Lawsuit: Adjourned zLost v. AdventurousAkio [2023] DCR 3

[zLost]

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

zLost
Plaintiff

v.

AdventurousAkio
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

"I was running an ad for the party and then AdventurousAkio responded with "BRO" and ""Anarchist Party"". He then proceeded to claim slanderous claims and said that the party was not anarchist. "

I. PARTIES

1. Plaintiff, zLost
2. Defendant, AdventurousAkio

II. FACTS

1. Plaintiff, zLost, is a member of a group known as "The Freedom Collective," which calls itself an anarchist party.
2. Defendant, AdventurousAkio, made a statement on an advertisement for the party that Plaintiff posted, where he wrote "BRO" and ""Anarchist Party""
3. AdventurousAkio proceeded to make slanderous claims about the party, stating that it is not an anarchist party.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

1. AdventurousAkio's statements have caused harm to zLost's reputation and that of the party. zLost claims that AdventurousAkio's statements are defamatory and have caused harm to zLost's reputation and that of the party.
2. zLost claims that AdventurousAkio's statements were made with malice and with the intent to harm Plaintiff and the party.

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

1. Monetary damages in the amount of $500.
2. An apology from AdventurousAkio to zLost and the party.

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 27th day of January 2023

 

[Dartanboy]

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

AdventurousAkio must appear before the court in the case of zLost v. AdventurousAkio [2023] DCR 3. Failure to appear within 48 hours of this summons will result in a default judgment.

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.​

 

[RandomIntruder]

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

zLost
Plaintiff

v.

AdventurousAkio
Defendant
(Represented by RandomIntruder)

Answer to Complaint:

Fact 1: Plaintiff, zLost, is a member of a group known as "The Freedom Collective," which calls itself an anarchist party.

The Defence FULLY AGREES with Fact 1.

Fact 2:
Defendant, AdventurousAkio, made a statement on an advertisement for the party that Plaintiff posted, where he wrote "BRO" and ""Anarchist Party""

The Defence FULLY AGREES with Fact 2.

Fact 3:
AdventurousAkio proceeded to make slanderous claims about the party, stating that it is not an anarchist party.

The Defence PARTIALLY AGREES with Fact 3.

The defence agrees with the fact that the Defendant claimed the party was not an anarchist party. However, the Defendant followed up, as seen in the evidence provided by the Plaintiff, with the statement that anarchy is a lack of government and therefore, there cannot be a political party under anarchy. Therefore, the existence of an anarchist party is an oxymoron.

The definition of slander according to the laws of Redmont is “A purposeful false statement of a player to cause damage to that player's reputation.”

The Defence would like to argue that the statements made by the Defendant is not false as anarchy does mean a lack of a government, and lack of government would mean lack of political parties. Therefore, there cannot exist a political party that fights for anarchism. Furthermore, the Plaintiff failed to prove damages done by the statements. In the screenshots shown, there was no other person involved in the conversation and the only other person who messaged at all was telling people to stream a certain music. Therefore, we would like to argue that there was no tangible damage caused by the statements to either zLost’s reputation or the reputation of the party.

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 28th day of January 2023

 

[Dartanboy]

Thank you to the Defense for providing an answer to complaint.

The Plaintiff now has 48 hours to post their Opening Statement (or motion for summary judgement, since the facts of the case -- apart from the claim of slander -- are not disputed).

 

[zLost]

Opening Statement

The Defence's answer to the complaint acknowledges that the statements made by AdventurousAkio were in fact made, and that the party in question calls itself an anarchist party. However, the Defence argues that the statements were not defamatory because they were not false, and that there was no tangible damage caused to either the Plaintiff's reputation or that of the party.

With respect to the statement that anarchy means a lack of government and therefore, there cannot be a political party under anarchy, the Plaintiff would like to point out that the Plaintiff did not use the term "political party" in the advertisement, but rather "party" alone. The term "party" has multiple meanings and does not solely refer to a political party. Furthermore, the Plaintiff's anarchist party can exist as it is a group of individuals who share similar beliefs and ideas about a society without a government, and who come together to advocate for those beliefs.

The Plaintiff would also like to argue that the Defendant's statement that an anarchist party cannot exist because anarchy is a lack of government is not accurate. Anarchy does not necessarily mean a lack of organization or structure, it simply means a lack of a centralized government. Therefore, an anarchist party can exist as an organization that fights for the principles of anarchy, such as self-governance and mutual aid.

Additionally, the Plaintiff would like to argue that there was in fact tangible damage caused by the Defendant's statements. Even though there was no one else talking in the chat, there were more people online than just the Plaintiff and the Defendant, which means that they had also seen the chat. Furthermore, even if the only other person in the chat was a person asking people to stream a music, that person could've spread the word about the Defendant's statements when they talked to other people.

 

[.Thewaygamer2011]

I know adventurousakio And zlost got annoyed at each otther because zlost was resisting arrest from akio.

 

[Dartanboy]

I know adventurousakio And zlost got annoyed at each otther because zlost was resisting arrest from akio.

Please refrain from talking in court cases when you are not involved. Doing so again will result in a charge of Contempt of Court.

 

[Dartanboy]

Thank you to the Plaintiff for providing their Opening Statement.

The Defense now has 48 hours to provide their Opening Statement.

 

[RandomIntruder]

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

zLost
Plaintiff

v.

AdventurousAkio
Defendant
(Represented by RandomIntruder)

OPENING STATEMENTS

Your honor, when looking at whether the Defendant’s action constitutes slander, it is very simply a two part criteria that needs to be met: was it a purposefully false statement and did it damage the reputation of the victim.

The Plaintiff in their opening statement brought up whether it was true or false based solely on semantics and whether a party is a political party of any other party. However, the Defendant was clearly interpreting the Plaintiff’s words to mean a political party. Therefore, it is not purposefully false as the purposeful intention was interpreting it as a political party while casting doubt upon the Defendant’s words requires an interpretation that was not the purposeful intention of the Defendant.

Furthermore, as mentioned above, the Plaintiff has still not shown tangible evidence for damages. The only damage he has claimed might have happened was purely speculative. There is no proof that the reputation of the Plaintiff was affected negatively.

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 29th day of January 2023

 

[Dartanboy]

Thank you to the Defense for their Opening Statement. We will now move on to witness testimonies.

Both parties now have 48 hours to list any witnesses they wish to call, or state that they have none.

 

[RandomIntruder]

The defence does not plan to call on any witnesses.

 

[zLost]

The plaintiff would like to call player Yeet_Boy as a witness.

 

[zLost]

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

zLost
Plaintiff

v.

AdventurousAkio
Defendant
(Represented by RandomIntruder)

OPENING STATEMENTS

Your honor, when looking at whether the Defendant’s action constitutes slander, it is very simply a two part criteria that needs to be met: was it a purposefully false statement and did it damage the reputation of the victim.

The Plaintiff in their opening statement brought up whether it was true or false based solely on semantics and whether a party is a political party of any other party. However, the Defendant was clearly interpreting the Plaintiff’s words to mean a political party. Therefore, it is not purposefully false as the purposeful intention was interpreting it as a political party while casting doubt upon the Defendant’s words requires an interpretation that was not the purposeful intention of the Defendant.

Furthermore, as mentioned above, the Plaintiff has still not shown tangible evidence for damages. The only damage he has claimed might have happened was purely speculative. There is no proof that the reputation of the Plaintiff was affected negatively.

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 29th day of January 2023

Your Honor, the Defendant's argument that their statement was not purposely false because they were interpreting the Plaintiff's words to mean a political party is not a valid excuse. The purposeful intention of a statement is not determined by the speaker's interpretation, but by the impact that it has on the recipient. In this case, the impact was a false accusation against the Plaintiff, which is what the Plaintiff is alleging to be slanderous.

Regarding the lack of tangible evidence for damages, it is not necessary to provide physical proof of harm to one's reputation. Reputational harm can be demonstrated through circumstantial evidence, such as testimony from witnesses or the impact that the statement has had on the victim's life. The Plaintiff's testimony alone should be sufficient evidence to show that their reputation was impacted.

In conclusion, the Defendant's argument that their statement was not purposely false and that there is no proof of damages does not hold up in the face of the Plaintiff's allegations. The Plaintiff has provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the Defendant's statement was slanderous and caused harm to their reputation.

 

[Dartanboy]

Your Honor, the Defendant's argument that their statement was not purposely false because they were interpreting the Plaintiff's words to mean a political party is not a valid excuse. The purposeful intention of a statement is not determined by the speaker's interpretation, but by the impact that it has on the recipient. In this case, the impact was a false accusation against the Plaintiff, which is what the Plaintiff is alleging to be slanderous.

Regarding the lack of tangible evidence for damages, it is not necessary to provide physical proof of harm to one's reputation. Reputational harm can be demonstrated through circumstantial evidence, such as testimony from witnesses or the impact that the statement has had on the victim's life. The Plaintiff's testimony alone should be sufficient evidence to show that their reputation was impacted.

In conclusion, the Defendant's argument that their statement was not purposely false and that there is no proof of damages does not hold up in the face of the Plaintiff's allegations. The Plaintiff has provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the Defendant's statement was slanderous and caused harm to their reputation.

The time has not yet come for Closing Statements. This post is hereby stricken from the record and consider this your only warning about speaking out of turn in court. Doing so again will result in a charge of Contempt of Court.

 

[Dartanboy]

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

Yeet_Boy is required to appear before the District Court in the case of zLost v. AdventurousAkio [2023] DCR 3 as a witness.

Please ensure you familiarize yourself with the case. You will receive questions and may be cross-examined.​

 

[Dartanboy]

Once the witness has announced their presence in the court, the Plaintiff will have 48 hours to post their questions. I ask that all questions be made in one post, unless a question must be withheld pending an answer to another question.

If you intend to ask another question in a second post, please let the court know beforehand.

 

[YeetBoy1872325]

I am present and have familiarized myself with the case.

 

[Dartanboy]

Because it was not all in one post, I will be reminding the Plaintiff that they have less than 1 hour to post their questions for the witness.

 

[Dartanboy]

Okay. The Plaintiff's time has expired. I hereby find zLost in Contempt of Court for failing to ask questions to the witness that they asked for, wasting both the Court's time and the witness' time.

We will now move on to Closing Statements.

The Plaintiff has 48 hours to provide their Closing Statement.

 

[zLost]

Your Honor, I must apologize for not providing questions for the witness ahead of time. This was due to a misunderstanding on my part and I take full responsibility for it.

Before I present my closing statement, I respectfully request permission to present evidence that has only recently come to light in this case. This evidence further demonstrates the harm to the Plaintiff's reputation as a result of the Defendant's statement, and I believe it will be of significant importance to the court's consideration of this case. May I proceed with presenting this evidence and my closing statement?

 

[Dartanboy]

Your Honor, I must apologize for not providing questions for the witness ahead of time. This was due to a misunderstanding on my part and I take full responsibility for it.

Before I present my closing statement, I respectfully request permission to present evidence that has only recently come to light in this case. This evidence further demonstrates the harm to the Plaintiff's reputation as a result of the Defendant's statement, and I believe it will be of significant importance to the court's consideration of this case. May I proceed with presenting this evidence and my closing statement?

In general, it is best to have a full understanding of the case, so I will allow you to present newly-acquired evidence before your Closing Statement, however the deadline for your Closing Statement has not changed.

 

[zLost]

Thank you, your honor.

Closing Statement

The Defendant's argument that their statement was not purposely false because they were interpreting the Plaintiff's words to mean a political party is not a valid excuse. The purposeful intention of a statement is not determined by the speaker's interpretation, but by the impact that it has on the recipient. In this case, the impact was a false accusation against the Plaintiff, which is what the Plaintiff is alleging to be slanderous.

Regarding the lack of tangible evidence for damages, it is not necessary to provide physical proof of harm to one's reputation. Reputational harm can be demonstrated through circumstantial evidence, such as testimony from witnesses or the impact that the statement has had on the victim's life. The Plaintiff's testimony alone should be sufficient evidence to show that their reputation was impacted.

In conclusion, the Defendant's argument that their statement was not purposely false and that there is no proof of damages does not hold up in the face of the Plaintiff's allegations. The Plaintiff has provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the Defendant's statement was slanderous and caused harm to their reputation.

In this new evidence, a statement made by the player "FamicomLass" saying "yeah, that occurred to me too that 'anarchist' and 'party' don't really go together." shows that the Defendant's statements had a negative impact on my reputation. This statement supports my allegations that the Defendant's statements were false and harmful to my reputation.

 

[Dartanboy]

Thank you to the Plaintiff for providing your Closing Statement.

The Defendant now has 48 hours to provide their Closing Statement.

 

[RandomIntruder]

Your honor, I have an exam tomorrow can I have a 24 hour extension please?

 

[Dartanboy]

You may have a 24 hour extension. The new deadline is Saturday at 3:34pm EST.

 

[RandomIntruder]

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

zLost
Plaintiff

v.

AdventurousAkio
Defendant
(Represented by RandomIntruder)

CLOSING STATEMENTS

Your honor, the Plaintiff’s arguments are riddled with holes and misunderstanding of the law. He claims that “The purposeful intention of a statement is not determined by the speaker's interpretation, but by the impact that it has on the recipient. In this case, the impact was a false accusation against the Plaintiff, which is what the Plaintiff is alleging to be slanderous.” However, if the victim was to be able to determine whether the actions of a perpetrator were purposeful or accidental, that would be detrimental to the interpretation of intent.

Furthermore, the Plaintiff claims that “The Plaintiff's testimony alone should be sufficient evidence to show that their reputation was impacted.” In what world would this make sense? Wouldn’t that completely invalidate the second part of the slander definition? If the Plaintiff is filing the suit case, of course he believes that there was damage. This Plaintiff has continuously failed to prove damages.

I understand that commenting on new evidence/making new arguments in a closing statement is usually not permitted, but I hope that you, your honor, understand our wish to respond to the evidence introduced in the Plaintiff’s closing statements.

The player’s comment does not show proof of harm to the Plaintiff’s reputation. That player was not shown to be previously a member of the party and then left. That player was merely repeating a belief based on the correct facts that anarchy and political party, which was how my client intended the word party in this situation, cannot co-exist. Furthermore, the player also states that “yeah, that occurred to me too,” insinuating that my client wasn’t even the first one to think of the contradiction, but rather they both came to the conclusion in parallel.

Overall, I believe that the Plaintiff has failed to prove that my client’s statements were purposefully false and that they caused tangible damages, hallmarks of what makes slander, slander. There was no shown harm to either the Plaintiff or his group’s reputation. I hope that this is enough to prove my client’s innocence in this case. Thank you for your time and patience, your honor.
DATED: This 4th day of February 2023

 

[zLost]

Your Honor, I would like to respectfully request the opportunity to respond to the defendant's closing statement. I believe I have found a flaw in the defendant's argument and I would like the chance to address this in my response. Thank you for your time and consideration.

 

[Dartanboy]

Your Honor, I would like to respectfully request the opportunity to respond to the defendant's closing statement. I believe I have found a flaw in the defendant's argument and I would like the chance to address this in my response. Thank you for your time and consideration.

There will be no more filings, unless someone wishes to file a proper objection or motion.

Thank you to the Defendant for filing your Closing Statement.

This course is now in recess until a verdict is delivered.

 

[Dartanboy]

I apologize for the delay. I was discussing this case with the Justices.

Verdict

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT
zLost v. AdventurousAkio [2023] DCR 3

I. PLAINTIFF’S POSITION
1. The Defendant committed Slander.
2. They did this by claiming that the Plaintiff's anarchist party was not an anarchist party
3. The Defendant's statements caused harm to zLost's reputation.

II. DEFENDANT’S POSITION
1. An anarchist party is impossible as anarchy means no government, which means no political parties.
2. Thus, this is not Slander.

III. THE COURT OPINION
1. The Defamation Act October 2020 requires that to be charged with Slander, one must make a false and unprivileged statement of fact that can negatively impact someone's reputation and that damages from slander must be proven in a court of law and be intentional.
2. In addition to the Defamation Act October 2020, this Court has also considered the Freedom of Political Communication which is protected by the Constitution.
3. After considering all the evidence, this Court is unable to say whether or not it is impossible for an Anarchist Political Party to exist, primarily due to the immense amount of politics and subjective opinions surrounding the idea.
4. There was little to no evidence showing that the Defendant was actively trying to damage the Plaintiff's reputation and no damages were proven whatsoever.
5. Additionally, the statements in question are primarily political opinions, which are protected by the Constitution.

IV. VERDICT
I hereby rule in favor of the Defendant.

The District Court thanks all involved.