Lawsuit: Adjourned Unseatedduke1 v. The Radish [2024] DCR 26

Status
Not open for further replies.
The motion is sustained, and the intellectual property claim is dismissed. Quoting someone does not constitute an infringement of intellectual property. The prayer for relief related to the claim is stricken as well.
Alexander P. Love said:
Motion to Dismiss
Your honor, I motion to dismiss the intellectual property claim under rule 5.5 as the law completely does not apply to these facts. Quoting someone's opinions does not come close to intellectual property infringement. I therefore move to strike the compensatory prayer for relief under this claim.
Click to expand...
 
Alexander P. Love said:
Objection, Your Honor
Relevance

This article is irrelevant to a case about defamation involving alleged misquoting of the plaintiff. This article appears to be about the Courts moreso than the plaintiff.
Click to expand...
COUNTER OBJECTION

This piece of evidence (P-007) is relevant because it is proof of a continued and sustained attack against the plaintiff as the defendant continues to write libelous and defamatory statements in retaliation for a lawsuit.
 
Alexander P. Love said:
Objection, Your Honor
Relevance

This article is irrelevant to a case about defamation involving alleged misquoting of the plaintiff. This article appears to be about the Courts moreso than the plaintiff.
Click to expand...
The objection is overruled. The article is relevant to the case and will be considered.
 
Aladeen said:
The motion is sustained, and the intellectual property claim is dismissed. Quoting someone does not constitute an infringement of intellectual property. The prayer for relief related to the claim is stricken as well.
Click to expand...
MOTION TO RECONSIDER

Your Honor, the motion to dismiss in question provided no actual argument for why the claim in question should be dismissed. According to the Intellectual Property Act, we have the right to sue for breach of contract for copying an individual's work and displaying an individual's work in public [Section 5.1(a), Section 5.1(d)]. The defendant did not make a fair use claim under Section 8. The plaintiff deserves to have the claim be heard on its merits, regarding why the claim may not be granted with full arguments made by both sides, instead of being dismissed on its face. The intellectual property claim for relief should be reinstated and the motion to dismiss overruled.

Act of Congress - Intellectual Property Act
 
Alexander P. Love said:
Objection, Your Honor
Hearsay

This evidence includes out of court statements that cannot be cross examined.
Click to expand...
Objection overruled. The statement does indeed fall under the hearsay exception.
 
IncompleteRiver said:
MOTION TO RECONSIDER

Your Honor, the motion to dismiss in question provided no actual argument for why the claim in question should be dismissed. According to the Intellectual Property Act, we have the right to sue for breach of contract for copying an individual's work and displaying an individual's work in public [Section 5.1(a), Section 5.1(d)]. The defendant did not make a fair use claim under Section 8. The plaintiff deserves to have the claim be heard on its merits, regarding why the claim may not be granted with full arguments made by both sides, instead of being dismissed on its face. The intellectual property claim for relief should be reinstated and the motion to dismiss overruled.

Act of Congress - Intellectual Property Act
Click to expand...
The motion to reconsider is sustained. The plaintiff deserves a case to hear the merits of the intellectual property claim. The intellectual property claim and the prayer for relief related to the claim are reinstated.
 
The objection is sustained. I feel Augustus/Dartanboy's identity is not relevant to the case and will not be considered.
Alexander P. Love said:
Objection, Your Honor
Relevance

I fail to see how the identity of Augustus/Dart are relevant in these proceedings.
Click to expand...
 
Alexander P. Love said:
Your honor, I was at work and got off later than expected. It was only by a few minutes. Considering the surprise claim filed against the defense, I think a little leniency is to be awarded.
Click to expand...
Sustained, due to IRL commitments the witness list presented by the defendant will be allowed.
 
Motion to Dismiss
Your honor, I move to dismiss the IP claim and prayer for relief under lack of claim 5.5 as the law clearly carves “news reporting” out as an exception to IP infringement in section 8 under fair use. Therefore the plaintiff cannot sue a news company for this.
 
Discovery has now ended. The Plaintiff has 72 hours to provide an Opening Statement.
 
Alexander P. Love said:
Motion to Dismiss
Your honor, I move to dismiss the IP claim and prayer for relief under lack of claim 5.5 as the law clearly carves “news reporting” out as an exception to IP infringement in section 8 under fair use. Therefore the plaintiff cannot sue a news company for this.
Click to expand...
The motion to dismiss is overruled. However, the argument presented by the defendant in the motion will be heavily considered in the verdict.
 
Aladeen said:
Discovery has now ended. The Plaintiff has 72 hours to provide an Opening Statement.
Click to expand...
Friendly reminder to the plaintiff that they have 24 hours to provide an Opening Statement.
 
OPENING STATEMENT

Good afternoon, Your Honor.

This case is fairly straightforward. The Radish, a news reporting company, published an article containing false, defamatory, and libelous statements about the plaintiff, Unseatedduke1. These statements not only misconstrued the plaintiff’s position falsely, but also published with reckless disregard for the truth, causing substantial damage to the plaintiff’s professional reputation as a judge. Additionally, the defendant used the plaintiff's written post in their article without permission, constituting a clear violation of copyright law.

The plaintiff was harmed by the specific actions of the defendant. Initially, the plaintiff attempted to reason and negotiate with the defendant on this matter. The plaintiff sent a Cease & Desist letter wanting not to be defamed any longer, the post be removed, and an apology that the statements were false (see P-004). The defendant ignored the plaintiff’s letter and refused to negotiate in a straightforward manner to resolve this issue (see P-003). The defendant’s refusal on the matter led to this case in the District Court of Redmont. Since the case began, the defendant has launched a campaign of targeted attacks at both the plaintiff and the plaintiff’s counsel.

To begin with, the defendant made another attack against the plaintiff in an article titled “Not The Radish: Judge Unseatedduke1 Sues the Radish.” The defendant again commits libel against the plaintiff by creating a fictitious quote and attributing it to the plaintiff (see P-008). Also in this article, the defendant makes the claim that they are non-satirical while posting under The Radish’s account, blurring the line between their “satire” and news reporting. The prior defendant’s owner, AugustusPlays, made references that he was being sued for “making a joke” (see P-006). The defendant, 12 minutes later, makes another posting titled “Massive Protest Outside Federal Court” making specific and untrue claims that people gathered to express “their disappointment in… legal attacks against The Radish” (see P-007).

On July 26, 2024, the defendant posted another article once again defaming the plaintiff, and this time their counsel as well. In an article titled “New Management”, the defendant claims that they are “crushing the authoritarian mob in their latest valiant attempt to suppress the freedom of speech.” The defendant creates a fictitious quote for the plaintiff’s counsel saying, “‘This lawsuit is a landmark case. Today we have the chance to suppress the press once and for all, so that we may have a more democratic society.’” The defendant also creates another fictitious quote for the plaintiff saying, “‘Our democratic values are under attack by the media. It’s time to return rights to the people’” (see P-010).

The defendant consistently blurs the line between satire and news reporting. In some posts, they call themselves “Not the Radish” and state that they will be giving factual information. However, in other posts, the defendant gives factual information while creating further defamation. As far as the plaintiff is aware, in the article titled “New Management'', the defendant indeed confirms the existence of a transfer of ownership. The defendant is transferring ownership from AugustusPlays to AlexanderLove. They do so while defaming the plaintiff and adding a disclaimer at the bottom that the post was satire, showing how the defendant blurs between what should and should not be believed.

These targeted attacks towards the plaintiff and their counsel, misquoting and creating fictitious quotes, and misusing or abusing the plaintiff’s words (or made-up words) show that even if the defendant stuck solely to the realm of satire, their conduct, and specific false statements rise to the level of defamation and libel. Thus the plaintiff should succeed in this legal matter.

On Legal Precedents and Admissions​

In the case of xLayzur & Krix v. Politico [2023] FCR 62 (Link), it was established that the publication of false statements constitutes defamation and libel, even when disguised as reporting on public interest disclosures. The court ruled that journalistic freedom and expression of political communication does not extend to publishing false information that damages an individual's reputation. We extend this precedent to the Radish, whose publications of false statements have defamed and libeled the plaintiff when reported as news. The Federal Court’s decisions are binding in the district court under section 18.b of the Constitution “The Federal Court of Redmont is the appellate court for the District Court of Redmont.”

The standards for Libel are as follows:

On The Standards of Libel (1)

Therefore, there are three facts that must be shown for a statement to be libel:

1. The statement must be published.

  • The defendant has published multiple articles in the #news section of the DemocracyCraft Discord (see P-001, P-007, P-008, and P-010).
2. The statement must be false.

  • The defendant’s statements have been false via either misrepresentation, attribution of fictitious quotes against the plaintiff, or creating fake scenarios to attack the plaintiff (see P-001, P-007, P-008, and P-010).
3. The statement must have caused damage.

  • The plaintiff is currently paying their counsel billable hours to resolve this legal matter, thus harming their financial status. The plaintiff is harmed by reputation as well as professional standing because of their position as a Judge.
The case also established that conduct or allegations that exist in the public record cannot be sued for libel, “the fact that there was a prosecution bolsters the fact that misconduct was alleged… the allegations were certainly in existence, and certainly under some level of public scrutiny… Thus, not only has the defendant shown that the statement might be true – the Defendant has shown that the statement is true” (Link). That has not happened here. The defendant has provided no evidence in discovery that any of the claims that they made were actually true. The plaintiff has provided evidence that the statements made were false.

The defendant states that they are a “news reporting” company. False statements, regardless of political communication or news reporting status, can be sued for libel “these are specific, false claims about specific actions and results, the court believes that it is not protected by these Constitutional rights… the Freedom of Political Communication and the Freedom of Press and Media cannot protect you when making direct, specific, defamatory statements” (Link). The defendant has made direct, specific, defamatory statements against the plaintiff and thus falls under the holding of xLayzur & Krix v. Politico [2023] FCR 62.

On the Defense’s Claims​

I. Allegation of No Proof of Damages

The defense argues that "damages from slander and libel are not presumed and must be proven in a court of law" and that the Plaintiff has not provided proof or alleged damages. This is incorrect. The Plaintiff has provided extensive evidence of damages, including reputational harm and emotional distress, substantiated by documented evidence and will be further substantiated via witness testimony.

II. Allegation of No Intent to Harm

The defense claims that the Plaintiff did not present evidence of intent to harm and that the disclaimer at the bottom of the article negates any intent. That is incorrect. The presence of a disclaimer does not absolve the defendant from liability if the overall context and presentation of the article were designed to harm the plaintiff’s reputation. The nature of the repeated and sustained defamation and libel against the plaintiff shows that the defendant had an intent to harm the plaintiff’s reputation, especially after this District Court of Redmont case was launched. Defendant’s use of their disclaimer has also been sporadic and misapplied, given that their articles will give factual information while also attempting to satirize.

III. Intellectual Property Claim

The defense argues that quoting someone is not an infringement of intellectual property. However, Section 5.1(f) of the Intellectual Property Act (Link) states that publishing an individual's work on the Internet without permission constitutes a breach of copyright. The defendant used Unseatedduke1’s message in their article without obtaining permission, which directly violates this provision. A public message such as this qualifies as a creative work. Section 3.2(a) states that copyright protection shall encompass original literary works. Since the message was written, it qualifies as an original literary work. The unauthorized use of the Plaintiff’s original message, presented as part of a defamatory narrative, is a clear breach of copyright law. This infringement is not protected under the fair use provision of the Intellectual Property Act, as the purpose and character of the use is defamatory.

On Damages and Copyright Infringement​

The defense's argument that there are no calculable damages is flawed. The publication of defamatory statements has led to legal compensatory damages as the plaintiff has to pay legal counsel to attempt to resolve this matter. Furthermore, The Radish’s unauthorized use of Unseatedduke1’s message in their article without permission is a clear breach of the Intellectual Property Act, Section 3.2(a), which protects the original works of authors from being used without their consent.

The evidence and arguments provided in this statement as well as the amended complaint demonstrate that the defendant published false, defamatory, and libelous statements against the plaintiff, causing significant harm. Additionally, their unauthorized use of the plaintiff's literary work constitutes a clear violation of copyright law. We respectfully request that the court hold the defendant accountable for their actions and award the requested damages to the plaintiff for the harm suffered.
 
The Defendant has 72 hours to provide an Opening Statement.
 
Friendly reminder to the Defendant that they have less than 24 hours to provide an Opening Statement.
 
May it please the Court,

Your honor, opposing council, and ladies & gentlemen gathered in witness of this case, this is a case of suppression for sensitivity. That's right: the plaintiff's sensitivity to criticism in the form of satire leads to this case of media suppression. Suppression for sensitivity; remember that as we move through this trial today.

The plaintiff contends that the Radish defamed him, but civil defamation has four components:
1. The statements must be false: let's break this down a bit. You could interpret this provision in a couple of ways. Is saying something that is not true in all cases to be false, or is saying something untrue while passing it as true, false? Point being, the Radish stated the contents of the article were false and not to be believed. We never passed anything untrue as true.
2. The statements must be defamatory: the Radish contends that the statements are not defamatory to a reasonable person, as it was clear that the statements were not meant to be taken seriously. The disclaimer at the bottom prevents the statements from being defamatory.
3. There must be intent to defame: The Radish contends that the disclaimer proves there was no intent to harm the plaintiff's reputation, only to entertain the public with satirical journalism.
4. There must be provable damages: the Plaintiff has not provided any evidence of material damages. Being offended via "emotional distress" is a slippery slope as anyone can claim they are offended about anything, make up a sob story, and sue them for money. Emotional damages must be supported by a real cause of action. Being written about in a satirical article wouldn't emotionally damage a reasonable person; most people laugh. The plaintiff also claims legal fees as an expense, but legal fees are an expense incurred as a result of the plaintiff hiring the lawyer: the article itself did not impose legal damages on the plaintiff. If this weren't the case, I could sue anyone for anything, and claim legal damages as my only damages. It's an obviously absurd argument that needs to be dismantled by the Court.

The plaintiff contends there is copyright violation. Under section 8 of that law, fair use carves out an exception for news reporting and criticism. Satire is a form of both, and is therefore protected against intellectual property infringement claims. To posit that a quotation is copyrightable is also laughable, as copyright protects creative works. A political opinion or criticism isn't a creative work, and it is common practice to use others' quotes for public discourse, reporting, and more. The Radish also had no commercial gain off this article.

In conclusion, the Court must protect the rights of the Radish. Free journalism is a cornerstone in a healthy democracy, and people are going to get offended. The nature of democracy is some people are pleased, others aren't: but the majority are happy. Unseatedduke1, while offended, was not treated outside of the law. He wasn't harmed, and he wasn't defamed. The Court must find the defense not liable on all claims.
 
```
pgyfUC4.png


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

@Unseatedduke1 and @Dartanboy are required to appear before the District Court in the case of Unseatedduke1 v. The Radish [2024] DCR 26.

Failure to appear within 48 hours of this summons will result in a Contempt of Court charge.​
 
Present your honor
 
Present, your honor. May I ask why I was summoned?
 
@IncompleteRiver you may begin questioning the witnesses, please do so within the next 24 hours. Witnesses please respond within the next 24 hours after the questions have been posted.
 
Your Honor can I get a 24 hour extension my lawyer is busy irl?
 
Your honor, the plaintiff has failed to question the witnesses in time. I move to dismiss both witnesses and move to closing statements.
 
The defendant has a right to a speedy trial. The defendant may begin to cross-examine the plaintiff's witness within the next 24 hours. The witness must respond to the questions within 24 hours after they have been posted.
 
Your honor,

Might I submit an Amicus Brief regarding the law about denying Mr. Duke's request?
 
you may
 
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF

Your honor,

It is no secret that I strongly support the Radish in this case, but I also support the fundamental principles of justice. Among those fundamental principles is the right to a fair trial.

Yes, the Radish has the right to a speedy trial, but that doesn't remove the right to a fair trial.

The Plaintiff, Unseatedduke1, appeared and asked for a small extension, and it was apparently denied, as he was not the lawyer.

To me, this appears to be a miscarriage of justice. The Plaintiff asked for a short extension to an already short deadline (so short it frankly wouldn't have been reasonable to expect it to have been seen), and it was denied.

I think the court ought to reconsider the decision that, to me, seems as though it ignored the Plaintiff's right to a fair trial.

Thank you.
 
Aladeen said:
The defendant has a right to a speedy trial. The defendant may begin to cross-examine the plaintiff's witness within the next 24 hours. The witness must respond to the questions within 24 hours after they have been posted.
Click to expand...
This is stricken, the plaintiff has a 24-hour extension.
 
Witness Questions for Unseatedduke1
1. Can you describe your initial reaction when you first read The Radish's article titled "Judge Unseatedduke1 Joins Fight Against Big Media"?
2. Were you asked for your words to be used in that article?
3. Did you want your words to be used in that article?
4. How did it make you feel to see your name and likeness associated with a stance that you do not support?
5. How did you feel when the defendant refused to comply with your request for retraction and apology?
6. Did the refusal to comply make the situation worse for you?
 
Sustained. Please rephrase the question to clarify the situation your referring to.
 
Aladeen said:
Sustained. Please rephrase the question to clarify the situation your referring to.
Click to expand...
Did the refusal by the defendant to comply make the damages relating to the situation any harder to bear?
 
1. My initial reaction was surprise, I was not expecting my words to be used like that.
2. No, I was not.
3. No, I did not. I do not want to make published statements outside of #government-announcements in the main discord.
4. It made me feel upset because I did not want my words used in that manner and worried because I believe it is affecting my professional reputation as a judge.
5. I wasn't happy. I was willing to compromise but the publication refused to work with me on the issue I was having with them.
6. Yes, because I had to sue the publication to attempt to resolve the issue. From then on, I have been mocked and ridiculed by the public. I did not want to be in this situation in the first place, now I am paying a law firm to try and protect me against libelous use of my words against me as well as the defamation campaign that has been launched since.
 
Sustained, the defendant may begin to cross-examine the plaintiff's witness within the next 24 hours. The witness must respond to the questions within 24 hours after they have been posted.
 
Unseatedduke1 said:
I do not want to make published statements outside of #government-announcements in the main discord.
Click to expand...
Objection; nothing pending

Unseatedduke1 said:
because I did not want my words used in that manner and worried because I believe it is affecting my professional reputation as a judge.
Click to expand...
Objection; nothing pending

Unseatedduke1 said:
I was willing to compromise but the publication refused to work with me on the issue I was having with them.
Click to expand...
Objection; nothing pending

Unseatedduke1 said:
because I had to sue the publication to attempt to resolve the issue. From then on, I have been mocked and ridiculed by the public. I did not want to be in this situation in the first place, now I am paying a law firm to try and protect me against libelous use of my words against me as well as the defamation campaign that has been launched since.
Click to expand...
Objection; nothing pending
 
The objections are overruled. The witness's responses are relevant to the case, and the context provided is important for understanding the impact of the news stories on their reputation.
 
Aladeen said:
Sustained, the defendant may begin to cross-examine the plaintiff's witness within the next 24 hours. The witness must respond to the questions within 24 hours after they have been posted.
Click to expand...
MOTION TO RECONSIDER

Your honor, Half the answer that was struck was relevant to the question. The plaintiff's initial reaction was surprise and they described it by saying that they were not expecting their words to be used in that manner. "I was not expecting my words to be used like that" described the plaintiff's reaction to the The Radish's article titled "Judge Unseatedduke1 Joins Fight Against Big Media." The objection was only for answers that "continues to speak on matters irrelevant to the question" (see Guide - Objections Guide).
 
IncompleteRiver said:
MOTION TO RECONSIDER

Your honor, Half the answer that was struck was relevant to the question. The plaintiff's initial reaction was surprise and they described it by saying that they were not expecting their words to be used in that manner. "I was not expecting my words to be used like that" described the plaintiff's reaction to the The Radish's article titled "Judge Unseatedduke1 Joins Fight Against Big Media." The objection was only for answers that "continues to speak on matters irrelevant to the question" (see Guide - Objections Guide).
Click to expand...
Sustained
 
@Alexander P. Love you may begin questioning your witness, please do so within the next 24 hours. Witness, please respond within 24 hours after the questions have been posted.
 
Your honor,

I am posting on the behalf of Lead Attorney IncompleteRiver and Prodigium. We have further witness questions that we wanted to ask pending the defendants cross. Since the defendant failed to cross examine on the first round of questions, we request to ask our second round of questions to @Unseatedduke1.

Yours truly,
Matthew100x
Managing Partner of Prodigium
 
Overruled, we have now moved on from questioning the plaintiffs witness and now it’s time for questioning the defendants witness.
 
Unseatedduke1 said:
1. My initial reaction was surprise, I was not expecting my words to be used like that.
2. No, I was not.
3. No, I did not. I do not want to make published statements outside of #government-announcements in the main discord.
4. It made me feel upset because I did not want my words used in that manner and worried because I believe it is affecting my professional reputation as a judge.
5. I wasn't happy. I was willing to compromise but the publication refused to work with me on the issue I was having with them.
6. Yes, because I had to sue the publication to attempt to resolve the issue. From then on, I have been mocked and ridiculed by the public. I did not want to be in this situation in the first place, now I am paying a law firm to try and protect me against libelous use of my words against me as well as the defamation campaign that has been launched since.
Click to expand...
1. What is satire?
2. Isn’t it true that The Radish is an established satire newspaper?
3. Isn’t it true there is a disclaimer on the bottom of the Radish article?
4. When have you been ridiculed by the public?
5. Isn’t it true the Radish negotiated a deal with you, and you declined?

The defense may have more questions later.
 
1. I'm not sure of the exact definition at the moment.
2. I'm not exactly sure what you mean by 'satire newspaper.
3. I'm not sure if there is a disclaimer; I don't recall seeing one.
4. After the article was published, some people in the public made comments and laughed at me in a voice chat.
5. Yes, there was a proposal, and I've attached what was referred to as the deal.

1723325447445.png
 
Unseatedduke1 said:
1. I'm not sure of the exact definition at the moment.
2. I'm not exactly sure what you mean by 'satire newspaper.
3. I'm not sure if there is a disclaimer; I don't recall seeing one.
4. After the article was published, some people in the public made comments and laughed at me in a voice chat.
5. Yes, there was a proposal, and I've attached what was referred to as the deal.

View attachment 46395
Click to expand...
6. Are you literate?
7. Isn’t it true you are a Judge and former lawyer?
8. Isn’t it true that profession has to be detail oriented?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top