Lawsuit: Dismissed xEndeavour v. AlexanderLove [2025] DCR 1

[End]

Case Filing

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

xEndeavour
Plaintiff

v.

AlexanderLove
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains that the Defendant has defamed them.

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

Parts of the statement is objectively false, including assertion of crimes committed.

I. PARTIES
1. xEndeavour
2. Alexanderlove

II. FACTS
1. Defamation is defined in the No More Defamation Act as:
(a) Defamation is a false statement and/or communication that injures a third party's reputation. The tort of defamation includes both libel and slander.

2. Slander is defined in the No More Defamation Act as:
(a) A false statement, usually made through either discord or in-game messages, which defames another person’s reputation, business, profession, or organization.

3. The defendant said the following:

4. The complainant has not been found guilty of Obstruction of Justice.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Slanderous comments
2. Damage to reputation - unmeasurable

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. $40,000 in consequential damages vide Act of Congress - Legal Damages Act. (Amended to be within DC original jurisdiction).

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 4th day of January 2025

 

[ko531]

Writ of Summons

@Alexander P. Love is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of xEndeavour v. Alexanderlove [2025] DCR1

Failure to appear within 72 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.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Writ of Summons

@Alexander P. Love is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of xEndeavour v. Alexanderlove [2025] DCR1

Failure to appear within 72 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.

Motion

Your honor, I move to recuse the presiding officer due to a conflict of interest and the potential perception of bias due to having a known, public feud with ko531, and furthermore am prosecuting this magistrate and have been several times prosecuted by this magistrate (prior work as a lawyer is reason to recuse as well).

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Case Filing

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

xEndeavour
Plaintiff

v.

AlexanderLove
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains that the Defendant has defamed them.

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

Parts of the statement is objectively false, including assertion of crimes committed.

I. PARTIES
1. xEndeavour
2. Alexanderlove

II. FACTS
1. Defamation is defined in the No More Defamation Act as:
(a) Defamation is a false statement and/or communication that injures a third party's reputation. The tort of defamation includes both libel and slander.

2. Slander is defined in the No More Defamation Act as:
(a) A false statement, usually made through either discord or in-game messages, which defames another person’s reputation, business, profession, or organization.

3. The defendant said the following:

View attachment 50797

View attachment 50798

4. The complainant has not been found guilty of Obstruction of Justice.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Slanderous comments
2. Damage to reputation - unmeasurable

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. $40,000 in consequential damages vide Act of Congress - Legal Damages Act. (Amended to be within DC original jurisdiction).

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 4th day of January 2025

Objection

Breach of Procedure

The plaintiff amended his filing without permission from the presiding officer, per court rules and procedures. I motion for the amendment to be struck.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Case Filing

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

xEndeavour
Plaintiff

v.

AlexanderLove
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains that the Defendant has defamed them.

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

Parts of the statement is objectively false, including assertion of crimes committed.

I. PARTIES
1. xEndeavour
2. Alexanderlove

II. FACTS
1. Defamation is defined in the No More Defamation Act as:
(a) Defamation is a false statement and/or communication that injures a third party's reputation. The tort of defamation includes both libel and slander.

2. Slander is defined in the No More Defamation Act as:
(a) A false statement, usually made through either discord or in-game messages, which defames another person’s reputation, business, profession, or organization.

3. The defendant said the following:

View attachment 50797

View attachment 50798

4. The complainant has not been found guilty of Obstruction of Justice.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Slanderous comments
2. Damage to reputation - unmeasurable

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. $40,000 in consequential damages vide Act of Congress - Legal Damages Act. (Amended to be within DC original jurisdiction).

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 4th day of January 2025

Motion

Motion to Dismiss

Your honor, I move to dismiss this case under rule 5.5, lack of claim. There is no proof of damages, which is required to collect damages in civil court per the No More Defamation Act. Furthermore, the plaintiff claims he wasn’t convicted with obstruction of justice, but there is no claim or evidence to refute that he did not commit obstruction of justice. It is provably true that the plaintiff leaked classified information, was convicted of corruption in the past, and indeed obstructed justice by evading a lawful order of detainment from the Department of Justice, the definition of the law.

 

[ko531]

Motion

Your honor, I move to recuse the presiding officer due to a conflict of interest and the potential perception of bias due to having a known, public feud with ko531, and furthermore am prosecuting this magistrate and have been several times prosecuted by this magistrate (prior work as a lawyer is reason to recuse as well).

Motion to Recuse is denied.

There are two reason I am denying this recusal. Firstly I understand the prosecution against me and the previous prosecutions I have worked on against the defendant of this case. I also understand that for both myself and the defendant, prosecuting someone is a job and I can separate the employee from the person. I am able to separate the cases to where I feel confident in my ability to bring no biases to this case

Second is the precedent this would set. If I were to accept this motion then that would mean that I could never preside over any case in which Alexanderlove or anyone I prosecuted working for the DOJ is involved with and as many AGs become judicial officers, they could not preside over any case with a party that they directly help prosecute. I believe it is important for the DOJ to be able to do its job how it sees fit (as allowed by the constitution) without putting unnecessary strains on the Judiciary as both are very closely related.

So unless the defendant has direct evidence to any sort of bias I may have for this case in particular and not just presumed ambiguous bias against the defense, This motion will stay Denied.

 

[ko531]

Objection

Breach of Procedure

The plaintiff amended his filing without permission from the presiding officer, per court rules and procedures. I motion for the amendment to be struck.

Overruled.

The edit was declared and explained as necessary by the court rules and procedures. I will ask the plaintiff from now on to ask first but I will not be striking anything or issuing any punishments.

 

[ko531]

Motion

Motion to Dismiss

Your honor, I move to dismiss this case under rule 5.5, lack of claim. There is no proof of damages, which is required to collect damages in civil court per the No More Defamation Act. Furthermore, the plaintiff claims he wasn’t convicted with obstruction of justice, but there is no claim or evidence to refute that he did not commit obstruction of justice. It is provably true that the plaintiff leaked classified information, was convicted of corruption in the past, and indeed obstructed justice by evading a lawful order of detainment from the Department of Justice, the definition of the law.

Motion to Dismiss is denied.

As this motion only addresses lack of supporting evidence I will not entertain a motion like this at this time. The Plaintiff still has all of discovery to submit this evidence. Once discovery has ended then I will entertain claims for dismissal on the basis of lacking evidence.

 

[ko531]

As both parties are present, we will now enter Discovery. Discovery will last 72 hours starting now

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Motion to Recuse is denied.

There are two reason I am denying this recusal. Firstly I understand the prosecution against me and the previous prosecutions I have worked on against the defendant of this case. I also understand that for both myself and the defendant, prosecuting someone is a job and I can separate the employee from the person. I am able to separate the cases to where I feel confident in my ability to bring no biases to this case

Second is the precedent this would set. If I were to accept this motion then that would mean that I could never preside over any case in which Alexanderlove or anyone I prosecuted working for the DOJ is involved with and as many AGs become judicial officers, they could not preside over any case with a party that they directly help prosecute. I believe it is important for the DOJ to be able to do its job how it sees fit (as allowed by the constitution) without putting unnecessary strains on the Judiciary as both are very closely related.

So unless the defendant has direct evidence to any sort of bias I may have for this case in particular and not just presumed ambiguous bias against the defense, This motion will stay Denied.

I would like to invoke my right to have another judge review the motion. This is due to the current status of the prosecution and the combination of all factors.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

I motion for a pause in the case until the motion is reviewed.

 

[ko531]

I motion for a pause in the case until the motion is reviewed.

Discovery is paused.

 

[Dr_Eksplosive]

Motion

Your honor, I move to recuse the presiding officer due to a conflict of interest and the potential perception of bias due to having a known, public feud with ko531, and furthermore am prosecuting this magistrate and have been several times prosecuted by this magistrate (prior work as a lawyer is reason to recuse as well).

Motion to recuse is denied.

The defense has failed to provide any evidence relating to direct bias against them by the magistrate in question. While perception/appearance of bias is a valid reason, I will be ruling against as it sets poor precedent regarding that any party of a case can sue the presiding judicial officer to have them recused.

Furthermore, judicial officers have their own code of ethics and have a strict set of guidelines to follow regarding bias. At this point in the case, there is no evidence of the presiding officer making any overtly biased judgements, and as such, should not be recused.

 

[ko531]

Due to this break in the trial pulling concern away from discovery I will be restarting the discovery timeline.

Discovery will last 72 hours starting now.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Due to this break in the trial pulling concern away from discovery I will be restarting the discovery timeline.

Discovery will last 72 hours starting now.

The defense apologies for the interruption. I will be foregoing pro se defense and appointing Dragon Law Firm to represent me for $10,000, first chair being @Kaiserin_

 

[Kaiserin_]

Case Filing

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
COUNTERCLAIM

AlexanderLove (Represented by Dragon Law Firm)
Counterplaintiff

v.

xEndeavour
Counterdefendant

COMPLAINT
The Counterplaintiff complains against the Counterdefendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE COUNTERPLAINTIFF

The defense is countersuing for legal fees due to the legal expenses incurred by the defendant as a result of the plaintiff's unfound allegations. Dragon Law Firm requests 25% of the value of the case to defend AlexanderLove in court, equal to $10,000.

I. PARTIES
1. xEndeavour
2. AlexanderLove

II. FACTS
1. AlexanderLove is being billed $10,000 for this case.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The Legal Damages Act permits the defense to collect $5,000 or 30% of the value of the case, whichever is higher, for the attorney's time and effort.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. $10,000 in legal fees (less than 30% of the $40,000 the plaintiff is suing the defense for).

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 fifth day of January, 2025

 

[Kaiserin_]

Interrogatory
1. Isn't it true you were found guilty of accomplice to corruption in the past?
2. Isn't it true that you leaked classified information?
3. Isn't it true that you left the Department of Justice Discord server during official interrogation?

The defense reserves the right to ask up to two more questions.

 

[End]

Objection

Relevance

This case has nothing to do about corruption nor leaking classified information, this case is about the defendant making allegations of recent obstruction of justice.

 

[End]

3. Isn't it true that you left the Department of Justice Discord server during official interrogation?

I was given a writ of detention, I attended, and invoked my right to not incriminate myself.

I left the Discord momentarily and was informed that I needed to remain in the Discord. I rejoined the Discord a short time later, prior to the time required on the Detention Writ.

I'm still in the Discord.

 

[ko531]

Objection

Relevance

This case has nothing to do about corruption nor leaking classified information, this case is about the defendant making allegations of recent obstruction of justice.

Sustained

There is no need to ask clarifying questions about information not being alleged false. Those first two questions will be struck.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Sustained

There is no need to ask clarifying questions about information not being alleged false. Those first two questions will be struck.

Motion

Motion to Reconsider

A) The defense would appreciate being granted our response time in the future.
B) The complaint in question is simply referencing “defamation” and it was unclear which statements in particular he was alleging to be defaming.
C) The two elements here establish foundation to the obstruction of justice. The document leaking directly leads up to the investigation in which the obstruction of justice takes place. The corruption goes to establish propensity toward the criminal behavior of the plaintiff.

 

[Kaiserin_]

3. The defendant said the following:

View attachment 50797

Objection

Relevance

The first screenshot provided does not contain any statement that the plaintiff is alleging to be defamatory, and thus is not relevant to the case.

 

[Kaiserin_]

3. Isn't it true that you left the Department of Justice Discord server during official interrogation?

I was given a writ of detention, I attended, and invoked my right to not incriminate myself.

I left the Discord momentarily and was informed that I needed to remain in the Discord. I rejoined the Discord a short time later, prior to the time required on the Detention Writ.

I'm still in the Discord.

Objection

Narrative

The question asked was a simple one; mentions of the writ of detention, invocation of rights, and rejoining of the Discord were not necessary to answer the question.

 

[ko531]

Motion

Motion to Reconsider

A) The defense would appreciate being granted our response time in the future.
B) The complaint in question is simply referencing “defamation” and it was unclear which statements in particular he was alleging to be defaming.
C) The two elements here establish foundation to the obstruction of justice. The document leaking directly leads up to the investigation in which the obstruction of justice takes place. The corruption goes to establish propensity toward the criminal behavior of the plaintiff.

Motion to reconsider is partly Substained.

The ignorance claim in point B is no ones fault but the defense. Fact 4 of the complaint clearly says which part of the statement was allegedly false and therefore defamatory.

I am no longer striking the question about the leaking of classified documents as it does give possible context as to what justice was allegedly obstructed.

The plaintiff is required to answer question 2

 

[ko531]

Objection

Relevance

The first screenshot provided does not contain any statement that the plaintiff is alleging to be defamatory, and thus is not relevant to the case.

Overruled

The first screenshot gives context as to why the alleged defamatory comment was made and possible damages.

Objection

Narrative

The question asked was a simple one; mentions of the writ of detention, invocation of rights, and rejoining of the Discord were not necessary to answer the question.

Overruled

Even though the answer was on the longer side, the answer gives a much fuller picture of the scenario being asked about. The more relevant information the court has the better to help insure the best verdict/decisions.

 

[End]

3. I shared information from the DCT which was classified at OFFICIAL level.

This information was primarily of:

a. the President ignoring questions from Department leadership
b. proving that the president committed an illegal action
c. that constructors were not being paid.

This information was within the public interest given the president was lying to the public about his actions.

These reasons are consistent with the Whistleblowers Act:
(1) A whistleblower is an entity or individual that presents information to another individual or organization about an entity or individual who is involved with any activity that is deemed illegal, illicit, unsafe, or a waste, fraud, or abuse of taxpayer funds.

(4) It is illegal for the Government to punish whistle blowers.

As you can see here:

President says he was not the Secretary at the same time as Superior and that he consulted multiple/everyone in leadership. He calls me a liar for calling out such information.

This information shared by me publicly confirms he was Secretary, and that he appointed himself illegally (only one Secretary is permitted by the constitution) and Congress and the public were not informed.

Answer continued

 

[End]

Unity said that he 'told me his legal team was looking' into an illegal action.

Evidence of Unity not replying to concerns raised about stealing FlyingBlocks' property (which was an illegal action by the DCT)

Discord - Group Chat That’s All Fun & Games

No where does he say his legal team is looking into it.

This is why the information was shared, because he was neglecting his department (illegal, waste of taxpayers money), he was unlawfully eminent domaining property (illegal), he was calling me a liar for information which was true (illegal, not in the public interest).

I hope that this extended response and evidence offers you the context as to, with legal reasoning, why I shared classified information.

 

[Alexander P. Love]

Unity said that he 'told me his legal team was looking' into an illegal action.

View attachment 50850

Evidence of Unity not replying to concerns raised about stealing FlyingBlocks' property (which was an illegal action by the DCT)

Discord - Group Chat That’s All Fun & Games

View attachment 50851
View attachment 50852

No where does he say his legal team is looking into it.

This is why the information was shared, because he was neglecting his department (illegal, waste of taxpayers money), he was unlawfully eminent domaining property (illegal), he was calling me a liar for information which was true (illegal, not in the public interest).

I hope that this extended response and evidence offers you the context as to, with legal reasoning, why I shared classified information.

Objection
Nothing pending...

 

[End]

RESPONSE TO OBJECTION

Your honour, I was asked if I leaked information and I provided that I did - and the legal reasons why I leaked that information.

The Defence is asking me to say 'yes I committed a crime,' which is why I've provided that my actions in leaking the information were lawful. If you have a lawful reason for leaking information, it is not a crime.

I'm going to provide context in all of my responses so that my words are construed in accordance with how they should be, not how the Defence wants them to be to fit their story.

 

[ko531]

Objection
Nothing pending...

Sustained.

An explanation of this magnitude with close to a dozen pieces of evidence is just too much. Something like this belongs in opening statements or somewhere else where arguments are meant to happen, not interrogations during discovery.

The answer and evidence are struck. The plaintiff must re-answer the question with a much shorter answer.

 

[End]

3. Very well - I'll invoke the 5th.

 

[End]

Questions for the Defence:

1. Have I been charged and or convicted of Obstruction of Justice?
2. What time did the writ of detention require I be in the Dept. Justice Discord?
3. What times did I join the Discord and for how long was I absent between them?
4. When being detained, is it true that I invoked my 5th right?

 

[Kaiserin_]

Questions for the Defence:

1. Have I been charged and or convicted of Obstruction of Justice?
2. What time did the writ of detention require I be in the Dept. Justice Discord?
3. What times did I join the Discord and for how long was I absent between them?
4. When being detained, is it true that I invoked my 5th right?

1. Those charges are pending, even if they haven't been filed yet. Furthermore, it is outside the scope of this civil case to prove or disprove a criminal charge.
2. 11:59 PM, EST, January 2nd.
3. My client is aware that you joined and left immediately at 12:48 PM. My client does not know when you rejoined, and to testify as such would be speculation.

Objection

Privilege

Your honor, the defense objects to question 4. The interrogation channel is classified, and thus anything that occurred in it is not admissible in court.

 

[ko531]

1. Those charges are pending, even if they haven't been filed yet. Furthermore, it is outside the scope of this civil case to prove or disprove a criminal charge.
2. 11:59 PM, EST, January 2nd.
3. My client is aware that you joined and left immediately at 12:48 PM. My client does not know when you rejoined, and to testify as such would be speculation.

Objection

Privilege

Your honor, the defense objects to question 4. The interrogation channel is classified, and thus anything that occurred in it is not admissible in court.

Substained

 

[End]

In relation to Question 4:

Since the defence is unable to look at their Department Discord, I'll enter the following as evidence:

Joined Discord: 03 Jan 25 0318 ACDT
Left Discord: 03 Jan 25 0318 ACDT
Joined Discord: 03 Jan 25 0802 ACDT

Detention required to present by: 03 Jan 1529 ACDT

I was still 7.5 hours early on my last join. Your honour, I was more than punctual.

I reported to the Discord IAW with the Writ. I plead the 5th, then left. I was informed that I needed to stay in the discord. I joined the Discord by

 

[End]

Interrogatory: Defence

1. If these charges were pending and I was not informed of these charges pending, then why was it made public knowledge before I was informed (which is now)?

2. Did the Defendant use their position within the Dept. Justice to access and publicly distribute this information for political gain?

3. What is your interpretation of innocent until proven guilty?

 

[End]

I would like to enter the following as evidence as to why I released official information and the legal rationale which allows for such actions:

I shared information from the DCT which was classified at OFFICIAL level.

This information was primarily of:

a. the President ignoring questions from Department leadership
b. proving that the president committed an illegal action
c. that constructors were not being paid.

This information was within the public interest given the president was lying to the public about his actions.

These reasons are consistent with the Whistleblowers Act:
(1) A whistleblower is an entity or individual that presents information to another individual or organization about an entity or individual who is involved with any activity that is deemed illegal, illicit, unsafe, or a waste, fraud, or abuse of taxpayer funds.

(4) It is illegal for the Government to punish whistle blowers.

As you can see here:

President says he was not the Secretary at the same time as Superior and that he consulted multiple/everyone in leadership. He calls me a liar for calling out such information.

This information shared by me publicly confirms he was Secretary, and that he appointed himself illegally (only one Secretary is permitted by the constitution) and Congress and the public were not informed.

Continued

 

[End]

Unity said that he 'told me his legal team was looking' into an illegal action.

Evidence of Unity not replying to concerns raised about stealing FlyingBlocks' property (which was an illegal action by the DCT)

Discord - Group Chat That’s All Fun & Games

No where does he say his legal team is looking into it.

This is why the information was shared, because he was neglecting his department (illegal, waste of taxpayers money), he was unlawfully eminent domaining property (illegal), he was calling me a liar for information which was true (illegal, not in the public interest).

I hope that this extended response and evidence offers you the context as to, with legal reasoning, why I shared classified information.

The court has allowed for the defence to build a case against the complainant by trying to establish a propensity toward criminal behaviour.

C) The two elements here establish foundation to the obstruction of justice. The document leaking directly leads up to the investigation in which the obstruction of justice takes place. The corruption goes to establish propensity toward the criminal behavior of the plaintiff.

As such, I have entered this evidence as to show that my actions were actually legal.

 

[Kaiserin_]

Interrogatory: Defence

1. If these charges were pending and I was not informed of these charges pending, then why was it made public knowledge before I was informed (which is now)?

2. Did the Defendant use their position within the Dept. Justice to access and publicly distribute this information for political gain?

3. What is your interpretation of innocent until proven guilty?

Objection

Breach of Procedure

Your honor, the plaintiff is allowed five relevant questions. These, along with the three already answered, make six.

 

[Kaiserin_]

Unity said that he 'told me his legal team was looking' into an illegal action.

View attachment 50862

Evidence of Unity not replying to concerns raised about stealing FlyingBlocks' property (which was an illegal action by the DCT)

Discord - Group Chat That’s All Fun & Games

View attachment 50863
View attachment 50864

No where does he say his legal team is looking into it.

This is why the information was shared, because he was neglecting his department (illegal, waste of taxpayers money), he was unlawfully eminent domaining property (illegal), he was calling me a liar for information which was true (illegal, not in the public interest).

I hope that this extended response and evidence offers you the context as to, with legal reasoning, why I shared classified information.

The court has allowed for the defence to build a case against the complainant by trying to establish a propensity toward criminal behaviour.

C) The two elements here establish foundation to the obstruction of justice. The document leaking directly leads up to the investigation in which the obstruction of justice takes place. The corruption goes to establish propensity toward the criminal behavior of the plaintiff.

As such, I have entered this evidence as to show that my actions were actually legal.

Objection

Relevance

Your honor, the nine screenshots of evidence submitted here have next to nothing to do with the defamation case at hand. The plaintiff was given the opportunity to provide context for the incident regarding leaking classified documents in responding to the interrogatory, when the incident was brought up. He instead plead the fifth.

 

[End]

Objection

Breach of Procedure

Your honor, the plaintiff is allowed five relevant questions. These, along with the three already answered, make six.

Very well, strike question 6

 

[End]

Objection

Relevance

Your honor, the nine screenshots of evidence submitted here have next to nothing to do with the defamation case at hand. The plaintiff was given the opportunity to provide context for the incident regarding leaking classified documents in responding to the interrogatory, when the incident was brought up. He instead plead the fifth.

RESPONSE TO OBJECTION

If the defence is allowed to question me on previous offences to establish a pattern of criminality, as well as asking questions concerning what lead to the obstruction of justice charge, I am going to submit evidence which shows that my actions were legal.

Your honour, if this is not relevant then why were the Defence to question on it? I ask that the previous questioning on the matter is struck or that my evidence is admitted.

If the defence can question me on leaked information, then in all fairness I should be allowed to submit evidence as to why it was a legal action.

 

[ko531]

Objection

Relevance

Your honor, the nine screenshots of evidence submitted here have next to nothing to do with the defamation case at hand. The plaintiff was given the opportunity to provide context for the incident regarding leaking classified documents in responding to the interrogatory, when the incident was brought up. He instead plead the fifth.

Overruled

This case is about defamation yes, but that defamation is based on obstruction of justice. In order for justice to be obstructed there had to be some sort of a process of justice taking place. The leaking of classified information shows what that process was about. Without a valid reason to investigate there hardly be anything to obstruct.

 

[Kaiserin_]

Interrogatory: Defence

1. If these charges were pending and I was not informed of these charges pending, then why was it made public knowledge before I was informed (which is now)?

2. Did the Defendant use their position within the Dept. Justice to access and publicly distribute this information for political gain?

3. What is your interpretation of innocent until proven guilty?

1. The defense's response to the previous question only meant that no charges have been publicly filed yet.
2. No non-public information has been revealed.

 

[ko531]

Discovery is now over.

 

[ko531]

I'm dismissing this case Sua Sponte.

I do not find standing for the lack of injury/damages suffered provided with the evidence shown. While the plaintiff claims that the damages are "unmeasurable", which may be true to their extent, has failed to provide or mention any evidence of damages. Even if the totality of the damages were unmeasurable as the plaintiff claims, they still need to provide evidence that at least some damages occurred. For this case to continue all the damages suffered would be assumptions and speculations.

Specifically for damages to reputation I find none provided. The evidence shows a player being told an alleged defamatory comment. Even if the comment was false the information was not new to the person as they "remember that" meaning this person's image of the plaintiff most likely did not change as no new information was provided. As for everyone else, they were unchanged or ignored the comment.


As for the counterclaim for legal damages, I find none. The contract Alexanderlove signed is not a valid contract and holds no value. Alexanderlove as both owner of Dragon Law and the client has final say over both the clients the law firm takes on and the law firm that represents him. In order for a contract to be valid it must have two separate parties, which this does not as Alexanderlove is signing off on both sides.


This case is dismissed with prejudice