Motion
MOTION TO DISMISS
Frivolous Claims/Lack of Claim/Res Judicata
Your honour, this case is nothing but frivolous.
The Plaintiff has claimed that:
1. I have defamed them by making malicious statements which have incurred damages which are damages unproven, unquantified, and not presented. Further, there is no clear evidence supporting any incorrect statements made.
2. I have slandered the plaintiff through public statements. There is no clear evidence supporting any incorrect statements made.
Lets talk about specific instances:
1. On December 27th 2024 President UnityMaster hired himself as Secretary of Construction & Transportation.
Evidence suggests that this occurred on the 29th of December and that no key stakeholders such as Department Leadership, the Public, or Congress were aware of his appointment. The Plaintiff has failed to prove otherwise, and it is improbable that this would have gone unnoticed by the nation for 72+ hours.
2. On January 1st 2025 at 17:10 GMT xEndeavour posted a Discord message which claimed that President UnityMaster made themselves Secretary of Construction and Transportation while The_Superior10 was still in the role and fired him. xEndeavour also claimed that President UnityMaster stopped approving projects, stole a build from FlyingBlocks, planned to remove the racetrack, promoted unqualified constructors, firing deputy secretaries and not appointing new ones and leaking classified information.
I have provided evidence of Superior being the Secretary on this date and making statements on the 29th of December claiming that he was still Secretary and not tracking any changes to his employment. He held roles concurrently to Secretary Superior, if his story lines up, for up to three days. The plaintiff has failed to prove otherwise.
The plaintiff has failed to show that Unity was approving projects.
The plaintiff's government was found to have wrongly taken FLyingBlock's building in a concurrent court proceeding.
(Res Judicata)
The plaintiff says that the racetrack [bathurst] is moving in D-008.
The plaintiff promoted Justadumpling from Trainee Constructor to Construction Manager on or around 30 Dec (d-007). The members were removed from that role after Unity left office due to not being suitably qualified.
As you can see below, the Secretary provides that we had six deputies which were dismissed by unity, and which Unity discusses in evidence above himself.
D-017
The Dept. of Justice has not pursued a charges against me for leaking classified information. I invoked my rights as a whistleblower to release information as discussed with the Dept. of Justice.
3. On January 2nd 2025 Politico, xEndeavours news agency, released an article claiming that President Unitymaster is facing scrutiny for several actions taken during his presidency. It claimed that President UnityMaster dismissed the Secretary of Construction and Transport, The_Superior10, and appointed himself to the role without informing relevant parties. The article also aleges that President UnityMaster failed to respond to requests from the Department of Construction and Transport and did not attend his own confirmation hearing. The article also claims that President UnityMaster bypassed department leadership to hire individuals to senior positions, which allegedly raised legal concerns. The article claims as well that president UnityMaster authorized the seizure of Abbots property at a significantly lower price than its market value, resulting in a lawsuit. His proposed relocation of key buildings has allegedly caused public controversy. Additionally, the article claimed that President UnityMaster fired all deputy secretaries without appointing replacements and limited staff involvement in project updates. There are also alleged reports of unpaid commissions and department commitments. These actions have raised allegedly questions about President UnityMaster's leadership and legal adherence.
I invite the plaintiff to read the constitution and specifically pay attention to the right to political communication. Not only is this all true, as shown above, it's protected by rights, regardless of who authoured the article.
The Plaintiff is yet to prove any of their arguments, has had almost all of their arguments disproven by defence evidence, and is asking irrelevant questions about an article I didn't author.
This case is frivolous your honour, there is no two ways about it.