Lawsuit: Dismissed Nacholebraa v. Milkcrack [2024] FCR 10

[Alexander P. Love]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


Nacholebraa (Represented by Dragon Law Firm)
Plaintiff

v.

Milkcrack
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:
On January 13th, my client was slandered. He wasn't just slandered by anyone, but by a reputable Senator with considerable influence and press release access. The nature of this slander was false and defamatory comments in the politics channel as well as an outrageous video posted in Congressional press releases. These caused my client to lose out on an amazing potential job opportunity that comes with a lot of money and skills. Further, it also caused great stress to my client who was left to fend for himself while being attacked by citizens in the politics channel.


I. PARTIES
1. Nacholebraa (Plaintiff and Victim)
2. Milkcrack (Defendant and Tortfeasor)

II. FACTS
1. On the 13th of January, 2024, Milkcrack posted a defamatory video about the Plaintiff (Exhibit A).
2. The video's contents were clearly crafted to mock and defame the reputation of my client (Exhibit B).
3. Milkcrack then made slanderous remarks about Nacholebraa in the #politics channel on Discord (Exhibits C and D).
4. Due to these remarks, my client lost out on a highly prestigious and lucrative job opportunity with the Lovely Law Firm (Exhibit E).
5. Nacholebraa has not been found guilty of treason or corruption, nor is he even being prosecuted for the same.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. According to the Defamation Act (link), "slander is a false statement which defames another person." Milkcrack has made false statements in exhibits C and D that defame my client.
2. The act provides that "on top of proving harm, the Plaintiff must present evidence for intent to harm reputation." Exhibits A and B offer intent to harm reputation as Milkcrack has created a smear campaign in a highly public setting (Congressional press releases) then followed it up with false and defamatory remarks in politics, another high-traffic channel.
3. The act provides 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." As evidenced in Exhibit E, my client lost out on an excellent job opportunity that included a signing bonus, great salary, and an incalculable opportunity for bonuses. The Legal Damages Act (link) provides a range of damage types that will be discussed in prayers for relief.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. The plaintiff requests $3,500 in compensatory damages due to the loss of a generous signing bonus [$2,000] and first week of salary [$1,500] (Exhibit F).
2. The plaintiff requests 12 weeks of damages from the defendant. Due to the inability to calculate how many weeks my client would have otherwise been employed, the plaintiff asserts three months is the best estimate as most Lovely lawyers stay employed for many months consecutively. In total, this will be $18,000 in compensatory damages.
3. The plaintiff is active in finance and business as evidenced by his involvement in Bank of Reveille. Investment and interest is a common way financially-wise citizens build their wealth. My client has lost the ability to do that with the money he would have otherwise earned working at the Lovely Law Firm. The plaintiff therefore requests an extra 5% of prayer for reliefs 1 and 2 in opportunity cost ($1,075).
4. Due to the loss of employment in the Lovely Law Firm, a renowned teaching firm, my client has lost the ability to obtain mentorship in the legal arts and therefore has lost earning capacity. Law is a high-earning profession, and my client could lose at least $50,000 in earnings due to the lost opportunity to get better at the law and obtain usable skills. My client therefore requests $50,000 in compensatory damages.
5. Due to the loss of employment in the Lovely Law Firm, a firm with many high-paying clients, my client has lost the ability to obtain bonuses by working on Lovely cases and therefore has lost earning capacity. Law is a high-earning profession, and my client could lose at least $50,000 in earnings due to the lost opportunity to earn bonuses. My client therefore requests $50,000 in compensatory damages.
6. As practicing law is an enjoyable profession in this country, my client lost an opportunity to work on a diverse range of unique cases available only to Lovely Lawyers. Therefore, the plaintiff requests $25,000 in consequential damages for loss of enjoyment in Redmont.
7. The stress of not having a job and having to facing otherwise unneeded public backlash due to the defendant's slanderous actions took a great emotional toll on my client. The plaintiff therefore requests $35,000 in consequential damages for emotional damages.
8. Slander is inherently humiliating. Given the high public nature of the remarks and the severity of the false statements, these actions are quite humiliating. My client therefore requests $50,000 in consequential damages for humiliation.
9. Given the deliberate and extra public nature of these outrageous comments as well as the effort made into crafting them, the plaintiff requests $50,000 in punitive damages.
10. The plaintiff requests 20% of the total monetary relief awarded to be added to the prayer for relief in legal fees.
TOTAL = $282,575 + 20% (legal fees, $56,515 if full prayer for relief is granted)

V. EVIDENCE

Spoiler: Exhibit A

https://imgur.com/a/TUHv2Kz

Spoiler: Exhibit B

A recently deleted video is to be offered into evidence, and the plaintiff requests closed court for this piece of evidence as to not spread this defamatory video to any person who may not have already seen it.

Spoiler: Exhibit C

https://imgur.com/a/r2eGtrE

Spoiler: Exhibit D

https://imgur.com/a/ljTgyK4

Spoiler: Exhibit E

https://imgur.com/a/pBY0YYm

Spoiler: Exhibit F

https://imgur.com/a/R6YR6tZ

VI. PRELIMINARY WITNESSES
1. Nacholebraa
2. Snowy_Heart


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 15th day of January 2024

 

[Neemfy]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
WRIT OF SUMMONS
@Milkcrack is required to appear before the court in the case of the Nacholebraa v. MilkCrack. 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.​

 

[Milkcrack]

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

Defendant moves that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

SLAPP - Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation
1. The present lawsuit filed by the Plaintiff is a classic example of a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP). The essence of a SLAPP suit is to stifle and intimidate the exercise of free speech, particularly in the political arena, by burdening the defendant with costly and time-consuming legal proceedings. The Plaintiff's claims arise from the Defendant's expression of political opinions, protected under the constitutional right to free speech.
2. Moreover, as a Senator, my words directly impact major decisions in government including the decision to impeach government officials such as the Vice-President for crimes such as Corruption and treason, and allowing this case to continue will set a dangerous precedent that members of Congress can be personally and financially ruined for simply doing their job. Allowing this case to continue would eat up hours of my time, which can not be compensated, furthermore, it would disallow me from doing my job as senator by not being able to express my political opinions.
3. The Plaintiff's attempt to seek substantial financial compensation for the expression of political views not only violates the Defendant's freedom of political communication but also serves as a chilling effect on the public discourse necessary for a healthy democracy. The disproportionate and exorbitant monetary demands in the prayer for relief are indicative of the punitive nature of this lawsuit and further support the SLAPP characterization.
4. In drafting the defamation act congress carefully and purposefully excluded political communications from being able to be sued against. The very first line of the Defamation Act states the following:

(1) A false and unprivileged statement of fact that can negatively impact someone's reputation.

Unprivileged means not privileged, as in not protected under the Rights and Freedoms Charter. Public communication however is protected under the Rights and Freedoms Charter and therefore not subject to defamation.


Meme Video - Lack of Jurisdiction
5. The meme video was published as a press release (pictured in Exhibit A) I was forced to delete the video by staff for mixing government and staff. As established by numerous precedents, if a message is deleted by staff for rule violations, it is not permissible in court. An example of this precedent includes [2021] SCR 18, where staff had removed messages in a Speaker election and stated that "any argument in relation to the removal of messages in #speaker-election will be inadmissible."
6. Much of the Plaintiff's case is based on this video, arguing that it was crafted to "mock and defame" the Plaintiff. Since the court does not have jurisdiction over messages deleted by staff, much of this case lacks serious value.
7. Furthermore, the meme video was only up for a few minutes. There is no evidence that Snowy_Heart ever saw the video.

Additional Remarks - Lack of Claim (5.5)
8. The Plaintiff has no grounds for this case as it is protected political speech. The constitution very clearly states that every citizen has the right to political communication. Citizens should have every right to criticize and or question the actions of the President or Vice President. In fact, many citizens have exercised this right against the President over accusations of corruption. Why should it be any different for the Vice President?
9. As specified in the Defamation Act, it is noted that "On Top of proving harm, the Plaintiff must present evidence for intent to harm reputation." - the Plaintiff has not provided any argument as to why the Defendant had an intent to harm reputation with false allegations. The Defendant genuinely believes in his claims and has filed a case regarding it in [2024] SCR 5. There is no basis for why the Defendant would risk his own reputation to produce a false claim.

Prayer for Relief - Frivolous
10. The Plaintiff's prayer for relief is frivolous and has no serious basis. The Plaintiff is seeking a total of $339,090 (282,575 + 56,515) over a few messages made by the Defendant. Here is an example of the extreme demands:

8. Due to the loss of employment in the Lovely Law Firm, a renowned teaching firm, my client has lost the ability to obtain mentorship in the legal arts and therefore has lost earning capacity. Law is a high-earning profession, and my client could lose at least $50,000 in earnings due to the lost opportunity to get better at the law and obtain usable skills. My client, therefore, requests $50,000 in compensatory damages.

11. The Plaintiff is asking for $50,000 from the Defendant for legal education costs, "to get better at the law." There is no way for the Plaintiff to prove that they lost out on potential usable skills, especially considering the Plaintiff was a former Chief Justice of the courts. To ask for such a high amount of money is to make a mockery of this court.
12. The Plaintiff has also demanded that the Defendant pay $25,000 for "loss of enjoyment" in Redmont. This is despite the fact that the Plaintiff is currently a highly successful political figure, serving in the second highest office of the nation.
13. I can continue to explain to the court why the many other demands, such as a $35,000 "emotional toll" charge or a $50,000 "humiliation" penalty among the other claims are completely frivolous; however, I believe the court understands the point that is being made.

To put it into perspective, if the Defendant earned $5 every 15 minutes online the server, they would be required to be on the server over 700 days non-stop in order to make enough money to pay for the $339,090 that the Plaintiff is asking.

I urge the court to dismiss this case with prejudice.

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 22 day of january 2024

 

[Alexander P. Love]

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

Defendant moves that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

SLAPP - Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation
1. The present lawsuit filed by the Plaintiff is a classic example of a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP). The essence of a SLAPP suit is to stifle and intimidate the exercise of free speech, particularly in the political arena, by burdening the defendant with costly and time-consuming legal proceedings. The Plaintiff's claims arise from the Defendant's expression of political opinions, protected under the constitutional right to free speech.
2. Moreover, as a Senator, my words directly impact major decisions in government including the decision to impeach government officials such as the Vice-President for crimes such as Corruption and treason, and allowing this case to continue will set a dangerous precedent that members of Congress can be personally and financially ruined for simply doing their job. Allowing this case to continue would eat up hours of my time, which can not be compensated, furthermore, it would disallow me from doing my job as senator by not being able to express my political opinions.
3. The Plaintiff's attempt to seek substantial financial compensation for the expression of political views not only violates the Defendant's freedom of political communication but also serves as a chilling effect on the public discourse necessary for a healthy democracy. The disproportionate and exorbitant monetary demands in the prayer for relief are indicative of the punitive nature of this lawsuit and further support the SLAPP characterization.
4. In drafting the defamation act congress carefully and purposefully excluded political communications from being able to be sued against. The very first line of the Defamation Act states the following:

Unprivileged means not privileged, as in not protected under the Rights and Freedoms Charter. Public communication however is protected under the Rights and Freedoms Charter and therefore not subject to defamation.


Meme Video - Lack of Jurisdiction
5. The meme video was published as a press release (pictured in Exhibit A) I was forced to delete the video by staff for mixing government and staff. As established by numerous precedents, if a message is deleted by staff for rule violations, it is not permissible in court. An example of this precedent includes [2021] SCR 18, where staff had removed messages in a Speaker election and stated that "any argument in relation to the removal of messages in #speaker-election will be inadmissible."
6. Much of the Plaintiff's case is based on this video, arguing that it was crafted to "mock and defame" the Plaintiff. Since the court does not have jurisdiction over messages deleted by staff, much of this case lacks serious value.
7. Furthermore, the meme video was only up for a few minutes. There is no evidence that Snowy_Heart ever saw the video.

Additional Remarks - Lack of Claim (5.5)
8. The Plaintiff has no grounds for this case as it is protected political speech. The constitution very clearly states that every citizen has the right to political communication. Citizens should have every right to criticize and or question the actions of the President or Vice President. In fact, many citizens have exercised this right against the President over accusations of corruption. Why should it be any different for the Vice President?
9. As specified in the Defamation Act, it is noted that "On Top of proving harm, the Plaintiff must present evidence for intent to harm reputation." - the Plaintiff has not provided any argument as to why the Defendant had an intent to harm reputation with false allegations. The Defendant genuinely believes in his claims and has filed a case regarding it in [2024] SCR 5. There is no basis for why the Defendant would risk his own reputation to produce a false claim.

Prayer for Relief - Frivolous
10. The Plaintiff's prayer for relief is frivolous and has no serious basis. The Plaintiff is seeking a total of $339,090 (282,575 + 56,515) over a few messages made by the Defendant. Here is an example of the extreme demands:

11. The Plaintiff is asking for $50,000 from the Defendant for legal education costs, "to get better at the law." There is no way for the Plaintiff to prove that they lost out on potential usable skills, especially considering the Plaintiff was a former Chief Justice of the courts. To ask for such a high amount of money is to make a mockery of this court.
12. The Plaintiff has also demanded that the Defendant pay $25,000 for "loss of enjoyment" in Redmont. This is despite the fact that the Plaintiff is currently a highly successful political figure, serving in the second highest office of the nation.
13. I can continue to explain to the court why the many other demands, such as a $35,000 "emotional toll" charge or a $50,000 "humiliation" penalty among the other claims are completely frivolous; however, I believe the court understands the point that is being made.

To put it into perspective, if the Defendant earned $5 every 15 minutes online the server, they would be required to be on the server over 700 days non-stop in order to make enough money to pay for the $339,090 that the Plaintiff is asking.

I urge the court to dismiss this case with prejudice.

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 22 day of january 2024

Response, your honor?

 

[Neemfy]

You may.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Thank you, your Honor.

I will address this motion section by section. Firstly, the SLAPP section fails to adhere to rule 5.1 - rule specification. This is simply a defense and is not valid grounds to move for dismissal. It also does not even attempt to conform to Court rule 5 by not specifying grounds for dismissal under official Court rules. The plaintiff moves for this section to be stricken from the record under breach of procedure.

The "meme video" section is an objection to a piece of evidence that was not even officially tendered to the Court yet. This case also does not rely on the video, and the plaintiff assures the Court that we have plenty of evidence to proceed with or without it. Furthermore, Court precedent has set that "staff jurisdiction" is not a bubble the Court sets on its own in Commonwealth of Redmont v. v__d (link). Furthermore, even though the video was deleted, it was still posted and still posed consequences that are worth the consideration of the Court. While the Court cannot account for staff matters, it can account for the damages the video did while it was live and viewable to the public. Lack of evidence at this stage is also not a valid reason for dismissal as we have not even entered discovery yet where all evidence will be revealed.

The "lack of claim" reasoning is a defense as it is an argument of rights and freedoms that are known to have limitations per the Constitution. This is a matter that must be heard in Court as the wording of the right is simply too broad to not have judicial interpretation involved. Furthermore, I object on the grounds of breach of procedure as rule 5.5 does not apply to this line of logic; rule 5.5 doesn't apply as the plaintiff has stated claims for relief and alleged all elements of the claim. Slander has four elements, all of which were addressed in the initial filing and supported by accompanying evidence. All missing evidence, if any, will be presented in discovery and unveiled in witness testimony.

As for the frivolous claim, the claim is valid and has merits. Simply asking for a high prayer for relief does not make a case frivolous, and the defense may attempt to diminish the prayers through argumentation. It is not grounds for dismissal as, in the end, the Court awards the plaintiff what the Court deems appropriate to remedy the situation.


I therefore move that this case proceed forward. Thank you.

 

[Neemfy]

The motion to dismiss is denied. We will now move on to the Discovery phase. The plaintiff and defendant both have 7 days to provide any evidence and a list of witnesses.

 

[dodrio3]

Lovely Law will be representing the defence.

 

[dodrio3]

The defence wish to call:

MilkCrack
Snowy_Heart
ultrapvpnoob

As witnesses

 

[dodrio3]

The Defence Also Wishes to call Krix as a witness.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Your honor, the plaintiff wishes to call the plaintiff and Snowy_Heart as witnesses.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Interrogatory
1. Did the defendant state that the Vice President was abusing their powers and committing corruption?
2. Did the defendant state that the Vice President committed treason?
3. Did the defendant post a video that had the primary purpose of attacking the plaintiff?
4. Were all the remarks and the video established above posted in a public channel?
5. Did the defendant attempt to run for President of the Senate, but lost due to a tie break made by the plaintiff?

 

[Alexander P. Love]

The Defence Also Wishes to call Krix as a witness.

Objection, your honor. Relevance.

 

[Milkcrack]

OBJECTION BREACH OF PROCEDURE

Interrogatory
1. Did the defendant state that the Vice President was abusing their powers and committing corruption?
2. Did the defendant state that the Vice President committed treason?
3. Did the defendant post a video that had the primary purpose of attacking the plaintiff?
4. Were all the remarks and the video established above posted in a public channel?
5. Did the defendant attempt to run for President of the Senate, but lost due to a tie break made by the plaintiff?

Your honour interrogatories should be filled at least 72 hours before the end of discovery.

Furthermore, I have not yet been permitted to file an answer to the complaint, and I ask that I still be afforded the opportunity to do so before the trial

 

[Alexander P. Love]

OBJECTION BREACH OF PROCEDURE


Your honour interrogatories should be filled at least 72 hours before the end of discovery.

Furthermore, I have not yet been permitted to file an answer to the complaint, and I ask that I still be afforded the opportunity to do so before the trial

Your honor, I will retract the interrogatory however discovery is already over. It is far past time for an answer to complaint and I motion we move on to opening statements. The defendant failed to press this issue until after Discovery concluded. He can’t have it both ways.

 

[Neemfy]

The Defence Also Wishes to call Krix as a witness.

Please give a reason for calling Krix as a witness.

 

[Milkcrack]

Please give a reason for calling Krix as a witness.

Your honour, my expressions were part of official senatorial business. Krix will testify that my political expression on the illegality of Nacho's actions influenced his decision on whether or not to support an impeachment. Thereby my political expressions were not only protected by the 6th Right but also part of a legal proceeding which is well within the prerogative of any government official.

 

[Neemfy]

We will now move onto Opening Statements. The plaintiff has 72 hours to provide an opening statement.

 

[Neemfy]

Objection, your honor. Relevance.

Overruled. Additionally, the court urges you to use proper formatting in the future.

 

[Neemfy]

AlexanderLove is hereby held in Contempt of Court. The Department of Justice is ordered to fine and jail accordingly.

The Defendant has 72 hours to provide an opening statement.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

AlexanderLove is hereby held in Contempt of Court. The Department of Justice is ordered to fine and jail accordingly.

The Defendant has 72 hours to provide an opening statement.

Your honor, I thought I posted here but it must not have gone through. I asked for an extension because this was exam week. You can see I said the same thing in other threads. Furthermore, moving on without is a violation of fair trial especially over something like this.

 

[Milkcrack]

Your Honor,

The Plaintiff has been afforded ample time by this court to present their opening statement. It's clear that the plaintiffs strategy has been centred on attacking me, antagonizing, politicizing this proceeding for personal gain, wasting your time, the courts time and mine. Statements such as, "I ain’t dropping that shit haha. And if Nacho decides to then I’ll highly encourage him not to cuz you are liable and I’m gonna milk money out of you," clearly demonstrate the frivolous nature of the Plaintiff's approach.

Alongside with the other statements made by the plaintiff's attorney outside the courtroom and the waste of time in the courtroom, it's clear that I am suffering irreparable harm with each passing minute this trial is ongoing. Therefore I must urge the court to dismiss this case with prejudice.

MOTION TO DISMISS
Your honor under the motions guides Motion to dismiss 3.

A valid reason to dismiss a case is 'Failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted'. I disagree with the facts of the case but for the motion to dismiss, I will consider them as true:

1. On the 13th of January, 2024, Milkcrack posted a defamatory video about the Plaintiff (Exhibit A).
2. The video's contents were crafted to mock and defame the reputation of my client (Exhibit B).
3. Milkcrack then made slanderous remarks about Nacholebraa in the #politics channel on Discord (Exhibits C and D).
4. Due to these remarks, my client lost out on a highly prestigious and lucrative job opportunity with the Lovely Law Firm (Exhibit E).
5. Nacholebraa has not been found guilty of treason or corruption, nor is he even being prosecuted for the same.

Even if my remarks in #politics were slanderous, the court still can still not grant relief based on the defamation act cause my speech was protected under the 6th right.

I am accused of slanderously calling the plaintiff Corrupt and Treasonous.

In the precedent set out in pepper5980 v. FTGWop [2023] DCR 4, where the defendant was accused of calling the plaintiff a Traitor and a terrorist without any foundation.

Justice Dartanman found that the acts were slanderous but still ruled in favour of the defendant stating:
"Speaking out against the actions of the police – and the Government as a whole – is by nature political communication, which is one of the rights enshrined within our Constitution."

Your honour even if the facts are true, my statements were protected and can therefore not be subject to relief. Making it a clear-cut motion to dismiss based on failure to state a case on which relief can be granted.

Therefore I can do nothing but ask, plead and beg that the court please grant my motion to dismiss. The sheer amount of witnesses and the behaviour of the plaintiff's attorney, in this case, make it clear that I will be tied up in this courtroom for weeks or weeks perhaps even months and will suffer irreparable harm in the process.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Your Honor,

The Plaintiff has been afforded ample time by this court to present their opening statement. It's clear that the plaintiffs strategy has been centred on attacking me, antagonizing, politicizing this proceeding for personal gain, wasting your time, the courts time and mine. Statements such as, "I ain’t dropping that shit haha. And if Nacho decides to then I’ll highly encourage him not to cuz you are liable and I’m gonna milk money out of you," clearly demonstrate the frivolous nature of the Plaintiff's approach.

Alongside with the other statements made by the plaintiff's attorney outside the courtroom and the waste of time in the courtroom, it's clear that I am suffering irreparable harm with each passing minute this trial is ongoing. Therefore I must urge the court to dismiss this case with prejudice.

MOTION TO DISMISS
Your honor under the motions guides Motion to dismiss 3.

A valid reason to dismiss a case is 'Failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted'. I disagree with the facts of the case but for the motion to dismiss, I will consider them as true:

1. On the 13th of January, 2024, Milkcrack posted a defamatory video about the Plaintiff (Exhibit A).
2. The video's contents were crafted to mock and defame the reputation of my client (Exhibit B).
3. Milkcrack then made slanderous remarks about Nacholebraa in the #politics channel on Discord (Exhibits C and D).
4. Due to these remarks, my client lost out on a highly prestigious and lucrative job opportunity with the Lovely Law Firm (Exhibit E).
5. Nacholebraa has not been found guilty of treason or corruption, nor is he even being prosecuted for the same.

Even if my remarks in #politics were slanderous, the court still can still not grant relief based on the defamation act cause my speech was protected under the 6th right.

I am accused of slanderously calling the plaintiff Corrupt and Treasonous.

In the precedent set out in pepper5980 v. FTGWop [2023] DCR 4, where the defendant was accused of calling the plaintiff a Traitor and a terrorist without any foundation.

Justice Dartanman found that the acts were slanderous but still ruled in favour of the defendant stating:
"Speaking out against the actions of the police – and the Government as a whole – is by nature political communication, which is one of the rights enshrined within our Constitution."

Your honour even if the facts are true, my statements were protected and can therefore not be subject to relief. Making it a clear-cut motion to dismiss based on failure to state a case on which relief can be granted.

Therefore I can do nothing but ask, plead and beg that the court please grant my motion to dismiss. The sheer amount of witnesses and the behaviour of the plaintiff's attorney, in this case, make it clear that I will be tied up in this courtroom for weeks or weeks perhaps even months and will suffer irreparable harm in the process.

Motions to dismiss are only permitted during Discovery and earlier.

 

[Milkcrack]

Motions to dismiss are only permitted during Discovery and earlier.

Your honour this is false, as stated in the motions guide:
A motion is a procedural device that is a formal request made to a Court for a decision on a specific part of a case. A judge will either Sustain (to agree with) or Overrule (to disagree with) a motion. Motions can be made throughout the case until a verdict is delivered.

Otherwise I ask that the court consider the motion as a motion to reconsider the previous motion to dimiss given new persuasive arguments instead of a new motion to dismiss.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Your honour this is false, as stated in the motions guide:
A motion is a procedural device that is a formal request made to a Court for a decision on a specific part of a case. A judge will either Sustain (to agree with) or Overrule (to disagree with) a motion. Motions can be made throughout the case until a verdict is delivered.

Otherwise I ask that the court consider the motion as a motion to reconsider the previous motion to dimiss given new persuasive arguments instead of a new motion to dismiss.

Rule 5.2 says otherwise

 

[Milkcrack]

Your Honor,

I apologise for the interruptions and respectfully ask you to strike all above filings including my motion to dismiss which I will withdraw and I submit the following instead.

The Plaintiff has been afforded ample time by this court to present their opening statement. It's clear that the plaintiff's strategy has been centred on attacking me, antagonizing, and politicizing this proceeding for personal gain, wasting your time, the court's time and mine. Statements such as, "I ain’t dropping that shit haha. And if Nacho decides to then I’ll highly encourage him not to cuz you are liable and I’m gonna milk money out of you," clearly demonstrate the frivolous nature of the Plaintiff's approach.

Alongside with the other statements made by the plaintiff's attorney outside the courtroom and the waste of time in the courtroom, it's clear that I am suffering irreparable harm with each passing minute this trial is ongoing. Therefore I must urge the court to dismiss this case with prejudice.

MOTION TO RECONSIDER DISMISSAL
Your honour under rule 5.5

A valid reason to dismiss a case is 'Failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted'. I disagree with the facts of the case but for the motion to dismiss, I will consider them as true:

1. On the 13th of January, 2024, Milkcrack posted a defamatory video about the Plaintiff (Exhibit A).
2. The video's contents were crafted to mock and defame the reputation of my client (Exhibit B).
3. Milkcrack then made slanderous remarks about Nacholebraa in the #politics channel on Discord (Exhibits C and D).
4. Due to these remarks, my client lost out on a highly prestigious and lucrative job opportunity with the Lovely Law Firm (Exhibit E).
5. Nacholebraa has not been found guilty of treason or corruption, nor is he even being prosecuted for the same.

Even if my remarks in #politics were slanderous, the court still can not grant relief based on the defamation act cause my speech was protected under the 6th right.

I am accused of slanderously calling the plaintiff Corrupt and Treasonous.

In the precedent set out in pepper5980 v. FTGWop [2023] DCR 4, where the defendant was accused of calling the plaintiff a Traitor and a terrorist without any foundation.

Justice Dartanman found that the acts were slanderous but still ruled in favour of the defendant stating:
"Speaking out against the actions of the police – and the Government as a whole – is by nature political communication, which is one of the rights enshrined within our Constitution."

Your honour even if the facts are true, my statements were protected and can therefore not be subject to relief. Making it a clear-cut motion to dismiss based on failure to state a case on which relief can be granted.

Alternatively, this would also be valid grounds for dismissal under Rule 5.9 (Collateral Estoppel)
A Motion to Dismiss may be filed if a case with a similar or, more exceptionally, same fact set has already been previously litigated.

Therefore I can do nothing but ask, plead and beg that the court please grant my motion to dismiss. The sheer amount of witnesses and the behaviour of the plaintiff's attorney, in this case, make it clear that I will be tied up in this courtroom for weeks on weeks perhaps even months and will suffer irreparable harm in the process.

 

[Neemfy]

After further consideration and analysis of facts and precedents presented, I have decided to accept the Motion to Reconsider for my earlier rejection of the Motion to Dismiss, based on the fact that the facts of this case are very similar to those already tried and decided upon. No matter your position within the government, or outside of it, criticism of the government is expressly protected under the Constitution.

This case is hereby dismissed.