Lawsuit: Dismissed Ohgizmo V. FTGWop [2022] DCR 52

Status
Not open for further replies.
O

ohgizmo

Citizen
Ohgizmo
Ohgizmo
Attorney
Joined
Oct 23, 2022
Messages
9
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


Ohgizmo
Plaintiff

v.

FTGWop
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

The Defendant has multiplied times after being verbally requested and served a cease-and-desist order he refused to sign continued to slander the Plaintiff. I also state FTGWop has continued using intentionally misleading and slanderous attack ads in his bid to gain more votes in the upcoming House of Rep. election.


I. PARTIES
1. Ohgizmo
2. FTGWop

II. FACTS
1. On 11/2/2022 FTG began a series of attack ad styled campaigns against several users in the In-game chat including Plaintiff
2. These attack ads used terms like “It's not slander is facts” in direct regard to the statement made by Plaintiff during a verbal request to cease these actions of quote “You said I supported a one party state as a fact… which is slander”
3. Defendant refused to sign the Cease-and-desist order that would have made the Defendant cease using these terms.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. It is Plaintiff belief that these statements after numerous very reasonable and tame responses to cease the inappropriate behavior gives rise to Slander and thus is not a protected right under free speech.


IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. Plaintiff seeks $600 compensation


Witnesses: Claxx77

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 2nd day of the 11th month of the year 2022
 

Attachments

  • slande.PNG
    slande.PNG
    365.5 KB · Views: 128
  • Ca23pture.PNG
    Ca23pture.PNG
    266.5 KB · Views: 110
  • unkn3own.png
    unkn3own.png
    249.3 KB · Views: 115
  • unknown.png
    unknown.png
    398.2 KB · Views: 120
Since the District Court of Redmont has original jurisdiction over this case, it will be heard in the District Court in the first instance.

Ohgizmo, this is your final warning for filing cases in the wrong subforum. In the future, file cases in the appropriate subnode.
 
Thank you Justice JoeGamer, before issuing the official summons, is there any evidence that supports that the defendant refused to sign a cease and desist letter?
 
Yes, there is your honor
 

Attachments

  • Capture.PNG
    Capture.PNG
    5.4 KB · Views: 117
Could you present the entire conversation? To get a better context of the conversation itself
 
Yes, I can; please let it be known after defendant said he would not be signing the order was deleted from the chat to avoid continued argument.
 

Attachments

  • Capture.PNG
    Capture.PNG
    79.3 KB · Views: 119
district-court-png.12083



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

@FTGWop is required to appear before the District Court in the case of Ohgizmo V. FTGWop [2022] DCR 52. Failure to appear within 48 hours of this summons will result in a default judgment based on the known facts of the case.

Both parties should make themselves aware of the Court Rules and Procedures, including the option of an in-game trial should both parties request one.​
 
I plead not guilty I am innocent and all of this is political motivated this whole case is politically motivated and everbody can see it is a very important election too
 
please answer with an answer to complaint, the court recommends you find a suitable lawyer.
 
Aladeen I dont need a lawyer
 
I also plead not guilty
 
sir I havent done any slander and both you and me knows that everybody understands that this is a political motivated case
 
I havent done any slander and I hope you understands that this case is politically motivated
 
1 the plaintiffs reason for suing me is fully political motivated both of us are running in the election for house of representants

2 the evidence is very weak and also very misleading I didnt commit slander I where commiting my political campaign and where in no way slandering the plaintiff

3 the plaintiff needs to accept that in a democracy it is legal for politicans that they dont like to have political campaigns
 
I would like to suggest a summary judgment if both plaintiff and defendant agree.
 
I will now be presiding over this case. We will move onto opening statements. The Plaintiff has 48 hours to present their opening statement.

I would also like to remind both parties that talking out of turn will result in a contempt of court charge.
 
Ohgizmo has failed to post his opening statement despite having close to 72 hours. I hereby find them in contempt of court and order the DOJ to fine/jail them appropriately.

The Defendant now has 48 hours to post their opening statement, or state that they do not wish to post one.
 
this case is not about slander or a dispute about the alleged slander. The plaintiff is trying to make it seen like this is a slander case. Gizmo literally sued me because he didnt like me as a politican and he thought he could stop my campaign by suing me for something I didnt do

In a democratic society people has the right to have their political campaigns even if you dont like them as politicans you still shouldnt use tactics like Gizmo used to turn us quiet. I am happy that I didnt let this case stop my campaign since I stand for democracy to the fullest. Is also good that you found out that I where innocent.
 
Thank you to the Defendant for their opening statement. Both parties now have 48 hours to provide their list of witnesses, or state that they have none.
 
I have no witness
 
district-court-png.12083

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

@Claxx77 is hereby summoned to the District Court in the case of Ohgizmo v. FTGWop [2022] DCR 52 as a witness. Please familiarize yourself with the case as it stands at present. You will receive questions from the Plaintiff, and may also be cross-examined by the Defendant.

I ask that all questions be provided to witnesses in a single post. If some questions need to be withheld as they depend on answers given to earlier questions, that is also considered reasonable. The Plaintiff will have 48 hours to question the witness once they declare themselves present.

I am hereby informing the witness to ensure they are aware of the provisions of the law of perjury and its severity. Giving knowingly false testimony is highly illegal. Witnesses are required to tell the truth in their testimonies, pursuant to the Perjury Act.​
 
Present, your honour.
 
The Plaintiff has 48 hours to post all of their questions for the witness.
 
1. Can the witness please describe the manner of which the defendant was talking to the best of their ability
2. Can the witness to the best of their ability tell the court of the requests made by the plaintiff to the defendant.
3. To the best of the ability of the witness please describe the context behind the evidence as shown above.
 
I hereby charge Claxx77 with 1 count of contempt of court for failing to answer the questions as a witness. It is up to the Plaintiff whether we move on, or wait for the witness to answer the question. The Plaintiff has 24 hours to inform the court of their choice.
 
dygyee said:
I hereby charge Claxx77 with 1 count of contempt of court for failing to answer the questions as a witness. It is up to the Plaintiff whether we move on, or wait for the witness to answer the question. The Plaintiff has 24 hours to inform the court of their choice.
Click to expand...
Your honour, you didn't tell me to answer the questions given by the plaintiff. I was waiting for your response.
 
Claxx77 said:
Your honour, you didn't tell me to answer the questions given by the plaintiff. I was waiting for your response.
Click to expand...
Questions are expected to be answered, and it is not needed for the presiding judge to tell a witness when they can start answering the questions. It is stated in summons that witnesses are to respond to questions when they are asked.

You have 24 hours from now to answer the questions from the Plaintiff. Failure to do so will result in another contempt of court charge.
 
dygyee said:
Questions are expected to be answered, and it is not needed for the presiding judge to tell a witness when they can start answering the questions. It is stated in summons that witnesses are to respond to questions when they are asked.

You have 24 hours from now to answer the questions from the Plaintiff. Failure to do so will result in another contempt of court charge.
Click to expand...

I was expecting you to respond to the questions as you responded in some of your cases before. So I was waiting for your response.

1. Can the witness please describe the manner of which the defendant was talking to the best of their ability

I will not answer this question.

2. Can the witness to the best of their ability tell the court of the requests made by the plaintiff to the defendant.

- The plaintiff asked the defendant to stop calling them terrorists publicly.

3. To the best of the ability of the witness please describe the context behind the evidence as shown above.

I will not answer this question.
 
Could you please explain why you will not answer 2 of the questions?
 
I'm sorry for the delay, this court case will now resume. I hereby charge Claxx77 with another count of contempt of court for failing to answer the courts questions.

The Defendant now has 48 hours to post all of their questions for the witness, or state that they have none.
 
I have no questions for the witness
 
We will now move on to closing statements. The Plaintiff has 48 hours to post their closing statement.
 
The Plaintiff has failed to provide their closing statement, and I hereby charge Ohgizmo with 1 count of contempt of court.

The Defendant now has 48 hours to post their closing statement.
 
That ohGizmo choosed to sue me for my political campaign is very serious is a attack on our democracy and everbody can see that I have protected the democracy by standing up for the rights of the citizens by still choosing to run in the election even tho I got sued. Gizmos intentions where to sue me to make me leave the election but when he realized that he failed he understood that suing me was a big mistake also I find it very weird that gizmo has not provided any closing statements. I know that Gizmo wanted to destroy my election but he failed and thats good. in the end democracy will always win remember that.
 
Due to the fact that Ohgizmo has failed to provide an opening statement and a closing statement despite having 72 hours for both, I will be dismissing this case with prejudice. It is the Plaintiff's job to pursue the case, and here they did not.

I hereby charge Ohgizmo with another count of contempt of court and order the DOJ to fine/jail him appropriately.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top