Lawsuit: Dismissed Kikobunbun vs. Dusty_3

[Lord_Donuticus]

In The Distinguished Court of The Stratham Republic
CIVIL ACTION
Date: 12/02/2022

Kikobunbun
Represented by Donut Law & Partners (Case lead: Lord_Donuticus)

v.

Dusty_3

I. Description of Case
Dusty_3 has engaged in a dirty and malicious attack upon the character of my client by claiming that they pasted in a build for the Olympics and then claimed that they made it, when in fact my client had been very clear that they did not in fact make it and had gotten it as a schematic due to the fact they had too much going on IRL to spend hours and hours working for free.

Dusty_3 made these claims in order to protect the story of his ally, who is currently facing a VonC, that he had been unable to find a replacement for the role of Minister for the DoPA. As such he attacked a hard working citizen, my client, publicly and maliciously with a complete fabrication. This is a disgusting action your honor and something that is quite unbecoming of someone in the role of Speaker of Parliament.

We ask you to consider every avenue available to see my client restored their honor and be given justice.

II. Parties
1. Kikobunbun
2. Dusty_3

III. Sequence of Events
1. Kikobunbun expressed interest in being Minister for the DoPA.
2. Dusty_3 fraudulently claimed that my client had presented a schematic made by someone else and pretended they made it.
3. This was not true as Kikobunbun had voiced that they did not have the time to make a MASSIVE build, for free may I add, 3 days ago in the Olympics-parkour chat (Image provided as evidence below) - as backed up by Topte (Image provided below)

IV. Claims for Relief
1. With these claimed Dusty_3 has violated the 'Fraud Criminalization Act' (https://www.mcbusinesscraft.com/forum/threads/fraud-criminalization.10952/) under its definition of 'Fraud is a false statement, misrepresentation, or deceitful conduct designed to gain something of value by misleading or deceiving someone into believing something that the perpetrator knows to be false.'
2. Dusty_3 made these claims in order to discredit Kikobunbun as a potential Minister for the DoPA. These claims were made publicly with this intention, thus the item of value is the support of the public for the claim of Prime Minister Krix - Dusty_3's close ally, that he had been unable to find a replacement Minister for the DoPA.

V. Damages
1. The court to explore the punishments laid out in the 'Fraud Criminalization Act' for Dusty_3.
2. A public apology posted by Dusty_3 in Gov-Announcements to my client 'Kikobunbun' - due to the fact that Dusty_3 made the claims while SoP, it is only fair that the apology is open and fairly able to be seen by all instead of being hidden during a flurry of other messages.
3. Dusty_3 recuse himself as chair for the Krix Hearing as he has a clear conflict of interest show by this case.
4. The court asks Parliament to consider a hearing on Dusty_3's behavior in his role as Speaker of Parliament.

Spoiler: Donut Law & Partners Permission to Take the Case

Spoiler: The Fraudulent Claims

Spoiler: Topte's Refutation

Spoiler: Kiko's Post regarding the schematic

 

[Dusty_3]

In The Distinguished Court of The Stratham Republic
MOTION TO DISMISS
Date: 02/13/22

Kikobunbun
Represented by Lord_Donuticus.

v.

Dusty_3


I. Motion To Dismiss
The Defendant motions to dismiss the case, respectfully based off the following:

The key phrase in the fraud criminalization act is "deceiving someone into believing something that the perpetrator knows to be false."

I did not know that my opinion "you passed off a schematic as your own build" was not true, and when Kiko said it wasn't true I apologized.




I am accepting that what I said wasn't true, and clearly I wasn't trying to deceive anyone as I admitted to being wrong. I was purely frustrated that we had to redo the parkour area for Olympics, and have apologized for what I said.

Are we going to punish someone for apologizing for a mistake? All humans make mistakes and I broke no laws. I was not deceiving anyone and the plaintiff cannot prove I intended to deceive anyone.

 

[Cooleagles2005]

Good Evening,

Seeing as the Defendant has already made their presence within the court, I will not be issuing any summons; although I will be ruling on this case.
I will allow 48 hours for the Plaintiff to make a rebuttal to the Defense's Motion To Dismiss.

That is all,
Thank you

 

[TeddyTaps230]

Your honor,

Due to the resignation from the server of Donuticus, the plaintiff has requested I take over. Proof attached.

I request a slight extension of time in order to put my response together

Signed
TedHastings_AC12

 

[Cooleagles2005]

Good Evening,

Thank you very much for informing the court. The court will grant the plaintiff an additional 48 hours with their response, if more time is needed, please make the court aware of such.

That is all,
Thank you

 

[TeddyTaps230]

Your Honour, I would like to bring your attention to a few points:

1. The defendant states: "I did not know that my opinion "you passed off a schematic as your own build" was not true when Kiko said it wasn't true I apologized."

In response to this Your Honour, the defendant had good reason to believe it was not true from the moment my client told him as such.

2. The defendant states: "When Kiko said it wasn't true I apologized.
I am accepting that what I said wasn't true, and clearly I wasn't trying to deceive anyone as I admitted to being wrong."

In response to this, the Defendant said he apologized when Kiko said it wasn't true. This is not true as he continued to defend this lie until after this case was posted and he was forced to apologize to protect his reputation

3. The Defendant states: "I Was not deceiving anyone and the plaintiff cannot prove I intended to deceive anyone."

In response to this, the defendant was clearly trying to harm the reputation of my client and discredit him from being a potential dopa minister candidate by bringing a false statement into a public channel and defending that statement when he had good reason to believe he was wrong

For the reasons mentioned above, Your Honour, and the fact that the defendant is actually in a high seat of Parliament as Speaker of Parliament, there is strong reason to not allow the motion to dismiss to be granted. The defendant has slandered my client, in a position of power, in a public domain, and I am requesting that the judge uses this case to set example to future Parliamentarians that this sort of behaviour should not be allowed, especially in a public domain!

Provided the motion to dismiss is not granted, I also want to ask the defendant a question, that question being, who led him to believe this lie and why did he take there word for it but didnt take mine?

 

[Dusty_3]

“The defendant had good reason to believe it was not true from the moment my client told him such”

Did I say what I said before Kiko said it wasn’t true or after? I said before and when he told me after I apologised.

I deny those absurd allegations that I was deceiving anyone.

Your honour, it looks to me like they are using fraud to sue for slander, two very different laws. This case should be dismissed as I have not deceived anyone, I have not committed fraud and that is clear.

There isn’t strong reason to continue this case as i apologised twice, and the law they are using to justify the case makes no sense to use it. When you defraud someone, it’s where you deceive an individual to gain something of value from them, im being sued for fraud because I said something that according to the plaintiff wasn’t true for which I apologised for; did I gain anything of value, did I deceive anyone, why is it Kiko is suing me as I didn’t deceive them.

With the way this case is worded they are using fraud to sue me for slander. I ask you don’t allow them to make a mockery of our laws, please dismiss this ridiculous case.

Thank you, your honour

 

[TeddyTaps230]

Your Honour,

Slander and fraud are different yes, but dusty slandered my client, in an attempt to commit fraud as well. The accusation the plaintiff made, made my client look rather bad on a political platform and it could be argued prevented him from being made minister. Instead, following this argument, one of dusty’s political party (SPA) members was nominated and accepted as DoPA minister.

A coincidence I think not!

Slander and fraud is what has happened here. Deceiving mps, the prime minister, and the public with a lie about my client… a lie that could have cost him his current position, and did cost him his chance at DoPA minister.

I ask the court, why should the Speaker Of Parliament, of all people, get away with this. A man on such a powerful position, deceiving the nation, is never a good thing. Apology or not, the crime was committed.

I say to the court, a man could commit murder, and say he’s sorry. Would the court still let him go punishment free?

 

[Cooleagles2005]

Good Evening,

The Plaintiff brought this case to court arguing violations of the Fraud Criminalization Act, which states the following, "Fraud is a false statement, misrepresentation, or deceitful conduct designed to gain something of value by misleading or deceiving someone into believing something that the perpetrator knows to be false."

Firstly, a point that neither party figured to mention, Fraud is a criminal act. Therefore, a designated prosecutor and/or representative of the State must bring the charge to the court, not just any party or individual. The court does not know if there is any current process for criminal cases to be filed if the prosecutor themselves is involved. There very much could be a process, I am just unsure at this very moment. Perhaps Parliament can investigate such and ensure that some form of the process is made clear and known.

Now let's play ball for a moment and consider if this law could actually be argued by the Plaintiff. I think both parties can agree that obviously a false statement was made, the Defendant even admits to it themselves. However, the court can not wrap around the idea that the Defendant made their statement to gain something of value. The Plaintiff argues that the "something of value" gained was the prevention of the Plaintiff becoming DoPA Minister. To my knowledge, there is no evidence that the Defendant did this purposefully, nor evidence to suggest that the Defendant would actually gain something from the Plaintiff not fulfilling the Ministerial role. Matter of fact, to the court's knowledge there is not even evidence to suggest the Plaintiff would have been guaranteed the position as Minister, and that it was this very situation that put that off course.

It is for these very reasons, that the court has decided to rule in favor and sustain the Defense's Motion To Dismiss. Perhaps, if slander was the "charge" or argument brought in place of fraud, this case would take a different turn. However, the evidence does not align in a way that allows for such a case to continue.

The court thanks both parties for their hard work and time as always.
That is all,

Court Dismissed.

Court Dismissed

This case was presided by Judge Cooleagles