Lawsuit: Adjourned zLost v. Bezzergeezer [2024] DCR 32

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jakovus

Jakovus

Citizen
Magistrate
Redmont Bar Assoc.
Grave Digger Popular in the Polls Legal Eagle
Jakovus
Jakovus
magistrate
Joined
Oct 14, 2021
Messages
89
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

zLost (Represented by Solid Law Firm)
Plaintiff

v.

Bezzergeezer, the President
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

The President slandered the Plaintiff in a grossly ignorant manner. While the election of the speaker and deputy speaker was unravelling in July, issued an offer to certain members of the House for support of his Speakership bid, and in exchange get support to become deputy. Bezzergeezer then made a preposterous claim which is untrue, tarnished my client’s legacy after leaving the House soon after, and caused him emotional harm.

I. PARTIES
  1. zLost
  2. Bezzergeezer

II. FACTS
  1. On 13th July, 2024, the Plaintiff proposed to lcn that he will vote for lcn’s bid for deputy if lcn votes for Plaintiff’s bid for Speaker, and lcn agreed,
  2. On 14th July, 2024, the Plaintiff proposed to MrFluffy2U94 that he will vote for MrFluffy2U94’s bid for deputy only if lcn’s bid proves to be unviable, and encourage lawan to vote for MrFluffy2U94, in exchange for MrFluffy2U94’s vote for zLost as Speaker,
  3. On 14th July, 2024, the Plaintiff proposed the same offer as proposed to MrFluffy2U94 to Aladeen, said both lcn and him will vote for Aladeen’s deputy position,
  4. Both Aladeen and MrFluffy2U94 were informed that the other was given the same offer, and both knew that the first one to accept it would get the promised votes,
  5. On 14th of July, 2024, and later once more, Bezzergeezer, in public channels, and in server, claimed how the Plaintiff offered every Representative to vote for them for Deputy to secure Speakership,
  6. On 14th July, 2024, Towloo admitted that he was pressured by Bezzergeezer and Aladeen to vote against because of Bezzergeezer’s claims,
  7. The President is nominally a respected figure whose speech is politically held in high regard.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
  1. The Defendant violated the Defamation Act, §4, Point 1 for the first time when saying “zLost you tried to promise everyone in the House deputy speaker to win speakership, you shouldn’t be talking”,
  2. The Defendant violated the Defamation Act, §4, Point 1 for the second time when saying “He promised every rep deputy speaker bruh”,
  3. The Defendant violated the Defamation Act, §4, Point 1 for the third time when he convinced Towloo to vote against the Plaintiff by saying untrue statements to him.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
  1. As punitive damages for using his position to slander the Plaintiff, we ask $15,000,
  2. As emotional damages for causing the Plaintiff emotional harm by tarnishing his legacy and alienating colleagues from him, we ask $5,000,
  3. As legal fees, which amount to 20% of the value of the case, we ask $4,000.

EVIDENCE:
zLost-1.png

zLost-2.png

zLost-3.png

zLost-4.png

zLost-5.png

zLost-6.png

zLost-7.png

zLost-8.png

zLost-Bezzer.png

Proof of Consent to Represent:
image_2024-08-07_140240978.png


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 7th day of August, 2024.
 

pgyfUC4.png

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
WRIT OF SUMMONS
@Bezzergeezer is required to appear before the District Court in the case of zLost v. Bezzergeezer [2024] DCR 32. 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.​
 
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

The defence moves that the complaint in this case be dismissed with prejudice, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

Rule 5.5 - Lack of Claim: The Plaintiff has claimed defamation charges without presenting any specific instances of alleged damage. The Defense asserts that the Speakership was won by Unitymaster in a 6-5 vote, and as such, even though Towloo swapped their vote after voting concluded, it is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. Furthermore, the Plaintiff has failed to provide any evidence of the Defendant's intent to harm the Plaintiff's reputation. As such, the Prosecution has failed to fulfill either clause of the Defamation Act Point 5 - proof of damages, and proof of intent to harm.

By making these submissions, 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 11th day of August, 2024.
 
Your honour,
I wish to answer the Motion to Dismiss.
 
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO MOTION TO DISMISS

May it please the Court,

In compelling this Court not to dismiss this case, I want to point out how exactly the Defendant showed clear intent to damage my client in a malicious manner, to make the Plaintiff seem as an untrustworthy Representative.

Firstly, the Defendant claimed in two instances (see Ex. G and I) that my client made the relevant offer to every Representative currently incumbent, which the Defendant himself knows would not have been reasonable to do, and as a testament of the Defendant’s knowledge that not every representative was offered this exclusive offer (in a sense that if one accepted the offer (either Aladeen or MrFluffy), the other would have been excluded from it) is the fact that Towloo was subsequently pressured by the President (see Ex. H) to swap his vote, which means that he obviously was not contacted by the Plaintiff regarding this offer, something also reasonably obvious to the Defendant. It only served to alienate Towloo from the Plaintiff, which, as the vote swap showcases, the President managed to achieve, thus intentionally emotionally damaging my client. In the same exhibit it is legible that the President gave an arbitrary number of “5-6” (recipients of the offer), which contradicts his prior statements, and also shows that the Defendant didn’t really care how he was slandering my client, so far that he was indeed slandering my client.

Moreover, the Defendant conducted slander through public channels, further using slander to belittle the Plaintiff’s speech (Ex. I) and also slandering to his fellow representatives. The Defendant went above and beyond to try and pitch malicious and untrue statements against my client publicly (Ex. I), and twice to the representatives of the House (Ex. G and H), with the intent to damage his reputation and standing. This is very evident in and can be reasonably incurred from the Defendant’s persistence to convince the House members of the Plaintiff’s supposed malicious offers. If your reputation is destroyed amongst your own colleagues in the House, your political messages also stop carrying any merit, something the Plaintiff understands well as President.

Such slander is also one of the reasons why the Plaintiff resigned and left the House, accounting to the emotional damages caused by this truly unnecessary libel. I hope it is now clear to the Court that §5, Point 1 and 2 of the Defamation Act were more than satisfied by the Defendant’s conduct, and in evidence provided.

Thank you.

DATED: This 17th day of August, 2024
 
Firstly I would like to apologize for the delay.

The motion to dismiss is denied.

We will now be moving onto discovery. Discovery will end in 3 days.
 
Anthony said:
Firstly I would like to apologize for the delay.

The motion to dismiss is denied.

We will now be moving onto discovery. Discovery will end in 3 days.
Click to expand...
MOTION TO RECONSIDER

Your honor, we believe that the motion to dismiss presents more than enough valid claims to dismiss this case.
 
Aladeen said:
MOTION TO RECONSIDER

Your honor, we believe that the motion to dismiss presents more than enough valid claims to dismiss this case.
Click to expand...
If you are the plaintiff’s lawyer then you need proof of representation.
 
Last edited:
MOTION TO STRIKE

Your honor, we request that all the evidence presented by the plaintiff be removed due to improper formatting. According to the Court Rules and Procedures the plaintiff's evidence should be marked as P-001, P-002, etc.
 
Your honor I was wondering if there was any update on a response to the motion to strike?
 
Just want to provide some update, the motion to strike is sustained

A ruling for the motion to reconsider will come shortly
 
MOTION TO DISMISS

Your honor, we request this case to be dismissed with prejudice in accordance to Court Rules & Proceedings Rule 5.5 Lack of Claim. The plaintiff has failed to provide any evidence to support their claims.
 
Anthony said:
Just want to provide some update, the motion to strike is sustained

A ruling for the motion to reconsider will come shortly
Click to expand...
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO RECONSIDER

What the Defence failed to mention was that the clause which states evidence has to be entered the way the Defendant described it specifically states that only evidence during discovery should be formatted that way:

Evidence entered in during discovery will be required to be labeled appropriately following the mentioned naming conventions. (plaintiff/p-### / defense/d-###)

Therefore, evidence outside of discovery can be formatted in anyway either party wishes to. It was not discovery when the Plaintiff filed the case. Not only that, the Defense doesn't follow the format for a Motion to Strike given by the Courts in the Motions Guide (link). It has been precedented in the Supreme Court (link) that you must follow format during a case. Precedence set by the Supreme Court is required to be followed by the District Court.
 
Last edited:
Your Honor, I am aware that discovery has ended but I wish to call the Department of Legal Affairs, Nacholebraa and lcn as witnesses. The reason for why I have requested this so late is because I was waiting on my lawyer to send it, but they've gone non-responsive over the past few days, possibly due to IRL complications. I hope you understand my circumstances and approve this.
 
zLost said:
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO RECONSIDER

What the Defence failed to mention was that the clause which states evidence has to be entered the way the Defendant described it specifically states that only evidence during discovery should be formatted that way:

Evidence entered in during discovery will be required to be labeled appropriately following the mentioned naming conventions. (plaintiff/p-### / defense/d-###)

Therefore, evidence outside of discovery can be formatted in anyway either party wishes to. It was not discovery when the Plaintiff filed the case. Not only that, the Defense doesn't follow the format for a Motion to Strike given by the Courts in the Motions Guide (link). It has been precedented in the Supreme Court (link) that you must follow format during a case. Precedence set by the Supreme Court is required to be followed by the District Court.
Click to expand...
Edit:
Changed the following sentence from:
"the Defense doesn't follow the format given by the courts"
To:
"the Defense doesn't follow the format for a Motion to Strike given by the courts"
 
Your honor this is an outrageous attempt from the plaintiff to prolong this case and make my client look bad in the public eye.
 
Aladeen said:
Your honor this is an outrageous attempt from the plaintiff to prolong this case and make my client look bad in the public eye.
Click to expand...
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO STRIKE

The Defense is speaking out of turn.
 
Aladeen said:
MOTION TO RECONSIDER

Your honor, we believe that the motion to dismiss presents more than enough valid claims to dismiss this case.
Click to expand...
OBJECTION
Breach of Procedure

Your honor, the Court Policy regarding motions (link) state this about motions to reconsider:

A request to reconsider a previous ruling based on a point of law or new evidence. Only one motion to reconsider can be made per decision, with all arguments included in a single submission.

The Defense hasn't brought up any point of law nor new evidence, and is simply asking you to rule again. Therefore, this motion to reconsider has no merit and should not be allowed to be submitted.
 
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Request for In-game Trial

The Plaintiff wishes to engage in an in-game trial with the defense. We suggest a timing between 3pm-5pm EST this Saturday.
 
zLost said:
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO RECONSIDER

What the Defence failed to mention was that the clause which states evidence has to be entered the way the Defendant described it specifically states that only evidence during discovery should be formatted that way:

Evidence entered in during discovery will be required to be labeled appropriately following the mentioned naming conventions. (plaintiff/p-### / defense/d-###)

Therefore, evidence outside of discovery can be formatted in anyway either party wishes to. It was not discovery when the Plaintiff filed the case. Not only that, the Defense doesn't follow the format for a Motion to Strike given by the Courts in the Motions Guide (link). It has been precedented in the Supreme Court (link) that you must follow format during a case. Precedence set by the Supreme Court is required to be followed by the District Court.
Click to expand...
Motion to reconsider is sustained Court Rules and Procedures states during discovery and the plaintiff's evidence was added during the initial complaint

Aladeen said:
MOTION TO DISMISS

Your honor, we request this case to be dismissed with prejudice in accordance to Court Rules & Proceedings Rule 5.5 Lack of Claim. The plaintiff has failed to provide any evidence to support their claims.
Click to expand...

Motion to dismiss is overruled

Aladeen said:
MOTION TO RECONSIDER

Your honor, we believe that the motion to dismiss presents more than enough valid claims to dismiss this case.
Click to expand...

Motion to reconsider is overruled

zLost said:
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Request for In-game Trial

The Plaintiff wishes to engage in an in-game trial with the defense. We suggest a timing between 3pm-5pm EST this Saturday.
Click to expand...

Does the defendant agree with an in-game trial?
 
The defense rejects the ingame trial.
 
MOTION TO RECUSE

The defense believes that the Honorable Magistrate Anthony is not an impartial judge, and that they have a personal bias against my client. Earlier this year your honor sent multiple messages regarding my client, stating that he is “corrupt” and that he is a “puppet”.

IMG_5524.jpeg



IMG_5525.jpeg
 
Your Honor, may I respond to the motion to recuse?
 
RESPONSE TO MOTION TO RECUSE

A while ago, a very similar motion to recuse was filed in the case SCR 1 [2024] (link) which was denied. I will be using the arguments given in this precedent, against the motion to recuse filed by the Defense.

The Defense states that your honor had made statements against the Defendant, Bezzergeezer. In the words of (Acting) Chief Justice xEndeavour:

The comments presented aren't directly related to the contents of this case and are otherwise general in nature. The comments made reflect a time where I was likely in political office and for which I was engaging in political rhetoric.

The same applies here, what your honor said was almost 6 months ago and don't relate much to what this specific case is about. Just like the motion to recuse in the Supreme Court, your honor was participating in political rhetoric and this doesn't affect his impartiality. As I've stated before, the District Court is required to follow precedent set by the Supreme Court. Therefore, what the Defense has stated isn't reasonable for a recusal.
 
Aladeen said:
MOTION TO RECUSE

The defense believes that the Honorable Magistrate Anthony is not an impartial judge, and that they have a personal bias against my client. Earlier this year your honor sent multiple messages regarding my client, stating that he is “corrupt” and that he is a “puppet”.

View attachment 47389


View attachment 47390
Click to expand...
Motion to rescue is sustained

As per Motions:

Courts said:
Bias or Prejudice: The judge has shown bias or prejudice that could affect their impartiality.
Click to expand...

There is some bias that could affect the impartiality of the verdict therefore for the fairness of both parties, then I am rescuing from this case.


This court is in recess pending a new judicial officer.
 

Case Filing


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


President Bezzergeezer
Counter Plaintiff

v.

Zlost
Counter Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:


The Defense is presenting a counterlawsuit for legal fees. My client has been forced to seek representation due to this frivolous lawsuit being presented infront of the court.


I. PARTIES
1. Zlost (Plaintiff)
2. Bezzergeezer (Defendant)
3. Aladeen (Defendant's Attorney)

II. FACTS
1.The plaintiff filled a frivolous and absurd lawsuit against my client.
2. My client was forced to find legal representation to defend himself from the baseless allegations from the Plaintiff.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The Legal Damages Act allows the Defendant to seek Legal Fees up to $5000 or 20% of the case, whichever is higher.
2. The Plaintiff, by presenting this outrageous & frivolous lawsuit against my client qualifies for Punitive Damages.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. $7200 (30%) of the case value to cover the legal fees the Defendant has to pay as a consequence of this frivolous lawsuit.
2. $10,000 in punitive damages as a punishment to the Plaintiff for filling this frivolous case, and to stop them from attempting to doing so in the future.

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 30th day of August of 2024.

 
Your (future) Honor, I wish to extend discovery by 1 day. As I've stated earlier, I wanted to call witnesses and share some more evidence however my lawyer has gone non-responsive, therefore I was unable to do what I wanted during that time. I believe this is fair as neither the Plaintiff nor the Defendant hasn't been called for opening statements yet, meaning we haven't moved onto that stage yet.
 
Your honor, my client has a constitutional right to a speedy trial. The fact that the Plaintiff hired inefficient council should not be a reason to prolong this case. Anytime that this lawsuit continues my client is affected.
 
The Plaintiff wishes to drop this case.
 
Before the case is dismissed we request an urgent sidebar.
 
Your honor, is there any update who will be the new presiding officer? Every day that passes the reputation of my client gets damaged and we really need a side bar
 
I'll be assuming this case as Presiding Officer.

@zLost can you confirm that you drop your case against the defendant?

@Aladeen do you uphold your counterclaim, if the above is confirmed?
 
End said:
I'll be assuming this case as Presiding Officer.

@zLost can you confirm that you drop your case against the defendant?

@Aladeen do you uphold your counterclaim, if the above is confirmed?
Click to expand...
Yessir
 
End said:
I'll be assuming this case as Presiding Officer.

@zLost can you confirm that you drop your case against the defendant?

@Aladeen do you uphold your counterclaim, if the above is confirmed?
Click to expand...
we do
 
Your honor, as I am the new Owner, CEO, and Managing Partner of Solid Law Firm, I will be taking over as zLost's primary counsel.

We still wish for Nolle Prosequi, however we ask for the opportunity to provide a rebuttal to the Defendant's Counterclaim.

Thank you.

Proof of Continued Consent to Represent:
1000008485.jpg
 
Dartanboy said:
Your honor, as I am the new Owner, CEO, and Managing Partner of Solid Law Firm, I will be taking over as zLost's primary counsel.

We still wish for Nolle Prosequi, however we ask for the opportunity to provide a rebuttal to the Defendant's Counterclaim.

Thank you.

Proof of Continued Consent to Represent:
View attachment 49224
Click to expand...

You may provide a rebuttal over the next 72 hours.
 

Brief


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
REBUTTAL TO COUNTERSUIT

(I used the brief background because there isn't a better-suited one, as far as I can tell).

Your honor, the Plaintiff contests a) that this was a frivolous lawsuit, b) that any punitive damages should be awarded in the countersuit, and c) the amount of legal fees that ought to be awarded.

On The Frivolity Of This Case
Your honor, this case was not frivolous. Filing a Frivolous Case is defined as "Lodging a legal case that has no serious purpose or value." according to the Savior* Act (Act of Congress - Savior* Act)

First of all, the Plaintiff is of the opinion that President BezzerGeezer did disobey the Defamation Act by making the statements he said about my client. That said, the Plaintiff has chosen to forgive the President of his wrongdoings and move to cancel the case such as to not harm the stability of our great nation by forcing the sitting President to focus on something other than helping Redmont become the greatest it can be.

If you review the initial filing, you'll see not only an excellent legal analysis of the situation by former Solid Law Firm Managing Partner Jakovus, but you'll also see an abundance of evidence (Nine Exhibits!) supporting the claims made by the Plaintiff.

Whilst it is, of course, up to the court to determine whether the statements were Defamatory in nature, there is no doubt that the Plaintiff believed this to be the case and filed this lawsuit with a "serious purpose" and is thus, not a Frivolous Lawsuit.

Furthermore, if it were a Frivolous Lawsuit, surely Magistrate xAntho_ny would have dismissed the case at the beginning, approved the Motion to Dismiss, or approved the Motion to Reconsider dismissal.

Filing a Frivolous Court Case is a crime, and absent Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt that this was frivolous, it simply cannot be considered such.

On Punitive Damages
Punitive damages do not apply, as the lawsuit was not "frivolous and outrageous" (as required by the Legal Damages Act). As explained above, the case was not frivolous. As far as outrageous, the Supreme Court determined in the case of Ligthiago v. FuriousPaladin [2023] SCR 20 that "for conduct to be 'outrageous' it must be completely indecent, totally atrocious, and fully intolerable in a civilized community."

Would the court find that filing a lawsuit when one reasonably believes they were a victim of defamatory statements ought to be considered "completely indecent, totally atrocious, and fully intolerable in a civilized community?" Quite the contrary, I'd hope! If anything, the countersuit is outrageous (however the Plaintiff will not be pursuing a counter-countersuit).

On Legal Fees
Firstly, this lawsuit's value was $20,000, making 30% $6,000 (not $7,200 as the countersuit claims).

Secondly, the Legal Damages Act stipulates that "In the event that the plaintiff initiates legal proceedings and such proceedings are dismissed by the court or result in a judgment in favor of the defendant, the prevailing party's legal representatives shall be entitled to recover reasonable legal fees from the plaintiff, capped at $5,000 or 20% of the case's value, whichever is higher."

Notably, this case is being dismissed, making the upper cap (absolute maximum amount of possible legal fees) for this $20,000-value case $5,000.

Finally, as quoted above, the prevailing party is only entitled to reasonable legal fees. Surely awarding the maximum amount possible legal fees is not reasonable for a case which has not even made it to Opening Statements. It is not our place to tell the court precisely the amount of legal fees ought to be awarded, but we do feel the law is clear that it should not be the maximum-allowed of $5,000.

Thank you, your honor.

 

Verdict


IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
zLost v. Bezzergeezer [2024] DCR 32

I. PLAINTIFF'S POSITION
1. Plaintiff drops deformation claims against the defendant.
2. The Plaintiff claims the dropped case was not frivolous.
3. The Defence is entitled to reasonable legal fees proportionate to the case value.

II. DEFENDANT'S POSITION
1. Defendant claims that the Legal Damages Act allows them to seek Legal Fees up to $5000 or 20% of the case, whichever is higher.
2. The Defence argues that the Plaintiff had put forward a frivilous case which qualifies them for punitive damages.

III. THE COURT OPINION
I'm not satisfied that the original filing was frivolous in nature.

I value the case at $24,000, which under the Legal Damages Act entitles the Defence up to $5000 or 20% of the case value (whichever is higher).

I also note that the case did not progress past pre-trial and little legal activity has occurred to get to this point..

IV. DECISION
The District Court rules in favour of the Defendant and awards them $2000 in legal fees.

The District Court thanks all involved.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top