Lawsuit: In Session SignalHarbor054 v. Saarthigaming

[AlienBloom20204]

In The Circuit Court of The Stratham Republic
CIVIL ACTION
Date: 08/28/24
SignalHarbor054
AlienBloom20204

v.

Saarthigaming

I. Description of Case
The defendant, as seen in the logs and on Discord, made remarks in global chat about SignalHarbor that harmed his reputation to make the defendant appear as the better candidate. As seen in the first log, there was already a strong dislike before the election.

II. Parties
1. SignalHarbor054
2. Saarthigaming

III. Sequence of Events
1. Elections start Friday the 23rd
2. Saarthigaming and Signal Both run for MP
3. Saarthigaming stated that it would be better for everyone if he won, leading to the statement that he knows more than SignalHarbor054, which is untrue, opinionated, and aimed to harm character during the elections.

IV. Claims for Relief
1. Defamatory shall be defined as “Remarks that are intended to damage the good reputation of a person(s) or corporate entity.”

V. Damages
1. 4000kr for defamation and harm caused during the election period
2. A public apology for caused offense
3. 500kr Legal Fees

(Attach evidence and a list of witnesses at the bottom if applicable)

In advancing this form to the court, you acknowledge and concur with the rules of court which highlight the importance of honesty at all times. Moreover, you understand the punishments for breaking these rules and/or committing perjury and deception in the court.

 

[MegaMinerM]

@Saarthigaming is hereby summoned to the court to acknowledge the case. If the Defendant, @Saarthigaming, does not acknowledge the case as a reply in 2 days, the case will close in the Plaintiff's favor.

Court is in Session

This case is presided by Judge MegaMinerM Bear in mind to not reply to court cases unless summoned by the Judge!

 

[Supermetro]

In The Circuit Court of The Stratham Republic
MOTION TO DISMISS
Date: 09/01/24
SignalHarbor054
AlienBloom20204 (Lawyer)

v.

Saarthigaming
supermetro (Lawyer - Innocently Guilty At Law)

I. Motion To Dismiss
The Defendant motions to dismiss the case, respectfully based off the following:
The Damage that the plaintiff declares is “Defamation”, which is correctly explained in the section IV of the opening statement. However, this type of crime is already defined in the Rules and not the Laws. (Verbal harassment: Insulting, personal defamation, or attacking another player in private msgs, mail, forums, or in public chats. Discord DMs can only be punished if it’s related to BusinessCraft.). I’d also like to specify that this term, while not found in the laws page, is present in the BC Federal code under the company slander section and the parlamentary conduct section (and here we are not talking about a company or a MP, so this is not my client’s case). Therefore, by having proven that this case doesn’t fall under the responsibility of the DoJ, we request to dismiss it from court.

In advancing this form to the court, you acknowledge and concur with the rules of court which highlight the importance of honesty at all times. Moreover, you understand the punishments for breaking these rules and/or committing perjury and deception in the court.

 

[AlienBloom20204]

Your Honor,
May I proceed with the response to the MTD

 

[MegaMinerM]

Yes you may.

 

[AlienBloom20204]

In The Circuit Court of The Stratham Republic
IN RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS
Date: 09/01/24
SignalHarbor054
AlienBloom20204

v.

Saarthigaming

I. Response to the Motion To Dismiss
The Defendant motions to dismiss the case, respectfully based off the following:
1. The term not being found on the law page but present on BC Federal Code
-This term is found under acts of law, then under the Reputation Act which is precisely defined. I would also like to bring up that the BC Federal Code is outdated so these definitions are not in the present and the new laws are the laws that are in place to follow as they are the more recent ones.
2. Does not follow under a company or MP
- I believe the defendant is misreading the law that was made, “Any citizen may file a civil suit to rectify the damages of Slander or Libel. If Slander or Libel be proven to have taken please, the Court may grant the following reliefs…” This is under any citizen so any citizen may post a suit against another citizen. Which in this case is false.
3. The Case Does not belong under DoJ
-I believe this is correct but this case already had no reason to deal with the DOJ as stated in Section 2, “the Court”, does not follow under DoJ as in the constitution there is no mention that it falls under the DoJ because it does not. The courts are its separate entity and believe that this is misleading/false information.
To sum it up, I believe that the defense response is fraudulent. For the following reasons, there is nowhere in the law it says that a person has to be an MP/Company which is misleading/false evidence. As well as the defense uses the DoJ to mislead.

In advancing this form to the court, you acknowledge and concur with the rules of court which highlight the importance of honesty at all times. Moreover, you understand the punishments for breaking these rules and/or committing perjury and deception in the court.

 

[MegaMinerM]

The motion to dismiss is overruled. The defense has 48 hours to put forward a response.

 

[Supermetro]

In The Circuit Court of The Stratham Republic
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
Date: 09/03/24
SignalHarbor054
AlienBloom20204 (Lawyer)

v.

Saarthigaming
supermetro (Lawyer - Innocently Guilty At Law)

I. Pleading
I, Saarthigaming, plead Not Guilty to the accusations brought forth by the plaintiff.

II. Arguments

1. “To sum it up, I believe that the defense response is fraudulent. For the following reasons, there is nowhere in the law it says that a person has to be an MP/Company which is misleading/false evidence. As well as the defense uses the DoJ to mislead. (Quoting the Response to the MTD)”. First of all, I’d like to make clear that there wasn’t any intention to mislead, create a false evidence or to to publish fraudolent responses in the Motion to dismiss. I have to point out that nowhere on the forums it is written that the BC Federal Code is outdated (By the way, it is also found in the Lawyer Guide). The statement that Defamation shall be punished only in companies or within MPs comes from the fact that I looked at the BC Federal Code without knowing that it was outdated, and again, I’d like to point out that this should be made more clear to all the lawyers and the guides should be updated.
2. Also, with the “Therefore, by having proven that this case doesn’t fall under the responsibility of the DoJ, we request to dismiss it from court. (Quoting the MTD)” I meant that, since I previously stated that Defamation was a RULE and it was handled by Staff members, this type of case shoudn’t be handled in a court (Stratham Constituition: Section 3.1b “The Judiciary is empowered to interpret the LAWS passed by the Parliament. […]”), but by a Mod or a Admin (as I said, Rules have already been written for this type of case)
3. Now, Your Honour, we can see that we found ourselves in a situation where my client could be punished for either breaking a Staff handled Rule or a “Court handled” Act. However, We have to make clear that my client has already been punished by a moderator for this exact act of defamation by the Staff (Evidences 1 & 2), therefore, by reminding the court what’s written on the Stratham Constituition, Section 5.3b (“Players will also have protection from double jeopardy, meaning they may only be tried for a specific instance of a crime or action ONCE.”) I find self-explanatory the fact that now, being the second time my client is accused of committing this crime, he should not be punished at all (again) as he is guilty only one time, as we read on the Constituition section I previously quoted.

In advancing this form to the court, you acknowledge and concur with the rules of court which highlight the importance of honesty at all times. Moreover, you understand the punishments for breaking these rules and/or committing perjury and deception in the court.

 

[AlienBloom20204]

Your Honor,
May I proceed with the response

 

[MegaMinerM]

You may.

 

[AlienBloom20204]

In The Circuit Court of The Stratham Republic
IN RESPONSE TO COMPLAINT
Date: 09/04/24
SignalHarbor054
AlienBloom20204

v.

Saarthigaming

I. Response to complaint
1. A 3rd party made the BusniessCraft Federal Code which is now considered outdated since the last law added was in 2020 and the law firm is not active to the day. Also, the Big Bang Act passed which states, “All Bills created under Parliament or the Council of Minister that passed prior to the date December 1st, 2023 are hereby struck from law and rescinded.” This means any prior definition of the word is now followed under the new law definition from the Reputation Act.
2. To address that defamation is a rule and not a law is simply put as of this. It is a law under the Reputation Act so in this case it's a law.
3. Now your honor, I would like to address the same words made by the defense, “my client has already been punished by a moderator for this exact act of defamation”. Which I would believe to be false for the following reasons as talked to NetPex the person who gave the punishment for clarification, and the evidence was not used/based on the punishment. Thus this is not the exact. (Seen in Evidence 1) Also, I would like to address that staff and government are separate entities. This means the evidence used from the constitution Section 5.3b (“Players will also have protection from double jeopardy, meaning they may only be tried for a specific instance of a crime or action ONCE.” ) This means the crime was never committed as on a court level meaning the action was never taken before as this does not apply to staff since staff and government are a separate entity as stated in the constitution" The Staff Team and Government remain separated in responsibilities and powers."

In advancing this form to the court, you acknowledge and concur with the rules of court which highlight the importance of honesty at all times. Moreover, you understand the punishments for breaking these rules and/or committing perjury and deception in the court.

 

[Supermetro]

Your Honour, may I proceed with another Motion to Dismiss, if possible?

 

[MegaMinerM]

Yes you may

 

[Supermetro]

In The Circuit Court of The Stratham Republic
MOTION TO DISMISS
Date: 09/05/24
SignalHarbor054
AlienBloom20204 (Lawyer)

v.

Saarthigaming
supermetro (Lawyer - Innocently Gulilty at Law)

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

1. It has now been Made clear that there are “Court Handled” acts and Staff Handled Rules about defamation. However, Quoting the last response of the plaintiff “To address that defamation is a rule and not a law is simply put as of this. It is a law under the Reputation Act so in this case it's a law. […] Also, I would like to address that staff and government are separate entities. This means the evidence used from the constitution Section 5.3b (Players will also have protection from double jeopardy, meaning they may only be tried for a specific instance of a crime or action ONCE.) This means the crime was never committed as on a court level meaning the action was never taken before as this does not apply to staff since staff and government are a separate entity as stated in the constitution The Staff Team and Government remain separated in responsibilities and powers." I cannot find a correlation between the fact that Staff and Court are separate entities and that crimes shall be punished only once (according to the Stratham Constituition Section 5.3b): It would be just pointless, as the Constituition Says, to punish a crime twice, even if there are two separate entities that punish it.
2. In response to “talked to NetPex the person who gave the punishment for clarification, and the evidence was not used/based on the punishment. Thus this is not the exact.” I’d like to say that even if NetPex did not punish Saarthigaming for the exact phrases he said in the evidences published on the first post of this thread, the crime where he based the punishment was still the one we are talking about (as said by Tracefais, evidence in my previous response). The point is that we should consider all this as one crime: It’s inconceivable the fact that, for example, X says three bad things about Y in a definite and short period of time and he gets three offences for committing a crime, while its obious that he will only get one offence (after some warnings too). This should be applied to my client’s case too: The plaintiff stated that the things my client said and he’s accusing him for (published on this lawsuit) are not the exact same as the ones on which the staff based the given punishment, but, as I’m saying here, the punishment should be given not for the exact said phrase, but for the act in its entirety, and again, here this punishment has already been given.
3. As written by the plaintiff, defamation shall be intended as a damage to the good reputation of a person. Here, on the first evidence, we see my client saying that he’s not feeling good by having SignalHarbor going against him, and to be honest, this seems exactly the opposite of what the plaintiff states (SignalHarbor doesnt seem to act good towards my client, who’s just expressing his feelings and not, as stated by AlienBloom20204, ruining the plaintiff reputation). On the second evidence we can see my client saying that he knows legislation better than SignalHarbor, and this is just a statement of an observation and there is no proof that it could have damaged the reputation of SignalHarbor054. On the third evidence we can see my client saying he hates the plaintiff. That’s the only thing he said. Again I wonder how could it even be possible to damage a reputation of a person without saying anything other than that: My client just expressed his feeling towards another player, and it’s common that players may hate someone other for various reasons. Just saying this doesn’t ruin the reputation of a person
4. Quoting the Reputation Act, on which the plaintiff has based his accusations “(5) In order for Slander and Libel to be considered as such, they must meet these additional requirements: The form in which the slander takes place must be visible to at least 2 citizens or more that do not include the defamer and victim.” we can see that he failed to provide evidence (except for the third evidence, which is on Discord) that there were at least other two players online at the moment the crime was committed, making the accusations unfounded for this reason too.
5. Moreover I don’t realise how it is possible that all these statements made by my client have damaged the reputation of the plaintiff, as we can see that the elections have ended 18-7 for SignalHarbor054: A very big difference of eleven points, showing that a imperceptible to none amount of damage has been made, which denotes that the claims are, again, invalid.
6. Now, Your honour, We can see that the plaintiff is trying to bring up in court a case about a “crime” that has already been punished, which, also, cannot be proved as there’s no evidence that the claims made by my client were defamatory and that they actually damaged the reputation of the plaintiff. That’s why we’re asking to dismiss this case again and a Motion for Summary Judgment, as we find it frivolous and pointless.

In advancing this form to the court, you acknowledge and concur with the rules of court which highlight the importance of honesty at all times. Moreover, you understand the punishments for breaking these rules and/or committing perjury and deception in the court.

 

[AlienBloom20204]

Your honor, may I respond to the Motion of dismiss

 

[MegaMinerM]

You may

 

[AlienBloom20204]

In The Circuit Court of The Stratham Republic
IN RESPONSE TO THE MOTION TO DISMISS
Date: 09/11/24
SignalHarbor054
AlienBloom20204

v.

Saarthigaming

I. Response to the Motion To Dismiss
1. To restate what was said in the past this is from the second paragraph of the constitution,”.The Staff Team and Government remain separated in responsibilities and powers. The Executive Branch, Legislative Branch, and Judicial Branch are the three branches of government. The Owner remains the only connection between the branches of government to the Staff Team.” This direct correlation states that the government/judicial and staff are 2 separate entities as bolded in the text. Also, a crime in this matter is under the constitution thus meaning it is only to be followed by the government. This means thus again that there is no correlation between staff/the gov.
2. I believe the warning did not come from these messages but instead from misusing the forums and personal messaging. I feel like the staff team wouldn’t care for these simple messages in other words something else needed to be said to be justifiably for the warning, but this is a law yet again and not a rule in which the government and staff stay separated.
3. When in a campaign if you state you “dislike” or “hate” someone it can be seen as a way to target someone by making general statements about them. Therefore, damaging the reputation of your opponent for the betterment of yourself, stating the fact that Saar “knew more than signal”, which is an act of indirect defamation targeting the opponent.
4. Metro is correct that 2 or more players must be on these are the screenshots that prove that at least 2 players were on. As in the first piece of evidence, it is shown that Aliclya and veryreal_alex is on.(evidence 1) In the second piece, it shows veryreal_alex and the witness who sent the screenshot which is sealed for confidential terms of my client which I can confirm is not veryreal_alex (evidence 4), thus meaning there were 2 people online (evidence 3)
5. The statement when no apparent harm I believe is false for the following reasons, while these responses were made it wasn’t a large lead but instead was a desperation measure to regain votes by ruining the opponent's name.
6. Your honor, we request an overview of the defendant's lawyer qualification from the SBA as this case shows the defendant's lawyer does not observe the nation's laws unless directed to. Also, I would like to request as well for a Motion for Summary Judgment.