Lawsuit: Dismissed Poemhunter v FTGWop [2022] FCR 91

[Poemhunter]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


Poemhunter
Plaintiff

v.


FTGWop
Defendant



COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:
The defendant is pursing a course of injustice against the people of Redmont, The bill titled “Don’t criticise the president act” is unconstitutional as it infringes on our liberties and freedoms which will be listed below while also in political discussion slandering me as anti democratic when he is the one censoring the speech of the citizens of this country.



I. PARTIES
1. Poemhunter
2. FTGWop


II. FACTS
1. Bill posted in bill creation and in Congress
2. Bill censors and breaks constitutional rights
3. Defendant proceeds to slander the Plaintiff on defending such freedom


III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF


Under Part IV - Rights and Freedoms of the Constitution


1. VI. Freedom of Political Communication.
-This bill directly affects this constitutional right and would violate every citizens if passed.


2. X. Freedom of the Press and Media
-The defendant shows his clear intentions through this bill to suppress the media and press from reporting and critiquing the government.


3.. XII. Freedom of Association.
-By the bill being passed people off the same view point would no longer be able to hold these belief or view points and expressing them within a group would therein be barred and violated.


4. XIII. Every citizen is equal before and under the law and has the right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law without unfair discrimination and, in particular, without unfair discrimination based on political belief or social status.
-This bill would violate this by ensuring that anyone opposing or holding a different view point to the president would be treated unfairly by law.

5. XIV. Every citizen has the right to life, liberty, and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.
-Liberty and Security would be greatly under threat if this bill passes along with the above mentioned breaches to citizens constitutional rights.

6. 17.8 - Slander A purposeful false statement of a player to cause damage to that player's reputation.
-The Defendant made a false statement about my beliefs and what I am fighting for which has the ability to ruin my reputation in the community.


IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF


The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:


1. Constitutional breach 1: 250,000


2. Constitutional breach 2: 250,000


3. Constitutional breach 3: 250,000


4. Constitutional breach 4: 500,000


5. Constitutional breach 5: 250,000

6. On the count of Slander: 75,000

7. For the Speaker to disregard this bill from voting within congress due to its huge constitutional breaches of the citizens.

(Attach evidence and a list of witnesses at the bottom if applicable)

Link to bil: Bill: Draft - Don`t criticize the president act


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 18 day of November 2022

 

[Banana]

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

The Defendant is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of Poemhunter v. FTGWop [2022] FCR 91.

Failure to appear within 48 hours of this summons will result in a default judgement 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.​

 

[FTGWop]

1 this case is fully political motivated he dont like me as a politican that is why he is suing me

2 the evidence is weak nothing proves I commited slander or that I where against freedom of speech I even said that I have nothing against journalists and that some journalist can not be considered journalists since they could be spies

3 I did nothing illegal and he did commit slander because he called me a dangerous person which is slander and you can see it in his own picture that he called me a dangerous person so this is all political motivated that he did this I think we can see very clearly who supports the democracy here. Also just look for how much he is suing me for this is also economic reasons he does this because he wants to get rich by suing people.

 

[Poemhunter]

Your Honour,

I request that you may grant me to reply to the said in the defendants statement.

 

[Banana]

The request is denied, as the Defendant has not presented a proper response to the lawsuit. I am hereby striking the Defendant's response, and I am advising the Defendant to either present a proper response or hire an attorney to do so.

The Defendant has 24 hours to either post an official Response, Motion to Dismiss, or have an attorney do so for them.

 

[Banana]

I am also warning the Plaintiff for editing a statement without first seeking the Court's permission. Any further occurrences will result in dismissal of the case and a charge of filing a frivolous case.

 

[FTGWop]

1 I did no way make any damages for poemhunter I did also not break the constitution. It exist no proof of any of my bills going against the constitution

2 The bill proposal didnt make any damage for Poemhunter so that he is suing me for 1.5 milion is only economic reasons

 

[Banana]

The court thanks the Defendant for their eagerness to respond, however I must strike these comments and direct the Defendant to Information - Creating a Lawsuit in the Federal Court for a guide on how to prepare a response. Again, they may also hire an attorney to do so for them.

 

[Dartanboy]

Good evening, your honor.

FTGWop has asked me to represent him in this case.

I request just 24 hours to prepare and post a response.

 

[Dartanboy]

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

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. The Defense AFFIRMS Fact 1, that the bill was, in-fact, posted in bill creation and in Congress.
2. The Defense AFFIRMS Fact 2, that the bill censors and breaks constitutional rights, however this does not warrant relief to the Plaintiff.
3. The Defense DISPUTES Fact 3, that the Defendant committed Slander against the Plaintiff.

The Defense also wishes to point out that Facts 2 and 3 should not be under “FACTS” but rather should be considered a “Claim for Relief.”

II. MOTION TO DISMISS

1: Apart from Slander, the Plaintiff makes no valid claims for relief against the Defendant. Specifically, the Plaintiff is suing a Congressman for drafting a bill. If, for some reason, the Plaintiff wishes to sue for a properly drafted bill in Congress, the Plaintiff should sue the Commonwealth, not the author of the bill, since the author was acting within the bounds of his position as a Congressman. There is significant precedent that when there is a lawsuit about what someone did while acting in their official capacity as a Government official, the lawsuit must be against the Commonwealth, not the individual Government official. Here are a few examples:

Dartanman v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2022] FCR 72 (Lawsuit: Adjourned - Dartanman v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2022] FCR 72) – The Plaintiff of FCR 72 sued the Commonwealth for the actions taken by Mask3D_WOLF, acting in accordance with her duty as an employee of the Department of Justice, rather than suing Mask3D_WOLF herself.

xerxesmc v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2021] FCR 101 (Lawsuit: Adjourned - xerxesmc v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2021] FCR 101) – The Plaintiff of FCR 101 sued the Commonwealth for the actions taken by Mhadsher101 and hugebob12345, acting in accordance with their duties as employees of the Department of Construction and Transport, rather than suing Mhad and hugebob themselves.

AlexanderLove v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2021] SCR 13 (Lawsuit: Adjourned - AlexanderLove v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2021] SCR 13) – The Plaintiff of SCR 13 sued the Commonwealth regarding two different bills that contradicted each other and had been passed into law, rather than suing the author(s) of the bills. The Defense also wishes to point out that poemhunter, the Plaintiff in this current case, was actually the Prosecutor who represented the Commonwealth in SCR 13, and should be well aware that FTGWop is not the correct Defendant for this case.

2. In regards to Slander, the Plaintiff has failed to allege all the necessary requirements for Slander. According to the Defamation Act October 2020, Slander is defined as “a false statement which defames another person.” The Act also states that “damages from slander and libel are not presumed and must be proven in a court of law.” and “The defendant, if proven to have purposefully defamed, will be issued to pay the victim compensation”

So, what is required for the Plaintiff to sue for slander?

• The statement must be demonstrably and objectively false
• The statement must defame the Plaintiff
• The statement must cause damage to the Plaintiff
• The statement must have been intentionally false, defaming, and damaging.

The Plaintiff does allege that the statement is false. The Plaintiff fails to allege that the statement is defamatory, and only alleges that it could be damaging (but fails to allege that it is damaging). Finally, the Plaintiff has failed to allege that FTGWop intentionally defamed the Plaintiff.

3. Finally, we take a look at the Prayer for Relief. The Plaintiff is seeking more than $1.5 MILLION (about half of the Government treasury in size, according to the November 2022 SOTC Report) while showing absolutely zero damages. This is absurd. The case seems to have no legal intent and could possibly even be dismissed as a frivolous attempt to make the Plaintiff rich.

4. Continuing with the Prayer for Relief, the Plaintiff is also seeking that the court order the Speaker of the House to take action (or inaction) against a properly drafted bill in Congress while suing FTGWop, a private citizen. To allow this case to continue would set the precedent that you can sue someone and then seek damages from an uninvolved party.

Overall, this case:

• Names the wrong Defendant for a properly drafted bill in Congress.
• Fails to allege all the necessary components of Slander.
• Seeks over $1.5 Million in relief while failing to show or even allege actual damages that warrant such relief.
• Seeks relief from an uninvolved party.

For these reasons, the Defense requests that the case be dismissed.

III. COUNTER PRAYER FOR RELIEF
1. The Defendant seeks $850 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 21st day of November 2022.

 

[Dartanboy]

OBJECTION
Breach of Procedure

I've just noticed the Plaintiff silently edited the original Case Filing almost 12 hours after it was originally posted:

^ That's a screenshot, by the way (not an edited message on my post)

 

[Poemhunter]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Responce to Complaint answer and Motion to dismiss and claim of breach of procedure.

Your Honour,

I am glad to see that the defendant accepts that the bill has breach the constitution. The aim of this lawsuit is to ensure the protection of the constitution which is paramount in my opinion. The argument on seeing the commonwealth has valid reasoning as the defendant is a representative of part of the State. However The lawsuit was write for a purpose and a purpose to ensure the constitution is protected. The lawsuit listed the author due to the nature of breach, the author of the bill might be a member of our esteemed legislative branch of government but his actions are not of normal nature. In the Cases listed by the defendant such s Dartanman v Commonwealth of Redmont 2022 FCR 72 and Xerxesmc v Commonwealth of Redmont 2021 FCR 101 and in AlexnaderLove v Commonwealth of Redmont 2021 SCR 13, The first two cases are action taken by an employee of the department doing her duty, a elected representative have a large role as they are chosen by the people and there duty is to ensure the protection and up keep of our laws "The Congress is responsible for debating, creating, removing, and amending country laws and specified rules. The Congress is therefore key in representing the will of the people, allowing every citizen to have either a direct or indirect impact on the governance of the country." I ask is it the will of the people for this One individual to take our rights, would he then not be treating to breach his role in ensuring the protection of the people.

Two thing I would like to say in regards to a case referred to here that I was party two, The first being that it was seeking clarification of two passed bills, I am seeking to have to bill stopped from the defendant if the speaker isn't compelled to as the vote itself would then bring the whole of the legislative branch into a massive legal whole on voting no matter the outcome of a unconstitutional bill and second that case was a long time ago and I feel it was a cheap shot to try and help dismiss this case I am proud of my legal record and trying to use it against me in a whole different context isn't fair and is quite distasteful.

In good faith I would like to drop the slander along with the monetary attached to the prayers of relief, Though I believe that a slander charge could be made based on the criteria mentioned,

• The statement must be demonstrably and objectively false - I was accused publicly of supporting dictatorial things which I do not considering my reputation as a ardent defender of people freedoms.
• The statement must defame the Plaintiff - The statement was in a public space and has the ability to infringe on my reputations and the ideas I stand for which can hurt y character in a public capacity.
• The statement must cause damage to the Plaintiff - anyone who witnessed that comment can have an unfair judgement posed on me.
• The statement must have been intentionally false, defaming, and damaging. - none of which was said was factually true and no evidence and was said in a spike due to my opposition to the bill that hurts our constitution and its people.

I want to work in good faith and I hope to see the defendant do too so I ask you if granted your honour to have all monetary dropped along with the slander charge on two conditions.

1- The bill be removed immediately
2- A public apology for the bill and to apologise for the comment made towards me about supporting dictatorial things which I took deep offence too.


To clarify some miscommunication to the objection based on the editing, I fully own up to the editing. I changed one word that was raised which I am truly sorry for, it was a force of habit and I am deeply sorry to the courts and personally you Your Honour. Thought I believe and correct me if wrong the time had run out to reply to this I did not want to raise this because I wanted to have a fairly and believe it a simple mistake which I think we are all guilty of from time to time

 

[Dartanboy]

 OBJECTION
Breach of Procedure

The Plaintiff has responded to the Answer to Complaint (essentially providing an opening statement) without being called to.

Additionally, the Plaintiff has responded to the Motion to Dismiss without being called to.

Responding to the Objection is cool though.

 

[Banana]

The original objection for breach of procedure is sustained, as the Plaintiff has already been warned about this.

The second objection is sustained, and only the portion of the Plaintiff's response regarding the motion to dismiss and objection will be considered.

Does the Defense accept the Plaintiff's offered deal? If no, nothing will change, and we will move on to opening statements.

 

[Dartanboy]

The Defense is of the belief that in its current state, the bill is unconstitutional, but if posed as a Constitutional Amendment, it would meet all the requirements of the law. For this reason, we do not accept the deal and request a ruling be made on the Motion to Dismiss before moving on to Opening Statements.

Thank you (also I wrote this on my phone so apologies for any mistakes).

I'd also like to request a 96-hour-from-now extension due to holiday celebrations with my family if the typical deadline would require us to post before then.

 

[Banana]

I will be granting the motion to dismiss on the following grounds:

• It is established procedure that if someone believes there is a failure in government, they may sue the government as a whole establishment as opposed to the individual that may have wronged them. This has been seen in cases such as [2022] FCR 62, [2022] FCR 42, [2022] FCR 48, and [2022] FCR 36. Thus, this case cannot be heard, but it may be refiled against the Commonwealth if the Plaintiff believes their grievance is still in need of litigation.

The case for slander may be refiled against the Defendant separately, should the Plaintiff wish to pursue the issue.
This case is hereby dismissed. The court thanks both parties for their time.