been given a transcript of the ticket if it was closed. If the ticket has not been closed, we request the court permit us access to the ticket during the duration of the case. The ticket contents contain the complaint of the individuals to the DOJ by the defendant.

2. Criminal Record of NotADoctor9217
- We request the record as we intend to call the individual as a witness in the defendant's crimes against our client. We believe that the defendant is acting out of retaliation towards our client for his respected position within the Department of Justice.

(We will be filing further information following the document acquisition)

OBJECTION
Relevance
Privilege and Confidentiality​

Your Honor, we object to the request for the Ticket Transcript (DOJ-11965) on the grounds of Relevance and privilege and confidentiality. The plaintiff is seeking access to a ticket initiated by the defendant, and the contents of this ticket are asserted to contain the complaint of individuals to the Department of Justice (DOJ). The nature of tickets, especially those related to reporting crimes, involves privileged and confidential information. Granting access to such information about concerned citizens reporting a crime may infringe upon their privacy and deter future reporting of criminal activities.

The plaintiff was not added to the ticket for the reason of suspected crime, and disclosure of privileged information to an unrelated party could have significant legal and ethical implications. It is essential to protect the privileged nature of information shared with law enforcement agencies to maintain public trust and encourage individuals to come forward with information.

We respectfully request the court to deny access to the Ticket Transcript (DOJ-11965) based on privilege and confidentiality concerns and the regard to relevance within this case, as well as the potential negative impact on individuals' willingness to report crimes in the future.

Spoiler: DOJ Report Crime

Thank You

 

[Nacho]

Your Honor,

We would like an opportunity to respond to this completely bogus objection.

 

[RelaxedGV]

You don't have to ask to respond to the Objections, you may though.

 

[Nacho]

OBJECTION
Relevance​

Your Honor, we object to the request for the criminal record of NotADoctor9217 on grounds of relevance. The plaintiff asserts that they intend to call the defendant as a witness in the context of alleged crimes against their client, suggesting a connection between the defendant's criminal history and the current case. The relevance of the defendant's entire criminal record is questionable in this matter. The specific crimes or incidents that the plaintiff alleges against our client are not clearly identified, and a blanket request for the entire criminal record may lead to the disclosure of irrelevant and prejudicial information.

As well, the plaintiff's claim of retaliation lacks a clear factual basis and is speculative. Without a specific and credible link between the defendant's criminal history and the alleged retaliation, the requested information is not directly relevant to the issues at hand. We respectfully request that the court denies the request for the defendant's criminal record as it lacks relevance to the claims made by the plaintiff in this case.

Thank You

Your Honor,

We have reason to believe that the defendant's criminal record will indicate that former Officer Modzy has previously arrested them. The indication and proof of the record will provide clarity for the justification. Discussing the relevance of the entire criminal record is needed as it would display systematic behavior points against our client by the defense. We further argue that the release of an individual's criminal record is hardly irrelevant and prejudicial information... after all, the defense is currently being accused of entering in irrelevant information to the Department of Justice, leading to our client's termination.

This transitions into the second point of the defendant's objection. Within the objection filing, the defendant claimed, "Without a specific and credible link between the defendant's criminal history and the alleged retaliation, the requested information is not directly relevant to the issues at hand." both pieces of evidence will provide the connection to show there is an established bias that our client took the brunt of in a retaliation stance by the defendant.

 

[RelaxedGV]

The Objection will be overruled given the past within multiple players and multiple statements from criminals who have been arrested, there is Precedent to back up the claims by the Plaintiff thus I will be allowing the request from the Plaintiff to go through.

The Defendant has 72 hours to provide the information otherwise they will be held in contempt.

 

[Nacho]

OBJECTION
Relevance
Privilege and Confidentiality​

Your Honor, we object to the request for the Ticket Transcript (DOJ-11965) on the grounds of Relevance and privilege and confidentiality. The plaintiff is seeking access to a ticket initiated by the defendant, and the contents of this ticket are asserted to contain the complaint of individuals to the Department of Justice (DOJ). The nature of tickets, especially those related to reporting crimes, involves privileged and confidential information. Granting access to such information about concerned citizens reporting a crime may infringe upon their privacy and deter future reporting of criminal activities.

The plaintiff was not added to the ticket for the reason of suspected crime, and disclosure of privileged information to an unrelated party could have significant legal and ethical implications. It is essential to protect the privileged nature of information shared with law enforcement agencies to maintain public trust and encourage individuals to come forward with information.

We respectfully request the court to deny access to the Ticket Transcript (DOJ-11965) based on privilege and confidentiality concerns and the regard to relevance within this case, as well as the potential negative impact on individuals' willingness to report crimes in the future.

Spoiler: DOJ Report Crime

View attachment 41241

Thank You

Your Honor,

We request the court to review further the defined relevant the we have established within our previous response to the earlier objection. The ticket is the heart of the complaint leading to my client being terminated. The department did not give the ticket special classification nor is their department policy outlining or prohibiting the information from being released to the public. It boils down to the basis of this suit we are alleging to the defense that their client entered into the department out of no-contest on a mission to get our client terminated from their position. Further more the defense claims that information shared to lawn enforcement is confidential but again as I explained previously these government support ticket are not confidential and are not protected under classification.

However, if the defense doesn't wish to share the information within normal court procedures we request that the information be submitted via 'Closed Court' procedures. If the court denies these two specific pieces of evidence would set a dangerous precedent that an individual can spew lies and as long as it's done within a government support ticket are free from the consequences of their comments.

**This didnt send earlier when I sent our last response. **

 

[Unseatedduke1]

Interrogatory​

1. Has the plaintiff been a member of the 1008er’s discord server while concurrently serving as a Redmont police officer? Please respond with a simple yes or no.
   
   
2. While serving as a Redmont police officer, has the plaintiff ever held official membership in the 1008ers gang? Please respond with a simple yes or no.
   
   
3. What precise statements did the defendant make to the plaintiff that led the plaintiff to believe the defendant was angry, as mentioned in the complaint where it states, “Defendant admitted to being angry at modzy and saying he needed money”?
   
   
4. Has the plaintiff ever concealed an individual wanted by the police on the Redmont Map? Please provide a clear yes or no response.
   
   
5. In the plaintiff's personal opinion, is it possible for a member of the Redmont police to concurrently belong to a gang?

Kindly respond to the questions on behalf of the plaintiff.


Thank You

 

[Unseatedduke1]

Discovery Document Request​

We seek the production of the following documents as part of the discovery process from the plaintiff:

1. DOJ Termination Letter
- We are requesting the official termination letter issued to the plaintiff upon his termination from the DOJ. This request is pertinent to addressing a specific issue raised in the plaintiff's complaint.


Thank you.

 

[Nacho]

Interrogatory​

1. Has the plaintiff been a member of the 1008er’s discord server while concurrently serving as a Redmont police officer? Please respond with a simple yes or no.
   
   
2. While serving as a Redmont police officer, has the plaintiff ever held official membership in the 1008ers gang? Please respond with a simple yes or no.
   
   
3. What precise statements did the defendant make to the plaintiff that led the plaintiff to believe the defendant was angry, as mentioned in the complaint where it states, “Defendant admitted to being angry at modzy and saying he needed money”?
   
   
4. Has the plaintiff ever concealed an individual wanted by the police on the Redmont Map? Please provide a clear yes or no response.
   
   
5. In the plaintiff's personal opinion, is it possible for a member of the Redmont police to concurrently belong to a gang?

Kindly respond to the questions on behalf of the plaintiff.


Thank You

1. Yes
2. Yes
3. That never happened; they went straight to the police and didn’t talk to any of us
4. Yes
5. Of course, I like to refer to it as a family/community

 

[Nacho]

Discovery Document Request​

We seek the production of the following documents as part of the discovery process from the plaintiff:

1. DOJ Termination Letter
- We are requesting the official termination letter issued to the plaintiff upon his termination from the DOJ. This request is pertinent to addressing a specific issue raised in the plaintiff's complaint.


Thank you.

Department of Justice is unable to provide such a document, and we had cleared his /their mail previously.

 

[Nacho]

Witness List
- JoanM999 - DOJ Secretary
- NotADoctor9217 - Defendant

We intend to have further witnesses; however, at this time, we are still working to obtain them.

 

[Unseatedduke1]

Department of Justice is unable to provide such a document, and we had cleared his /their mail previously.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO COMPEL​

Your Honor, we assert that the plaintiff should furnish the termination letter. This document should have been transmitted through Discord, accompanied by official justifications for the termination. If not through Discord, it should be retrievable from in-game mail and chat, a point contested by the Plaintiff's lawyer, claiming it is "cleared." They should still be able to find this information even if it was so-called "cleared." Your Honor, in the spirit of cooperation, I am actively gathering the criminal record requested by the court. We would like to mention Rule 4.7, which mandates, "If granted by the presiding judge, the material must be given by the opposing party to the best of their ability under sanction of contempt of court and perjury." We respectfully request that the plaintiff either provide this information or facilitate its retrieval from the DOJ.

Thank you.

 

[Unseatedduke1]

Witness List
- JoanM999 - DOJ Secretary
- NotADoctor9217 - Defendant

We intend to have further witnesses; however, at this time, we are still working to obtain them.

OBJECTION
Relevance​

Your Honor, we fail to discern the relevance of JoanM999 to this case. The incidents on the DOJ ticket unfolded from January 25, 2024, to January 29, 2024, while Mr. Joan assumed the role of Secretary of the DOJ only on February 15, 2024. Given this timeline discrepancy, we respectfully urge that they not be summoned as a witness in this case.

​

 

[Unseatedduke1]

OBJECTION
Relevance​

Your Honor, we fail to discern the relevance of JoanM999 to this case. The incidents on the DOJ ticket unfolded from January 25, 2024, to January 29, 2024, while Mr. Joan assumed the role of Secretary of the DOJ only on February 15, 2024. Given this timeline discrepancy, we respectfully urge that they not be summoned as a witness in this case.

​

Your honor we retract this objection

 

[RelaxedGV]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO COMPEL​

Your Honor, we assert that the plaintiff should furnish the termination letter. This document should have been transmitted through Discord, accompanied by official justifications for the termination. If not through Discord, it should be retrievable from in-game mail and chat, a point contested by the Plaintiff's lawyer, claiming it is "cleared." They should still be able to find this information even if it was so-called "cleared." Your Honor, in the spirit of cooperation, I am actively gathering the criminal record requested by the court. We would like to mention Rule 4.7, which mandates, "If granted by the presiding judge, the material must be given by the opposing party to the best of their ability under sanction of contempt of court and perjury." We respectfully request that the plaintiff either provide this information or facilitate its retrieval from the DOJ.

Thank you.

Before I rule, the Plaintiff may respond, they have 48 hours to do so.

 

[Nacho]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO COMPEL​

Your Honor, we assert that the plaintiff should furnish the termination letter. This document should have been transmitted through Discord, accompanied by official justifications for the termination. If not through Discord, it should be retrievable from in-game mail and chat, a point contested by the Plaintiff's lawyer, claiming it is "cleared." They should still be able to find this information even if it was so-called "cleared." Your Honor, in the spirit of cooperation, I am actively gathering the criminal record requested by the court. We would like to mention Rule 4.7, which mandates, "If granted by the presiding judge, the material must be given by the opposing party to the best of their ability under sanction of contempt of court and perjury." We respectfully request that the plaintiff either provide this information or facilitate its retrieval from the DOJ.

Thank you.

Your Honor,

Simple response to this motion. I asked our client, and they claimed that they had previously /mail clear, which removed the termination message from an individual inbox. If your honor would permit I am sure a subpoena to staff can receive the logs of said command being actioned on our client.

 

[RelaxedGV]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO COMPEL​

Your Honor, we assert that the plaintiff should furnish the termination letter. This document should have been transmitted through Discord, accompanied by official justifications for the termination. If not through Discord, it should be retrievable from in-game mail and chat, a point contested by the Plaintiff's lawyer, claiming it is "cleared." They should still be able to find this information even if it was so-called "cleared." Your Honor, in the spirit of cooperation, I am actively gathering the criminal record requested by the court. We would like to mention Rule 4.7, which mandates, "If granted by the presiding judge, the material must be given by the opposing party to the best of their ability under sanction of contempt of court and perjury." We respectfully request that the plaintiff either provide this information or facilitate its retrieval from the DOJ.

Thank you.

I will be granting a modified version of the Motion to Compel. Given the Plaintiff does not have access beyond logs, the Staff team would be the next decision regarding this. Very simply reasoning although it is still a reasoning I think both sides agree with.

With that, the Plaintiff has 72 hours to get the mail from the Staff Team. Extensions are willing to be granted assuming the Staff Team needs more time.

 

[Unseatedduke1]

The Objection will be overruled given the past within multiple players and multiple statements from criminals who have been arrested, there is Precedent to back up the claims by the Plaintiff thus I will be allowing the request from the Plaintiff to go through.

The Defendant has 72 hours to provide the information otherwise they will be held in contempt.

Evidence Requested by Plaintiff​

Spoiler: Link

NotaDoc Record – Google Drive

drive.google.com

Note: All of this information was provided by the DOJ. If anything else is needed, please contact them.

 

[Unseatedduke1]

MOTION TO DISMISS​

Your Honor, as the discovery phase concludes, we submit a more detailed motion to dismiss under Rule 5.5 for Lack of Claim. The Defendant, NotADoctor9217, formally requests dismissal, citing significant inadequacies in the plaintiff's complaint:

Firstly, it is crucial to note the complete absence of evidence obtained during discovery. The objection to the request for the DOJ ticket was never addressed, leading to a court lack, and thus, the ticket was not provided as it was not required by the judge.

Issue 1: Question 1 asked if the plaintiff had been a member of the 1008er’s discord server while serving as a Redmont police officer, to which the plaintiff responded "Yes." This admission, along with other responses, contradicts the plaintiff's claim that "NotADoctor9217 falsely accused my client of being a part of a gang and committing fraudulent activities." The plaintiff, by affirming membership in the gang discord while an officer, and admitting to concealing an individual wanted by the police, undermines the foundation of their complaint.

Issue 2: The plaintiff admitted to holding official membership in the 1008ers gang while serving as a Redmont police officer. Conversations with the current DOJ secretary affirm that this was a contributing factor in the plaintiff's termination.

Spoiler: Reason for being fired

Screenshot 2024-02-29 at 12.45.03 AM.png

drive.google.com

Perjury Allegation: In response to the specific question regarding the defendant's statements that supposedly conveyed anger and a need for money, the plaintiff asserted, "That never happened; they went straight to the police and didn’t talk to any of us." This stark contradiction between the plaintiff's interrogatory response and the earlier assertion in the filed complaint, which stated, "Defendant admitted to being angry at modzy and saying he needed money," raises concerns of perjury. It is imperative to note that by submitting this complaint, the plaintiff acknowledges the repercussions of making false statements in court. Therefore, we respectfully urge the court to address this inconsistency and by holding the plaintiff and their legal team accountable for perjury, including the imposition of appropriate fees and penalties.

Reiteration of Previous Points:

Plaintiff Claim 1: The Defendant ruined my client's reputation in the DOJ. My client lost out on the chance of being promoted.

Defendants Arguments:
a. Lack of Defamatory Statement: The plaintiff fails to identify a specific defamatory statement made by the defendant. The Defamation Act 2020 stipulates that a false, unprivileged statement of fact impacting someone's reputation is required for a defamation claim.

b. Absence of Publication: Even if there were a defamatory statement, the plaintiff does not demonstrate that it was published to a third party.

c. Failure to Establish Causation: The plaintiff does not provide sufficient evidence to establish a direct causal link between the defendant's actions and the purported harm to the client's reputation.

Plaintiffs Claim 2: My client lost interest in DC because of the incident which happened.

Defendants Arguments:
a. No Causation Established: The plaintiff fails to establish a direct causal link between the defendant's actions and the alleged loss of interest.

b. Insufficient Legal Foundation: The assertion that the client lost interest lacks a legal foundation.

Plaintiffs Claim 3: The defendant's actions caused my client emotional damages in his career and reputation as a Police officer, making his chances of being rehired very slim and being accepted again near impossible.

Defendants Arguments:
a. Lack of Specificity and Evidence for Emotional Damages: The plaintiff's claim of emotional damages lacks specificity and appears speculative.

b. Absence of Defamatory Statement Impacting Career: The claim that the client's career was impacted by the defendant's actions lacks legal foundation.

c. Speculative Nature of Rehire Claims: The assertion that the client's chances of being rehired are near impossible lacks factual support and is speculative.

Request for Dismissal with Prejudice and Legal Fees:​

The defendant respectfully requests the court to dismiss the entire complaint with prejudice, considering its frivolous nature and lack of evidence supporting the claims. Furthermore, the defendant urges the court to impose legal fees on the plaintiff as a consequence of filing a baseless and unsubstantiated case.

Request to hold plaintiff liable for perjury:​

The court has an obligation to hold the plaintiff in contempt and fine accordingly, as perjury was clearly committed in this case filing.

Your Honor, not only was this case messy when originally filed, but it is evident that it lacks valid claims and has been allowed to progress frivolously. If the defendant feels wrongfully terminated, the case should be against the Commonwealth, not the individual who legally reported a crime or concern to the DOJ. We respectfully urge the court to grant the motion to dismiss based on the deficiencies in the plaintiff's claims. Each claim lacks critical elements necessary for a valid legal cause of action, as outlined by the Defamation Act 2020 and Rule 5.5. This is even more clear now that discovery is coming to an end and no new evidence has been provided.

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 29th day of February 2024

 

[RelaxedGV]

Plaintiff has 48 hours to give a response to the Motion to Dismiss.

 

[RelaxedGV]

I would like to make this note, yes, Discovery has ended however before we move on I would like to hear the Plaintiff's response to the Motion to Dismiss so we do not have a number of different things happening at once.

 

[Nacho]

MOTION TO DISMISS​

Your Honor, as the discovery phase concludes, we submit a more detailed motion to dismiss under Rule 5.5 for Lack of Claim. The Defendant, NotADoctor9217, formally requests dismissal, citing significant inadequacies in the plaintiff's complaint:

Firstly, it is crucial to note the complete absence of evidence obtained during discovery. The objection to the request for the DOJ ticket was never addressed, leading to a court lack, and thus, the ticket was not provided as it was not required by the judge.

Issue 1: Question 1 asked if the plaintiff had been a member of the 1008er’s discord server while serving as a Redmont police officer, to which the plaintiff responded "Yes." This admission, along with other responses, contradicts the plaintiff's claim that "NotADoctor9217 falsely accused my client of being a part of a gang and committing fraudulent activities." The plaintiff, by affirming membership in the gang discord while an officer, and admitting to concealing an individual wanted by the police, undermines the foundation of their complaint.

Issue 2: The plaintiff admitted to holding official membership in the 1008ers gang while serving as a Redmont police officer. Conversations with the current DOJ secretary affirm that this was a contributing factor in the plaintiff's termination.

Spoiler: Reason for being fired

Screenshot 2024-02-29 at 12.45.03 AM.png

drive.google.com

Perjury Allegation: In response to the specific question regarding the defendant's statements that supposedly conveyed anger and a need for money, the plaintiff asserted, "That never happened; they went straight to the police and didn’t talk to any of us." This stark contradiction between the plaintiff's interrogatory response and the earlier assertion in the filed complaint, which stated, "Defendant admitted to being angry at modzy and saying he needed money," raises concerns of perjury. It is imperative to note that by submitting this complaint, the plaintiff acknowledges the repercussions of making false statements in court. Therefore, we respectfully urge the court to address this inconsistency and by holding the plaintiff and their legal team accountable for perjury, including the imposition of appropriate fees and penalties.

Reiteration of Previous Points:

Plaintiff Claim 1: The Defendant ruined my client's reputation in the DOJ. My client lost out on the chance of being promoted.

Defendants Arguments:
a. Lack of Defamatory Statement: The plaintiff fails to identify a specific defamatory statement made by the defendant. The Defamation Act 2020 stipulates that a false, unprivileged statement of fact impacting someone's reputation is required for a defamation claim.

b. Absence of Publication: Even if there were a defamatory statement, the plaintiff does not demonstrate that it was published to a third party.

c. Failure to Establish Causation: The plaintiff does not provide sufficient evidence to establish a direct causal link between the defendant's actions and the purported harm to the client's reputation.

Plaintiffs Claim 2: My client lost interest in DC because of the incident which happened.

Defendants Arguments:
a. No Causation Established: The plaintiff fails to establish a direct causal link between the defendant's actions and the alleged loss of interest.

b. Insufficient Legal Foundation: The assertion that the client lost interest lacks a legal foundation.

Plaintiffs Claim 3: The defendant's actions caused my client emotional damages in his career and reputation as a Police officer, making his chances of being rehired very slim and being accepted again near impossible.

Defendants Arguments:
a. Lack of Specificity and Evidence for Emotional Damages: The plaintiff's claim of emotional damages lacks specificity and appears speculative.

b. Absence of Defamatory Statement Impacting Career: The claim that the client's career was impacted by the defendant's actions lacks legal foundation.

c. Speculative Nature of Rehire Claims: The assertion that the client's chances of being rehired are near impossible lacks factual support and is speculative.

Request for Dismissal with Prejudice and Legal Fees:​

The defendant respectfully requests the court to dismiss the entire complaint with prejudice, considering its frivolous nature and lack of evidence supporting the claims. Furthermore, the defendant urges the court to impose legal fees on the plaintiff as a consequence of filing a baseless and unsubstantiated case.

Request to hold plaintiff liable for perjury:​

The court has an obligation to hold the plaintiff in contempt and fine accordingly, as perjury was clearly committed in this case filing.

Your Honor, not only was this case messy when originally filed, but it is evident that it lacks valid claims and has been allowed to progress frivolously. If the defendant feels wrongfully terminated, the case should be against the Commonwealth, not the individual who legally reported a crime or concern to the DOJ. We respectfully urge the court to grant the motion to dismiss based on the deficiencies in the plaintiff's claims. Each claim lacks critical elements necessary for a valid legal cause of action, as outlined by the Defamation Act 2020 and Rule 5.5. This is even more clear now that discovery is coming to an end and no new evidence has been provided.

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 29th day of February 2024

RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS

Your Honor,

While the perjury claims can be seen under these circumstances that the defense wishes to frame, it's hardly the case. Perjury is used when an individual knowingly makes false statements under oath. The defense is claiming that our client has perjured himself from what his former council (A lawyer no longer associated with the case) wrote and delivered to the court. A complaint is not a statement from the plaintiff directly. Rather, it is an opening to the story of a situation from the plaintiff's perspective written by the council and not by the plaintiff. In this instance, the Interrogatory was directed to the plaintiff directly, not to the council. In this instance, it would not make sense for Perjury to be properly applied given this situation.

As for the rest of the motion to dismiss, the defense failed to provide the requested documents within discovery, causing us to have a lack of foundation within our case. We humbly request that the court acknowledge that the defense needs to provide the evidence requested by the plaintiff within discovery.

The merits of this case relied on the documentation evidence contained within the ticket (DOJ-11965). We provided all the documents that we were able to obtain at this time. The defense has not held their end of the bargain regarding discovery violating Rule 5.13 (Failure to Provide Discovery) by extension of violating Rule 4.7 (Request for Discovery, Opposing Party Movement).

Because of the rule violation by the defendant, we accept that the case be dismissed without prejudice at this time, given the damages to our client's ability to have a fair trial, given the defense is keeping the information from us.

 

[RelaxedGV]

RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS

Your Honor,

While the perjury claims can be seen under these circumstances that the defense wishes to frame, it's hardly the case. Perjury is used when an individual knowingly makes false statements under oath. The defense is claiming that our client has perjured himself from what his former council (A lawyer no longer associated with the case) wrote and delivered to the court. A complaint is not a statement from the plaintiff directly. Rather, it is an opening to the story of a situation from the plaintiff's perspective written by the council and not by the plaintiff. In this instance, the Interrogatory was directed to the plaintiff directly, not to the council. In this instance, it would not make sense for Perjury to be properly applied given this situation.

As for the rest of the motion to dismiss, the defense failed to provide the requested documents within discovery, causing us to have a lack of foundation within our case. We humbly request that the court acknowledge that the defense needs to provide the evidence requested by the plaintiff within discovery.

The merits of this case relied on the documentation evidence contained within the ticket (DOJ-11965). We provided all the documents that we were able to obtain at this time. The defense has not held their end of the bargain regarding discovery violating Rule 5.13 (Failure to Provide Discovery) by extension of violating Rule 4.7 (Request for Discovery, Opposing Party Movement).

Because of the rule violation by the defendant, we accept that the case be dismissed without prejudice at this time, given the damages to our client's ability to have a fair trial, given the defense is keeping the information from us.

To be clear, the Plaintiff wants the case dismissed with prejudice, because of a lack of a fair trial from the Defense?

 

[Nacho]

To be clear, the Plaintiff wants the case dismissed with prejudice, because of a lack of a fair trial from the Defense?

Your Honor,

That would be fine with us at this time.

 

[Snowy_Heart]

To be clear, the Plaintiff wants the case dismissed with prejudice, because of a lack of a fair trial from the Defense?

Sorry Your Honor,
To clarify we are asking for dissmisal Without prejudice.
Thank you,
Your Honor.

 

[Unseatedduke1]

OBJECTION
Breach of Procedure​

Your Honor, I submitted a motion to dismiss, seeking the dismissal of the case with prejudice. For the plaintiff to seek a dismissal without prejudice, they should initiate their own motion rather than responding to the defendant's request, especially on grounds of an alleged lack of a fair trial. Your Honor, we diligently provided all the evidence as per your request. We raised an objection to one of the requests, and since that objection was neither sustained nor overruled, we abstained from providing the specific evidence. Additionally, it's important to note that the plaintiff cannot file a motion to dismiss for lack of a fair trial after the conclusion of the discovery phase.

 

[Nacho]

Your Honor,

I intend to respond with a response however, I have to sleep will do so when awake.

 

[Nacho]

OBJECTION
Breach of Procedure​

Your Honor, I submitted a motion to dismiss, seeking the dismissal of the case with prejudice. For the plaintiff to seek a dismissal without prejudice, they should initiate their own motion rather than responding to the defendant's request, especially on grounds of an alleged lack of a fair trial. Your Honor, we diligently provided all the evidence as per your request. We raised an objection to one of the requests, and since that objection was neither sustained nor overruled, we abstained from providing the specific evidence. Additionally, it's important to note that the plaintiff cannot file a motion to dismiss for lack of a fair trial after the conclusion of the discovery phase.

Your Honor,

The defense needs to be corrected in this matter. Just because the presiding judge doesn't respond to an objection doesn't mean they are off of their obligations to providing the information requested.. The defense is still required to provide the information requested within the allotted time of discovery. There is no debate that time has come and gone. Yet here, we cannot request a motion or retract the filing as the defense has purposefully sabotaged this case.

I find the defense's behavior highly questionable to the suitable ethics of a member of the legal field violating the rules of discovery to attempt to win a case merely. Additionally I find it highly odd the defense would add this little tid-bit into their objection as coincidentally they are wishing to frame this as them being high and mighty for withholding articles of discovery which is a clear violation of the rules of discovery.

 

[Nacho]

IN THE COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO COMPEL

Your Honor,

With the defense wishing to play the card that they were unclear on the matter and their outright disregard for the rules and practices of the rules of discovery. We request the court to sanction them for disregarding the discovery rules in specific to rules Rule 5.13 (Failure to Provide Discovery) & Rule 4.7 (Request for Discovery, Opposing Party Movement).

 

[Unseatedduke1]

IN THE COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO COMPEL

Your Honor,

With the defense wishing to play the card that they were unclear on the matter and their outright disregard for the rules and practices of the rules of discovery. We request the court to sanction them for disregarding the discovery rules in specific to rules Rule 5.13 (Failure to Provide Discovery) & Rule 4.7 (Request for Discovery, Opposing Party Movement).

Your Honor, I find it attacking that the Plaintiff would make such statements about me in this courtroom today, nonetheless they are incorrect. As outlined in Rule 4.7, "The material must be relevant to the case and will need to be signed off by the presiding judge if opposed by the opposing party." . Since your honor did not sign off on the material requested by the plaintiff, the defense was not obligated to provide such material as we opposed it.

Regarding Rule 5.13, it is pertinent to note that this rule pertains to a motion to dismiss, and as your honor rightly pointed out, we have concluded the discovery phase; hence, a motion to dismiss is not permissible at this time. I encourage the plaintiffs legal team to weigh their words carefully before uttering them in a public courtroom, as such behavior is unprofessional.

I also urge this court to revisit my prior motion to dismiss, emphasizing the continued frivolous nature of this case. I also request the court to consider holding the plaintiff's previous legal counsel accountable for perjury, as elucidated in the motion to dismiss.

Thank you.

 

[RelaxedGV]

Before I rule on any of what has happened, I would like to apologize for my absence over the weekend, I had irl plans that took up all my time over the weekend. With that, I'd also like to ask that both sides understand that although looking to win, is a civil debate and should be treated as such. I am disappointed in both sides to what I have come back to with needless arguments and fighting. Now that is stated, I will rule on everything presented:

OBJECTION
Breach of Procedure​

Your Honor, I submitted a motion to dismiss, seeking the dismissal of the case with prejudice. For the plaintiff to seek a dismissal without prejudice, they should initiate their own motion rather than responding to the defendant's request, especially on grounds of an alleged lack of a fair trial. Your Honor, we diligently provided all the evidence as per your request. We raised an objection to one of the requests, and since that objection was neither sustained nor overruled, we abstained from providing the specific evidence. Additionally, it's important to note that the plaintiff cannot file a motion to dismiss for lack of a fair trial after the conclusion of the discovery phase.

This Breach of Procedure is overruled as even though the Plaintiff could have presented a Motion in a separate message, not only does it keep the arguments easier to read and prevent needless spam, it also is an omission to a dismissal of the arguments by the Plaintiff's request.

IN THE COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO COMPEL

Your Honor,

With the defense wishing to play the card that they were unclear on the matter and their outright disregard for the rules and practices of the rules of discovery. We request the court to sanction them for disregarding the discovery rules in specific to rules Rule 5.13 (Failure to Provide Discovery) & Rule 4.7 (Request for Discovery, Opposing Party Movement).

This Motion to Compel is unclear it what exactly it is asking for and beyond that also what the issue is pertaining to. Thus the Motion will simply be thrown out. I also wish to state that the Defense should read the Motion more carefully before providing counter arguments and not simply acting as though the attacks are on their character completely.

Finally, the Motion to Dismiss. This is a very simple argument and ruling. To put this completely simple, I will be dismissing this at request of the Plaintiff. I am keeping this short as I am going to be treating the request for dismissal without Prejudice as a Nolle Prosequi.

The Federal Court thanks all involved.