Lawsuit: Dismissed xEndeavour v. MilkCrack [2024] FCR 24

[Unseatedduke1]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION​

xEndeavour (Represented by Dragon Law)
Plaintiff

v.

MilkCrack
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

On the evening of 02/02/2024, at 9:47 PM EST, the defendant, known as "MilkCrack," published a so-called election poll titled "Would you still vote for End knowing he got convicted of embezzlement?" on the official Discord "News" channel. The defendant also shared this “google form” under other channels without announcing it as an official poll in that channel. This so-called poll, containing misleading inquiries about the plaintiff, falsely asserted, "Are you aware of a recent legal conviction of Candidate 'End' for embezzling $140,000?" Following the poll, the defendant issued an official press release, encouraging the public to exploit the legislation known as the "Defamation Act October 2020” and target policy makers. The defendant's actions constituted a clear act of defamation under the provisions of the Defamation Act 2020, as they purposefully disseminated false and unprivileged statements of fact that negatively impacted the plaintiff's reputation. Employing an election poll to conceal the false information qualifies as libel, a published false statement damaging to a person’s reputation. Subsequently, the defendant edited the poll, altering the description to read, "Disclaimer: this is a completely hypothetical poll about a hypothetical scenario," well after its initial posting. This modification was an attempt to obscure the dissemination of false information to over fifty-two (52) members of the Redmont Discord. The defendant, in his capacity as a Senator, not only deserves liability for defamation but also for the public dissemination of inaccurate information and subsequent attempts to conceal it after numerous members had engaged with the poll. Such actions aimed at spreading public misinformation and undermining a public election warrant legal scrutiny and consequences. The defendant's attempt to use a piece of the Defamation Act to justify his attack on the plaintiff is clear Mischief of the law itself.

I. PARTIES
1. xEndeavour, a reputable Senator - the Plaintiff.
2. MilkCrack, the Defendant.

II. FACTS

1. In a blatant act of character assassination, the Defendant, MilkCrack, maliciously published a so-called election poll with false information targeting the Plaintiff, xEndeavour. (Exhibit A)
   
   
2. The so-called election poll included false and damaging statements, such as an untrue claim that xEndeavour was convicted of embezzling $140,000. (Exhibit B)
   
   
3. The defendant tried to cover up the false information well after many members of the discord had responded to the poll by altering the poll description. (Exhibit C & C2)
   
   
4. The defendant shared false information through an election poll. (Exhibit D & D2)
   
   
5. The defendant is attempting to interfere with a presidential election by spreading false information about a presidential candidate.
   
   
6. The defendant shared the so-called poll link on other discord channels without defining if it was or was not an election poll therefore it wasn’t considered an election poll.
   
   
7. The defendant sought to harm my client by attempting to exploit the legal framework of the defamation act. (Exhibit E)
   
   
8. The Plaintiff's defeat in the presidential election can be directly attributed to the dissemination of false information by the Defendant..

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

1. The Defendant's libelous and defamatory statements written within the online forum constitute a violation of defamation laws, causing irreparable harm to xEndeavour's reputation as a Presidential Candidate.

a. The libel claim is substantiated as follows: The Defendant's statements were widely published within the online forum, satisfying the element of publication. These statements included false facts about xEndeavour, fulfilling the requirement of a false statement of fact. The significant harm caused to xEndeavour's reputation is evident, meeting the criteria for harm to reputation. Furthermore, the intentional and deliberate nature of the Defendant's actions demonstrates fault, as they purposely engaged in libel with the aim of defaming xEndeavour's candidacy in the Presidential Election.​

2. The Defendant's actions amount to intentional infliction of emotional distress, humiliation, and a deliberate attempt to interfere with xEndeavour's candidacy in the Presidential Election. This interference is specifically executed through the publication of false statements in various forms, including documents, signs, newspapers, and other physical communications.

3. The Defendant deliberately engaged in libel by intending to defame xEndeavour's candidacy in the Presidential Election. This intention was manifested through the strategic exploitation of defamation law, encouraging citizens to use this law to attack policy makers.

4. The Defendant's dissemination of false information is asserted to have substantially contributed to xEndeavour's loss in the Presidential Election, resulting in emotional harm, financial harm, and a loss of enjoyment.

5. The false information disseminated by the Defendant through the election poll and subsequent actions had a tangible impact on voter perception. Numerous reactions from voters documented in online forums, public discussions reflect a noticeable shift in sentiment.

6. Concrete evidence and data indicate a noticeable shift in public opinion following the dissemination of false information, causing a lack of voter trust during the presidential election: The intentional spread of false information by the Defendant led to a discernible change in the public's perception of the Plaintiff. This shift in opinion is substantiated by concrete evidence such as polls, surveys, and public reactions captured in various forums. The resulting lack of voter trust directly impacted the fairness of the electoral process, compromising the integrity of the presidential election and constituting grounds for a claim of relief.

7. The timing of the false information release was strategically planned, aiming to inflict maximum damage on the Plaintiff's candidacy during key phases of the election campaign: The deliberate release of false information at strategic junctures in the election campaign reveals a calculated effort by the Defendant to exploit vulnerable moments in the Plaintiff's candidacy. This timing not only demonstrates an intention to cause harm but also points to a premeditated strategy to undermine the Plaintiff's chances of success. Such calculated actions during pivotal campaign phases constitute a significant violation, warranting a claim for relief.

8. The competitive landscape of the election was influenced by the false information, altering the overall dynamics and negatively affecting the Plaintiff's standing: The false information propagated by the Defendant played a pivotal role in shaping the competitive landscape of the election. By introducing misleading elements, the Defendant altered the overall dynamics, creating an uneven playing field. This manipulation directly contributed to a negative impact on the Plaintiff's standing and distorted the democratic process. The intentional interference in the competitive nature of the election serves as a substantial basis for the claim of relief sought by the Plaintiff.

9. The Plaintiff's electoral defeat carries profound repercussions directly attributed to the deliberate and malicious actions of the Defendant. The intentional dissemination of false information significantly influenced public opinion, eroding voter trust during the presidential election. This shift necessitated increased financial and temporal resources for the Plaintiff's campaign, exacerbated by the Defendant's calculated efforts to strategically damage the candidacy during critical phases. The emotional toll of the loss was further intensified by the Defendant's intentional release of false information, contributing not only to the electoral defeat but also to heightened emotional distress for the Plaintiff. The Defendant's manipulation of the competitive landscape directly impacted the Plaintiff's standing, ultimately depriving them of the opportunity to assume the presidency. The Defendant's orchestrated campaign of false information, strategic timing, and manipulation formed the catalyst for the electoral loss, inflicting financial, emotional, and opportunity costs upon the Plaintiff and serving as the basis for the claims for relief in this case.



IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:

1. Consequential Damages:
a. $50,000 for emotional distress: The Defendant, with intent, inflicted severe emotional distress upon my client during the crucial phases of the presidential campaign, adversely affecting mental well-being.

b. $35,000 for public humiliation: The Defendant intentionally subjected my client to public humiliation, causing reputational harm and emotional anguish.

c. $35,000 for The Loss of Enjoyment in Redmont: The Defendant's actions led to a tangible loss of enjoyment in Redmont, directly impacting my client's quality of life.

d. $250,000 for substantially contributing to the loss of an election, claiming that the Defendant's deliberate and malicious spread of false information, constituting outrageous conduct, significantly influenced the election outcome, directly harming the client's chances of success, and denying the opportunity to serve as president:

i. The Defendant's calculated campaign of false information, constituting outrageous conduct, not only substantially contributed to the electoral loss but also denied my client the opportunity to assume the presidency. This intentional interference goes beyond the financial, emotional, and reputational damages suffered, representing a significant denial of the chance to fulfill a civic duty and contribute to the community. Additionally, the Loss of Enjoyment in Redmont is exacerbated by the thwarted opportunity to serve in the highest office, further justifying the increased compensation sought.​

2. Punitive Damages: $85,000 for disseminating false statements targeting a presidential candidate: The Defendant, leveraging his senatorial position, abused his authority by disseminating false information to undermine my client's presidential campaign. This deliberate act warrants punitive damages.

a. Attempted Cover-up: An additional amount to be determined by the court, reflecting the severity of the Defendant's attempt to conceal his actions after undermining the election process.

3. Legal Fees: 20% of the awarded amount: The Plaintiff seeks reimbursement for legal fees incurred during the pursuit of justice in this matter.


Witnesses:
xEndeavour
Snowy_Heart
Senate Members

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 17th day of February 2024

Evidence:

Spoiler: Exhibit A

Spoiler: Exhibit B

Spoiler: Exhibit C

Spoiler: Exhibit C2

Spoiler: Exhibit D

Spoiler: Exhibit D2

Spoiler: Exhibit E

Spoiler: Client

 

[RelaxedGV]

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

@Milkcrack is required to appear before the court in the case of xEndeavour v. MilkCrack. Failure to appear within 72 hours of this summons will result in a default judgment in favour of the plaintiff.

I'd also like to remind both parties to be aware of the Court Rules and Procedures, including the option of an in-game trial should both parties request one.​

 

[Milkcrack]

MOTION TO DISMISS
Pursuant to Court Rule 5.5 - Lack of a Claim

I. Introduction
I respectfully move this Honorable Court to dismiss the Plaintiff's complaint for failure to state a claim for relief or against a claim for relief that has insufficient evidence to support the civil or criminal charge, under Court Rule 5.5. I present the following reasons in support of this motion.

II. Lack of Statement of Fact
The Plaintiff's complaint is fundamentally flawed as it fails to identify a single statement of fact within the alleged defamatory poll. Your Honor, the questions in the poll are framed with conditional language, such as "if" and "would," suggesting hypothetical scenarios rather than making factual assertions. It's essential to understand that a question, by its very nature, does not constitute a statement subject to scrutiny. Thus, the Plaintiff's inability to identify any definitive statements renders the complaint unsustainable.

III. Public Interest
Contrary to Plaintiff's claims, my poll did not result in tangible harm to Plaintiff's reputation or electoral prospects. It sought to explore matters of significant public interest, including the potential implications of a possible conviction on End's candidacy for his actions in a recent Supreme Court appeal. The poll results merely reflected public perception and had no substantial impact on End's electoral viability.

IV. Lack of Damages
Furthermore, the Plaintiff's allegations of damages lack substantiation. Evidence indicates an increase in public trust towards End following the poll, as highlighted by polling data.
The poll clearly shows that 62.9% would have increased trust if End was convicted of embezzlement and 65.9% of people think that the general public would be more supportive of End knowing there was an embezzlement conviction.
Furthermore, polling results released 2 hours before by Politico show that before the poll 36.5% strongly supported and 9.6% supported him, whereas after the election poll by Milkcrack, 45.7% of people strongly supported end and 10.9% people supported him, as the most recent politico poll shows.
The defamation clearly states that damages are not presumed and must be proven, given the significant evidence that directly contradicts the plaintiff's assertion of damages, the plaintiff has no possibility to prevail on the matter of proving damage.

V. End's Lack of Electoral Viability
The Plaintiff's assertion that End had a legitimate chance of winning the election is baseless. End's history of electoral defeats, coupled with the Senate's unanimous vote for expulsion and the looming threat of impeachment, past accomplice to a corruption conviction, and reputation of corruption, underscores his lack of credibility and electoral prospects. My poll merely reflected prevailing sentiment and did not materially affect the election outcome.

VII. Good Faith Efforts and No Cover-Up
I acted in good faith throughout the poll's conduct. Upon request, a disclaimer was promptly included to clarify the hypothetical nature of the questions. This demonstrates a genuine effort to avoid any potential misunderstanding. Any suggestion of a "cover-up" is without merit and misrepresents my intentions.

VIII. Legal Exemption Under the Defamation Act and right to political communication

Section 3.2 of the Defamation Act explicitly exempts election polling from libel laws, encompassing all forms of questioning, and the plaintiff knows that, Your Honor. However, the plaintiff hopes that you will set that aside. To ignore the law, however, Congress's intent in providing this exemption is unequivocally clear.

Furthermore, I assert my fundamental right to political communication, a right protected under section 6 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The poll conducted by myself aimed to gather political information and gauge public sentiment on hypothetical scenarios regarding End's candidacy. Such communication is essential to democratic discourse and serves a legitimate political purpose.

It is imperative, Your Honor, to emphasize the significance of the section in the defamation act prohibiting the use of said act in lawsuits such as this. This case revolves around legal principles rather than factual disputes. While the Plaintiff may hope for an alteration of the law's application, it is not within this court's purview to effect such changes. Our duty is to interpret the law objectively, without delving into subjective assessments of its fairness or efficacy. Let's leave changing the legislation to the legislatures.

Congress has already addressed the issue at hand, affirming the constitutional right to political communication. Although subject to reasonable limitations in a just society, Congress has explicitly prohibited the limitation on this right to not protect election polling and similar forms of questioning. As such, there exists no room for debate on this matter in this courtroom and this case should be dismissed.

Conclusion
In light of the foregoing reasons, I respectfully request this Honorable Court to grant the motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's complaint. The Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for which relief can be granted as my actions were protected under the right to political communication, and there is insufficient evidence to support the allegations of defamation. Justice and fairness dictate the dismissal of this meritless action.

 

[Unseatedduke1]

Your Honor, may I have the opportunity to respond?

 

[RelaxedGV]

You may, you have 48 hours to do so.

 

[Unseatedduke1]

RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS​

1. Lack of Statement of Fact
a. Conditional Language: The Defendant argues that the poll questions were framed conditionally, using language such as "if" and "would," suggesting hypothetical scenarios. However, this overlooks the intentional dissemination of false and damaging information, irrespective of the conditional language used. For instance, one of the questions asked in the poll was a direct assertion: "Are you aware of a recent legal conviction of Candidate 'End' for embezzling $140,000?" This question doesn't employ conditional language, and its unequivocal nature contradicts the Defendant's attempt to dismiss the poll as merely hypothetical. The questions were strategically designed to cast doubt on the Plaintiff's integrity, and the Defendant's attempt to downplay this as hypothetical is untenable. The deliberate inclusion of straightforward accusations within the poll demonstrates an intentional effort to damage the Plaintiff's reputation, making it imperative to address these false statements directly.

b. Responsibility for False Information: The Defendant cannot evade responsibility for disseminating false information that significantly impacted the Plaintiff's reputation, even if framed hypothetically. The intentional selection of content and wording within the poll questions clearly reveals an underlying intent to inflict harm, going beyond the semantics of hypothetical questions. It is crucial to recognize that the Defendant's deliberate actions, irrespective of conditional language, were strategically designed to tarnish the Plaintiff's reputation, demanding accountability for the resulting damage.

2. Public Interest
a. Nature of the Poll: The Defendant asserts that the poll explored matters of public interest, including potential implications of a conviction. The nature of the questions and their defamatory content indicate an intentional act to damage the Plaintiff's reputation rather than a genuine inquiry into matters of public concern.

b. Impact on Electoral Viability: The Defendant tries to minimize the poll's impact on the Plaintiff's chances, but the evidence tells a different story. We have clear proof, including polling data and public reactions, showing a noticeable change in how people perceived the Plaintiff after the false information spread. This goes beyond innocent public exploration—it's a deliberate attempt to mess with the election process. We're ready to present this evidence in court to make our case.


3. Lack of Damages
a. Increased Public Trust: The Defendant presents polling data to support the claim that the poll increased public trust in the Plaintiff. This data is selectively presented and fails to consider the wider context of harm caused by the poll. The burden of proving damages rests with the Plaintiff, and the evidence supports the claim of harm to reputation.

b. Defamation Act's Presumption: The Defendant wrongly contends that damages are not presumed under the Defamation Act. In reality, the Act acknowledges the presumption of harm to reputation in cases involving false and damaging statements—precisely the circumstances of this case. The Defendant's attempt to downplay this presumption is a misrepresentation of the law and an apparent effort to exploit legal nuances. This falls under the "mischief" rule, which guides interpreters to consider the problem that prompted the statute. In this instance, the Defendant is trying to twist the law for personal gain, clearly deviating from its intended purpose. This constitutes an improper use of legal interpretation—a mischief that should not go unnoticed by this court.

4. End's Lack of Electoral Viability
a. Baseless Assertions: The Defendant makes baseless claims regarding the Plaintiff's lack of electoral viability, relying on past defeats and alleged corruption. Such assertions are unfounded and divert attention from the primary issue – the intentional defamation conducted by the Defendant.


5. Good Faith Efforts and No Cover-Up
a. Intentional Defamation: The Defendant asserts good faith efforts and the inclusion of a disclaimer after the fact. This is just a clear attempt to cover up the intentional spread of false information and does not absolve the Defendant of liability for the initial defamatory actions.

6. Legal Exemption Under the Defamation Act and Right to Political Communication
a. Misinterpretation of Section 3.2: The Defendant's reading of Section 3.2 of the Defamation Act is misguided. The provision for election polling does not grant immunity for intentional and damaging defamation. By trying to shield deliberate misinformation under the umbrella of political communication, the Defendant is misapplying the law. This misinterpretation deviates from the legislative intent, using a statutory provision meant to facilitate democratic discourse as a shield for personal mischief . Such a misapplication of the law requires correction by this Honorable Court.

b. Fundamental Right: While the Defendant asserts a fundamental right to political communication, this right does not provide immunity for spreading false information with the intent to harm. The Defendant's actions do not align with protected political discourse but rather constitute deliberate defamation.



The Plaintiff respectfully urges this Honorable Court to deny the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. The Defendant's intentional defamation and attempts to exploit legal exemptions should not shield them from accountability for the harm inflicted upon the Plaintiff. Your Honor, the defendant's motion to dismiss was predicated on Rule 5.5, specifically asserting Lack of a Claim. Upon careful examination, it becomes evident that the defense's entire motion did not effectively address the alleged lack of a claim. We bring to the court's attention precedent cases, zLost v. The Commonwealth [2023] SCR 21 & The Commonwealth v. Bardiya_King [2023] SCR 23, where it was established that when a motion to dismiss fails to adhere to Rule 5.1 (The used Rule must be applied using law, facts-in-case, evidence-in-case, or previous court decisions.), it should be denied, and the statements made should be struck from the record. In light of this precedent and the failure to substantively address the Lack of a Claim under Rule 5.5, we respectfully request that the motion to dismiss be struck from the record.

Thank you

 

[RelaxedGV]

I would like to apologize for my delay in giving a ruling on this Motion to Dismiss, I want to make it very clear however that I was deliberating as to how I should rule on the Motion to Dismiss, with that I will give my outlook before ruling on it now:

First on lack of claim - Lack of claim primarily ties into point six which we will explore at that time.

Public Interest - While yes, the public were asked to participate within the poll via a Press Release, they are not required. Given the amount of responses shown does not reflect the amount of votes either President GoldBlooded or xEndeavour got, we cannot believe that the Public Interest flipped the amount over enough to quantify a victory for GoldBlooded. The polling of companies and private individuals has also always shown to be fruitless as xEndeavour was projected to win even after the poll from MilkCrack came out thus showing that the Plaintiff would have this argument thrown out.

Lack of damages - This argument hinges on the intent of the lawmaker. Whether the lawmaker intended for the law to be looked a certain way, that is not reflected within the law itself. Given I am to interpret the law itself as written, intent of the lawmaker is out of the question.

xEndeavour's lack of Electoral Ability - This is simply up to personal opinion, xEndeavour has shown in previous elections to win but has also shown the ability to lose. This is not what we are discussing here today however, this is simply a personal opinion that will change from person to person.

Good Faith and Cover Up - While yes, no evidence has been provided that their was a cover up or in good faith. No evidence was even provided the questions were changed. This is a valid argument that the Plaintiff can use, despite this it is not valid due to the final point.

Defamation Act - This is the primary argument from MilkCrack. To put this blunt, I agree with the Defense. There is lack of claim and lack of jurisdiction for the Courts within this argument. The law states that election polling is exempt and not up for interpretation (shown below). Given this, even if I were to agree that the Plaintiff has a claim, I am unable to interpret that following the Defamation Act.

With that, the Court will be granting the Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice. The Federal Court thanks all involved.

"6 - Exemptions Under This Law (1) This legislation shall not be interpreted to extend to election polling. Polling and other forms of asking questions (published) are exempt from libel."

Repealed - Defamation Act October 2020

Repealed by the No More Defamation Act. House Vote: 5-2-0 Senate Vote: 4-0-0 A Bill To Punish Slander and Libel The people of Democracy Craft, through their elected Representatives in the Congress and the force of law ordained to that Congress by the people through the constitution, do...

www.democracycraft.net