Lawsuit: Adjourned The_Donuticus v. GER et al. [2022] SCR 18

[Dartanboy]

Objection.
Breach of Procedure.

The defendant's attorney has not been called to give a response to my objection. I am requesting a third contempt of court charge.

ANSWER TO OBJECTION (Final response to this almost-identical objection as I am not going to keep adding unnecessary posts to this case)
See my previous Answer to Objection, which proves that I am able to answer without being called to respond.

 

[Matthew100x]

Objection.
Breach of Procedure.

The defendant's attorney has not been called to give a response to my objection. I am requesting a fourth contempt of court charge.

 

[Krix]

OBJECTION
PERJURY

Good day, your honors.

The Plaintiff in their Closing Statement said
"Now MINT was an Unregistered Political Party that had policies, it was organized, it was trying to get official status so that it could run in elections. Sounds like a campaign to us, and we believe that it sounded like a campaign to the GER, a rival campaign - and that is why they took the path they chose."

This directly contradicts a statement made earlier by the Plaintiff, as shown in the Defense's Exhibit 1 (re-attached here for ease of finding).
View attachment 29543
The Plaintiff is clearly aware that MINT was not campaigning, and has turned around and stated in court that MINT was campaigning in an effort to pin charges against my client. This is absurd and unacceptable.

OBJECTION
PERJURY

The Plaintiff in their Closing Statement said
"When joining a political party, people are expected to be loyal, even more so if they are taking an oath of loyalty to the party."

Your honors, as shown previously, the Plaintiff was asked, "What happens if I break the swear?" to which the answer was ultimately "I guess nothing."

To boldly proclaim that loyalty is expected after clearly saying there are no consequences for breaking the swear, is perjury.

This is in the Plaintiff's Exhibit L, and shown in a screenshot earlier, but here it is again for ease of finding:
View attachment 29544

Objection.
Breach of Procedure.

Your honor, we are in closing statements, at this particular time making objections is reprehensible behavior by the defendant's attorney. Instead of responding to arguments cordially in their own closing statements, the defendant is attempting to get extra arguments in to subvert the plaintiff's argument before producing their own closing statement. It is entirely unfair that the defendant gets to produce extra argument to subvert the plaintiff's argument and also produce a closing statement. The objections should be struck from the record and the case needs to proceed as before so we can reach a verdict.

If the defendant wishes to make these points, they should argue such in their closing arguments.

Objection.
Breach of Procedure.

The defendant's attorney has not been called to give a response to my objection. I am requesting a contempt of court charge.

Objection.
Breach of Procedure.

Perjury is defined as "When a witness has perjured themselves on the stand by lying or strongly misrepresenting facts on the stand (proof of perjury should be made with the objection)." Guide - Objections Guide

There are no witnesses currently making testimony.

ANSWER TO TWO OBJECTIONS
This is not Breach of Procedure. The Plaintiff's counsel really needs to become more familiar with Court Procedures in Redmont. The Objections Guide, which the Plaintiff's counsel has already quoted from, shows that you can answer to an objection without being directed to by the court:
View attachment 29545

This lawyer is filling up the case with silly and ignorant objections.

Overruled, I ask that both parties follow court procedure. If the defence has arguments they wish to make they may do so in their closing statement.

The Defense now has 48 hours to deliver their closing statement to the court.

 

[Dartanboy]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT

Good day, your honors, opposing counsel.

I’ll jump straight into this.

1. The Plaintiff claims “There is so much evidence that points towards the Defendants being incredibly guilty.”

The Defense agrees that there is a lot of evidence, but disagrees that this evidence is incriminating. In simple terms, there’s a lot of stuff, but none of that stuff is illegal.

2. The Plaintiff claims that the Defense has “argued semantics – for example stating that MINT was not a registered Political Party, and therefore by not being registered is not protected under the Campaign Espionage law, despite the fact that the law never mentions Political Parties.”

To be very clear, while it is true that MINT was not a registered Political Party, that was not the final finding. According to DoS policy, MINT was an illegitimate party – not merely “not registered.” Because it is illegitimate (not merely “not registered”, it is not protected under the Campaign Espionage law.

I’ll repeat the DoS policy here: “All legitimate parties need to be registered with the Department of State.”
(Here’s a link: https://www.democracycraft.net/threads/registration-information.54/)

If a party is not registered, it is by definition, not legitimate.

3. The Plaintiff has brought the definition of Campaign Espionage again: “Any parties participating in or accessory to the gathering, infiltration, or compromise of any sensitive information related to a political campaign that has not already been released to the public, under the instruction of another campaign or entity working in association with another campaign.”

Not only was MINT an illegitimate party, but MINT was not campaigning (that is, there was no political campaign). This is clearly stated by the Plaintiff (see Defense’s Exhibit 1, also copied here for ease of finding).

Additionally, the GER has not participated in “the gathering, infiltration, or compromise of any sensitive information related to a political campaign.” This is partially because there was no political campaign to have sensitive information, but perhaps more convincing is the lack of sensitive information itself.

Your honors, let us review the Plaintiff’s Claims for Relief regarding Campaign Espionage.
(Note: I have changed “Mint” to “MINT” and “the political party” to “MINT” even though MINT was an illegitimate party. I have also fixed typos in usernames)

• “The GER as an organization committed Campaign Espionage … [by] directing its members to infiltrate, gather, and compromise [MINT]”
  • This makes no claims about gathering, infiltrating, or compromising sensitive information, which is a requirement for Campaign Espionage.
• “LieutenantDerp[99] as an individual committed Campaign Espionage … [by] directing GER’s members to infiltrate, gather, and compromise [MINT]”
  • This makes no claims about gathering, infiltrating, or compromising sensitive information, which is a requirement for Campaign Espionage.
• “Yeet_Boy as an individual committed Campaign Espionage … [by] directing GER’s members to infiltrate, gather, and compromise [MINT]”
  • This makes no claims about gathering, infiltrating, or compromising sensitive information, which is a requirement for Campaign Espionage.
• “Jontaa as an individual committed Campaign Espionage … [by] directing GER’s members to infiltrate, gather, and compromise [MINT]”
  • This makes no claims about gathering, infiltrating, or compromising sensitive information, which is a requirement for Campaign Espionage.
• “[ultrapvpnoob] as an individual committed Campaign Espionage … [ultrapvpnoob] infiltrated, gathered, and compromised … [MINT]”
  • This makes no claims about gathering, infiltrating, or compromising sensitive information, which is a requirement for Campaign Espionage.
• “[x]tub12345 as an individual committed Campaign Espionage … [x]tub12345 infiltrated, gathered, and compromised … [MINT]”
  • This makes no claims about gathering, infiltrating, or compromising sensitive information, which is a requirement for Campaign Espionage.
• “[bananek5] as an individual committed Campaign Espionage … [bananek5] infiltrated, gathered, and compromised … [MINT]”
  • This makes no claims about gathering, infiltrating, or compromising sensitive information, which is a requirement for Campaign Espionage.
• “OakWinner as an individual committed Campaign Espionage … OakWinner infiltrated, gathered, and compromised … [MINT]”
  • This makes no claims about gathering, infiltrating, or compromising sensitive information, which is a requirement for Campaign Espionage.

4. So we see the Plaintiff say “Does it swim like a duck, does it quack like a duck, well it is a duck.”

Well, your honors. A parrot is perfectly capable of swimming and sounding like a duck, and that’s exactly what MINT did here. It sounds kind of like a political party. It acted kind of like a political party, but in the end, the DoS policy concludes it is an illegitimate party.

Regardless, the argument does not end there. As stated and shown above, the Plaintiff has failed to allege all the necessary parts of Campaign Espionage, and therefore no Campaign Espionage can be found legitimate.

5. The Plaintiff claims, “Well this is why the new evidence gathered by the Plaintiff is so important to this case, because in the screenshots of the conversation that the GER members thought they were just having between themselves ‘Bubble’ writes (Picture 003): “Jontay knew about the operation…Operation to destroy MINT” then later (Picture 009) ‘EthanPoggers’ writes: “We got MINT shut down…our mission is complete” to which xXLeiutenantDerpXx replies “yeah. We destabilized them and they shut down. We won” - seems like they had aspirations above just a little bit of murder. It is possible that they have not been entirely truthful with their counsel, something which I’m sure their counsel is not too happy about.”

First of all, this evidence only suggests that the following is true:

• Bubble (I do not know who they are in Redmont) may have believed the operation was to destroy MINT
  • This was likely referring to MINT’s military, not the political party as a whole.
• EthanPoggers (who I believe is Jontaa) believed the mission was complete after MINT was shut down.
  • Again, this was likely referring to MINT’s military, not the political party as a whole.
• xXLieutenantDerpXx (who I believe is LieutenantDerp99) believed that when MINT was shut down, the GER won.
  • Again, this was likely referring to MINT’s military, not the political party as a whole.

Regardless, even if it was found that the purpose of this operation was to shut down the political party, there’s still a severe lack of “the gathering, infiltration, or compromise of any sensitive information related to a political campaign” that is required for Campaign Espionage.

6. The Plaintiff prepared for my arguments in my 5th point, claiming, “So if the Defence affirms that the members of the GER did indeed plan and execute the plan to infiltrate MINT, and then in private they are stating the reason for this was to destabilize and shut down MINT, it is pretty cut and dry that they have admitted their guilt in this plot. The new evidence shows in plain writing the guilt of the members accused. Lastly it does not matter if they throw out this claim that despite their intention to destabilize and destroy MINT their actions were against MINT’s military, because MINT was not a military - it was an Unregistered Political Party.”

Well, once again the Plaintiff is possibly committing Perjury, directly contradicting the Plaintiff’s own evidence. Take a look at the Plaintiff’s Exhibit L > Jontaa Evidence > 003.png (also partially screenshotted below). We see the Plaintiff proclaiming “I will promise you, MINT always wins” and “MINT is an army”

Either MINT was a military, or the Plaintiff has committed Fraud by leading the Defendants in this case to believe that it was.

7. The Plaintiff says, “And so on the charge of Campaign Espionage we ask the court to come back to the intention behind the law, is the GER acting in this way a "fair political practice"? We ponder this question because stopping unfair practices is why the law was established. We would say it is not at all fair and hope the court agrees with us and moves to prevent these practices from occuring in the future, something which the new evidence shows they fully intend to do.”

The Defense is of the belief that this was not a political practice at all, but a strategic military operation that the Plaintiff wishes to paint as a political operation. Regardless, the Plaintiff is asking the court to set aside the actual law regarding Campaign Espionage, and come to a conclusion based on whether the practice was “fair.” I urge you not to make a decision contrary to the law.

8. The Plaintiff says, “Let us move onto Identity Fraud, where once again the new evidence kind stops the Defence in their tracks. You see in their Opening Statement the Defence states the following: “First, to suggest that anyone is expected to say every organization they currently belong to when trying to join another organization is a bit silly.”, well funnily enough they were all repeatedly warned on the 1st of October, the same day that the MINT application was posted due to the influx of new members, that they could not be part of the GER and MINT, and even if that wasn’t the case the issue at hand is not the fact that they were in the GER and MINT at the same time, even though that was against MINT’s rules, but instead that they joined MINT specifically claiming they were done with the GER!”

The Defense affirms that the Plaintiff sent several messages saying they could not be a member of both the GER and MINT, however, the Plaintiff retracted MINT’s application before they were able to respond, but as the Plaintiff says: that is not “the issue at hand.” (So let’s talk about the actual issue).

First, let’s take another look at the definition of Identity Fraud: “The act of fraudulently misrepresenting yourself as someone else or fraudulently claiming you have authority where you don't”

The Plaintiff is asking you, once again, to set aside the law for this verdict. It boils down to this: “they joined MINT specifically claiming they were done with the GER!” Your honors, does that sound like the Defendants misrepresented themselves as someone else? Does that sound like the Defendants claimed to have authority where they did not? While it might be possible that they could be found guilty of other crimes, it certainly does not fit the bill of Identity Fraud. To further show this, we can go through the Plaintiff’s Claims for Relief regarding Identity Fraud:
(Note: I have fixed typos in usernames)

• “LieutenantDerp[99] as an individual committed … Identity Fraud … not disclosing that they had not relinquished their position as a GER leader, which would have made them ineligible for membership with MINT.”
  • This makes no claims about LieutenantDerp99 misrepresenting themself as someone else or having authority where they do not, which is a requirement for Identity Fraud.
• “Yeet_Boy as an individual committed … Identity Fraud … sending its members to misrepresent themselves and omit the fact that they were GER members, they defrauded MINT and disrupted the political party to the point that it was destroyed. By also misrepresenting his position on merging the parties, Yeet_Boy mislead the plaintiff into quantifiable injury by destabilizing his party.”
  • This makes no claims about Yeet_Boy misrepresenting themself as someone else or having authority where they do not, which is a requirement for Identity Fraud.
• “Jontaa as an individual committed … Identity Fraud … not disclosing that they had not relinquished their position as a GER leader, which would have made them ineligible for membership with MINT.”
  • This makes no claims about Jontaa misrepresenting themself as someone else or having authority where they do not, which is a requirement for Identity Fraud.
• “[ultrapvpnoob] as an individual committed … Identity Fraud … not disclosing that they had not relinquished their position as a GER leader, which would have made them ineligible for membership with MINT.”
  • This makes no claims about ultrapvpnoob misrepresenting themself as someone else or having authority where they do not, which is a requirement for Identity Fraud.
• “[x]tub12345 as an individual committed … Identity Fraud … not disclosing that they had not relinquished their position as a GER leader, which would have made them ineligible for membership with MINT.”
  • This makes no claims about xtub12345 misrepresenting themself as someone else or having authority where they do not, which is a requirement for Identity Fraud.
• “[bananek5] as an individual committed … Identity Fraud … not disclosing that they had not relinquished their position as a GER leader, which would have made them ineligible for membership with MINT.”
  • This makes no claims about bananek5 misrepresenting themself as someone else or having authority where they do not, which is a requirement for Identity Fraud.
• “OakWinner as an individual committed … Identity Fraud … not disclosing that they had not relinquished their position as a GER leader, which would have made them ineligible for membership with MINT.”
  • This makes no claims about OakWinner misrepresenting themself as someone else or having authority where they do not, which is a requirement for Identity Fraud.

9. The Plaintiff says, “The Defence then states that MINT cannot be a victim because it was not a registered political party, while this is an utterly ridiculous point we are not even going to go into it. The victim here is the Plaintiff, The_Donuticus - the Plaintiff is the individual as the leader of the party who was the target of the fraudulent and deceitful actions. That is why this case is 'The_ Donuticus v GER…'.”

Your honors, the Plaintiff makes it very clear: The_Donuticus is the Plaintiff and believes he was the target of the allegedly fraudulent and deceitful actions. So the question becomes, why do the Claims for Relief so adamantly claim that the Defendants “disrupted the political party” and “defrauded MINT?”

Well, I cannot answer that question. Perhaps we need to throw out each Claim for Relief that is alleging actions against MINT, not against The_Donuticus.

10. The Plaintiff states, “The Defence also states “the Plaintiff did not justifiably rely on the alleged misrepresentation, as Donuticus implies that he had been aware that they were lying and that he “play[ed] along and play[ed] dumb[”], the issue is that the Plaintiff did justifiably rely on the misrepresentation, as the GER members were listed as members of MINT in its registration on the 1st of October in order to get it officially confirmed as a party. The only reason that the registration was undertaken is because of the belief of the Plaintiff that MINT would be able to be approved as an actual party, due to the influx of members. It wasn’t until after this date that Jontay revealed the information to the Plaintiff which then confirmed the suspicions the Plaintiff had. With the statement that the Plaintiff “play[ed] along and play[ed] dumb” refering to the events after that where the rally was held and the knowledge of the deceit was revealed, and the registration then being retracted due to the now knowledge that MINT would not have the members to get accepted.”

I don’t really have much to say here. It’s up to the Plaintiff to prove that he justifiably relied on the alleged misrepresentation. It’s not up to the Defense to prove he didn’t. Despite this, the Defense has at least provided enough evidence to leave significant room for doubt.

Additionally, as mentioned earlier, no elements of Identity Fraud were actually alleged – just Identity Fraud as a whole was weakly alleged.

11. The last part of the Plaintiff’s Closing Statement that I will be reviewing here, says, “However, none of this is actually consequential as the very act of joining a political party with the intention of destabilizing and destroying by way of misrepresentation of who they are is Identity Fraud. When joining a political party, people are expected to be loyal, even more so if they are taking an oath of loyalty to the party. The fact that they did so and then moved against MINT by acting as agents of the GER; they acted in a manner that fits the definition of Identity Fraud.”

Yet again, your honors, the Plaintiff asks you to set aside the law, claiming Identity Fraud without claiming the Defendants misrepresented themselves as someone else or that they claimed to have authority where they did not.

12. There are still two Claims for Relief which have not yet been mentioned, so I’ll touch on them now.

First the Plaintiff asks for LieutenantDerp99 to be charged with Slander for saying “I suspect everyone loves Donuticus.”
This statement does not cause damages to the Plaintiff, nor is it demonstrably false (one cannot prove that LieutenantDerp99 did not believe that). Finally, the Plaintiff did not show there was intent to do harm. This seems to be a despicable money-grab attempt.

Second, the Plaintiff asks for the GER as a whole to be charged with Fraud for “intentionally sending its members to misrepresent themselves and omit the fact that they were GER members.”
There are multiple problems with this:

• There is reasonable doubt to believe the Plaintiff justifiably relied on the misrepresentation
• MINT was an illegitimate party
• The Plaintiff asked them to leave or told them to leave the GER shortly before retracting MINT’s application to be a legitimate party
• If MINT was legitimate and was the victim, it seems odd that this is ‘The_Donuticus v. GER…’

And, I believe that’s all.

In conclusion, I ask two things, your honors. First, take a look at the damage caused by my clients. Were there any real, quantifiable damages? I don’t believe so. The most damage that could possibly have been done was the retraction of the MINT application, but even this was the choice of the Plaintiff, not forced by my clients. Regardless, even if it was forced by my clients, there is nothing stopping the Plaintiff from trying to form MINT again, thus showing an extreme lack of damages, yet the Plaintiff requests over $300,000 in compensation. The Plaintiff does not seem to want to see justice, rather a large sum of cash in his own pockets when my clients have merely upset him without disobeying the law.

Secondly, your honors, I implore you to look very strongly at the law. The Plaintiff fails to allege extremely important factors of most of the alleged crimes. So much so, that to rule in favor of the Plaintiff for most of these would actually set the precedent that if only a small portion of the definition of a crime is met, the actions would be considered said crime. Imagine being sued for Slander when you were completely honest, but did damage to someone’s reputation. Upon proving the validity of the statement, you were still forced to pay up. This would be the precedent being set. Again, I urge you not to set aside the law, and to uphold the laws of Redmont and the rights of my clients.

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 9th day of November 2022

 

[Dartanboy]

Your honors, I do not know what happened to the formatting there.

(Random bolds, underlines, and failed lists)

I am trying to fix it so sorry about the edit messages. I will not change the content of the arguments at all.

EDIT: I have fixed it. I accidentally included some bbcode in the arguments (particularly in ultrapvpnoob's name and the word "by"). They've been removed.

 

[Krix]

The Court is now in recess, The Supreme Court will convene and decide upon its verdict based on facts presented to the court.

Please be patient I expect this will take longer than usual due to the size of the case.

 

[Jakovus]

Your honours,

Since Dartanman left Solid Law Firm, I will be taking over the case as main representation for the Defendant. In that light, I would request the Court to deliver the verdict in the near future. While I do understand the complexity of this case, a month and a half have already elapsed since the Court issued their announcement it's in recess and to me it looks as a more than reasonable amount of time to deliver the verdict.

 

[Krix]

Verdict

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT
The_Donuticus v. GER, as an Organization, et al. [2022] SCR 18

I. PLAINTIFF'S POSITION
1. The plaintiff had intentions to recreate MINT.
2. During the time between the initial party registration application and the ultimate shutdown of MINT, select members of the Galatic Empire of Redmont (GER) caused damages to the plaintiff and his harmed his intentions to form a political party.

II. DEFENDANT'S POSITION
1. The defendant affirms some of the facts listed in the initial filing, however, disagrees with the claims which the plaintiff wishes to grants relief from
2. The defendant had no intention of destabalizing MINT as a party, only their alleged military.
3. The GER did not shutdown MINT as MINT was never formally recognized as a party.

III. THE COURT OPINION
Justice JoeGamer delievered the Opinion of the Court, in which Justce Nacholebraa joined. Chief Justice Krix filed a dissenting opinion.

Justice JoeGamer delivered the Opinion of The Court

With the great unbanning, many former political faces returned to the Commonwealth with revived ambitions and goals. Among these, The_Donuticus, founder of the now defunct political party MINT, returned with ambitions to bring back the MINT party. Seeing a potential militaristic threat, the Galactic Empire of Redmont (referred to as the GER), currently run by Yeet_Boy, drafts plans to weaken and destabilize the “MINT army”; these plans would later turn out to be “Operation Phantom” [Exhibit B]. According to plans, the goal of Operation Phantom was to infiltrate MINT, destabilize MINT’s army, and assassinate its leader, The_Donuticus (referred to as Don in Exhibit B). While in the midst of this plan, the plan is discovered. Having knowledge of the plan, The_Donuticus uses the party application as a way of gathering evidence of wrongdoing from the GER. After gathering evidence and hosting a rally, The_Donuticus withdraws his party application and releases a public memorandum acknowledging he knew about the alleged espionage and allowed the GER to continue in order to gather evidence. A few days later, The_Donuticus files a class action suit against members of the GER, as well as the GER itself. The case itself alleges damages from campaign espionage, identity fraud, and slander.
Before addressing the alleged damages, it is important to establish two ideas, MINT as a political campaign and the purpose of civil court. Based on the actions of MINT, while not formally recognized as a political party, its actions were still that of a political campaign. This will be used when assessing the alleged damage due to campaign espionage. Second, it is important for this court to outline the purpose of the civil court. The civil court is used to obtain compensation and punitive damages as a result of actions done by the defendant. The civil court is not a citizen laying out criminal charges and pursuing these charges. Instead, civil court should be seen as a party seeking compensation as a result of actions done, whether that be from criminal statute or extraneous circumstances.
When looking at the alleged damages because of the GER’s attempted campaign espionage, it is unclear whether the alleged damages would have occurred if The_Donuticus had removed the GER members from MINT when finding out about Operation Phantom. As previously established, MINT is a political campaign. Given the activities of the GER, it is clear that the GER was an opposing political campaign. Had action been done by MINT when first hearing about the potential espionage occurring, this entire situation may have been avoided, however, the plaintiff allowed damages to continue. When a party allows damages to occur, they null themselves from receiving any compensation and punitive relief.
When looking at damages due to identity fraud, it is unlikely that any damages were suffered as a result of the GER’s actions. In the initial filing facts section, the plaintiff admits to discovering the plan. However, instead of acting on this knowledge, the plaintiff admits to “shut[ing] down the party after gathering evidence.” Furthermore, in a public memorandum posted in MINT’s political party application, The_Donuticus admits letting the GER “ run rapanant.” In civil cases, the standard of proof is the balance of probabilities. Had they taken proper action when hearing about the plan, all the havoc caused by the GER would have been avoided. The fact is the plaintiff allowed the GER to cause chaos and harm MINT. These damages are not the fault of the GER but of The_Donuticus’s inaction to remove a problem. Now it is impossible to gauge the damage actually done prior to being informed of the plan since no official timeline has been established by either party. Purposely allowing damages to occur makes the damaged party’s request for compensation invalid. If one allows something to happen, they must pay the consequence of their actions (or lack thereof).
When it comes to slander, it is important to answer two questions: (1) Did the comment damage the reputation, character, or good name of the plaintiff and (2) Did the defendant have an intent to harm the plaintiff? The comment in question [Exhibit F] raises the difference between a false statement and a slanderous statement. It is important to note that not all false statements are slander. The plaintiff is correct in pointing out that not everybody loves The_Donuticus, but this statement does not damage the reputation, character, or good name of the plaintiff. The claims of slander fail both tests and no damages have been proven by the plaintiff over the defendant’s statement.
When looking at this case in whole, the biggest factor in this case was the fact the plaintiff saw the GER, saw the damages being committed, and did not do anything within their power to stop the GER; by their own admission, they allowed these to occur to gather evidence. This is unacceptable and will not be tolerated in civil court. Gathering evidence for damages is always allowed (this is the nature of civil court), however, when a party must allow damages to occur under their own accord, this is not damages which relief can be claimed.

Chief Justice Krix's dissent

When looking at the case The_Donuticus v. GER, et al. [2022] SCR 18 it is clear that the GER had a malicious intent to undermine the stability of MINT and cause it damage. It is also relevant to note that MINT operated as a "campaign" and therefore was covered under campaign espionage laws which stipulate the definition for campaign as "An entity which is politically motivated and has objectives it wishes to accomplish through political means with the aim of influencing law or government policy."
MINT clear was a politically motivated organisation and had objectives it wished to accomplish through political means, regardless of whether it was a registered political party or not. Operation Phantoms entire purpose was aimed towards the "gathering, infiltration, or compromise of any sensitive information related to a political campaign that has not already been released to the public" in relation to their activities within MINT.

Therefore I believe any member involved in operation Phantom engaged in an act of Campaign Espionage against MINT and should be charged with punitive damages of $5,000 each; and in the event any member involved in operation Phantom be in a Public Office within the Commonwealth of Redmont they should be removed from their position forthwith. However this leaves the question, were any damages suffered by the plaintiff as a result of the acts of the defendant(s)?, I believe damages were suffered, be it not monetary losses. A large amount of time goes into the creation and running of any organisation let alone a political campaign. It is clear to me that the actions by the defendant(s) sabotaged this work through creating an atmosphere within the campaign of paranoia and deceit due to members of operation Phantom not acting in a manner of good faith upon joining MINT, actively attempting to destabilize the party. Based on these facts It is my opinion that this court should award the extra punitive damages requested in the plaintiffs prayer for relief in order to compensate for this loss of time, and stress caused by the perpetrators involved in operation Phantom.

Lastly, It is not my belief than an onus shouldn't be placed upon a victim to interfere when damages incurred as a result of an agent engaging in criminal acts are being done against them, or an entity they own; I believe this would create a dangerous precedent where victims of criminal acts are forced to place themselves in harms-way in order to guarantee their eligibility to receive the compensatory damages they are owed. This belief carries over to the case The_Donuticus v. GER, et al. [2022] SCR 18

IV. DECISION
The Supreme Court rules in favor of the defendants and grants the following relief:
1. A sum of $7,000 in total, to cover legal fees for the defendant

The Supreme Court thanks all involved.