Brad Holmes
Cunstaval to Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Atatürkey, and flying by the seat of my RUMP
Posts: 1,014
Talossan Since: 3-16-2006
|
Post by Brad Holmes on Jul 10, 2014 23:34:27 GMT -6
The Magistrate’s Court of the Kingdom of Talossa …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… In the matter of Admiral T.M. Asmourescu, plaintiff against Beric’ht Talossa, defendant Sir Alexandreu Davinescu, defendant Munditenens Tresplet, defendant This case is assigned to the Chief Magistrate, the Honorable Owen Edwards.
|
|
Owen Edwards
Puisne Justice
Posts: 1,400
Talossan Since: 12-8-2007
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Jul 15, 2014 14:48:38 GMT -6
The case is received. Might I ask the plaintiff as to whether the presented brief constitutes the body of his complaint or a preamble?
|
|
|
Post by Adm. T.M. Asmourescu, O. Ben. on Jul 16, 2014 9:06:26 GMT -6
The presented brief represents the body of our complaint.
|
|
Owen Edwards
Puisne Justice
Posts: 1,400
Talossan Since: 12-8-2007
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Jul 16, 2014 10:46:52 GMT -6
I believe there is enough evidence to proceed as to the issue of whether defendant Davinescu libelled the plaintiff and as to whether Ber'icht was used as an instrument in that cause.
The charges against defendant Tresplet will not be pursued by this Cort - even if it could be proved that the defendant sought some unfair advantage by not mentioning his paper (in fact it may have been an innocent omission) I am entirely unconvinced that it was an illegal unfair advantage. Equally this Cort does not consider itself to be in the business of punitively pursuing newspapermen for the sort of statement that may simply be sloppy style and is at worst the sort of negative character insinuation that is the right of every individual to make (even if they probably oughtn't).
I imagine the remaining defendants will want to clarify their plans for counsel and then launch the first of the inevitably numerous Motions to Dismiss.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Jul 16, 2014 10:55:14 GMT -6
Your Honour, on behalf of my reporter, let me thank you for dismissing the charges against Munditenens Tresplet. I would like to have it on record here, however, that S:reu Tresplet did identify himself to the plaintiff as writing for a new newspaper, and would have been ready and willing to prove as much. He is a conscientious and skilled reporter who has won an award for his work, and it is appreciated that he will not have to suffer any attempts at retribution for his work for Beric'ht Talossan.
Your Honour, both myself and the publication of which I am sole owner and editor will be represented in these proceedings by Sir C. M. Siervicül. I will assist in my own defense where necessary, as well.
|
|
Owen Edwards
Puisne Justice
Posts: 1,400
Talossan Since: 12-8-2007
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Jul 17, 2014 10:12:22 GMT -6
The Cort awaits Sir Cresti's response then.
|
|
|
Post by Adm. T.M. Asmourescu, O. Ben. on Jul 17, 2014 11:37:57 GMT -6
Your worship, we are grateful for your swift adjudication on the first matter and respect the opinion of the court.
We object, however, to defendant's motion to include the statement that S:reu Tresplet had identified himself as a reporter for a new newspaper. Firstly, since he has been released from the suit, the veracity of this claim has no bearing on this case. Secondly, he did NOT make such a statement and we have as proof the unedited Private Message whereby S:reu Tresplet made his request for interview. However, we feel the point is moot and the introduction of any such fact following your ruling would be of more prejudicial than probative value.
|
|
Owen Edwards
Puisne Justice
Posts: 1,400
Talossan Since: 12-8-2007
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Jul 17, 2014 11:54:11 GMT -6
For the avoidance of further distraction, the defendant's comment is stricken from the record - though the Cort makes no judgment whatsoever ov the veracity of the claims made about the contents of the private message.
|
|
Sir C. M. Siervicül
Posts: 9,636
Talossan Since: 8-13-2005
Knight Since: 7-28-2007
Motto: Nonnisi Deo serviendum
|
Case 14-04
Jul 18, 2014 10:57:06 GMT -6
via mobile
Post by Sir C. M. Siervicül on Jul 18, 2014 10:57:06 GMT -6
If it please the Cort, notice is hereby given that I am indeed appearing in this case as counsel for the defense. I am a Senior Member of the Royal Talossan Bar and authorized to practice in this Cort.
As Your Honour has anticipated, the defense does intend to submit a motion to dismiss. I'm just finishing a busy week of litigation in a foreign forum, but hope to submit the motion by Monday the 21st.
|
|
Owen Edwards
Puisne Justice
Posts: 1,400
Talossan Since: 12-8-2007
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Jul 18, 2014 13:06:51 GMT -6
That timescale suits the Cort.
|
|
Sir C. M. Siervicül
Posts: 9,636
Talossan Since: 8-13-2005
Knight Since: 7-28-2007
Motto: Nonnisi Deo serviendum
|
Post by Sir C. M. Siervicül on Jul 22, 2014 3:54:54 GMT -6
Your Honour, the defence respectfully moves that the complaint in this case be dismissed, for the reasons identified in the attached motion.
|
|
|
Post by Adm. T.M. Asmourescu, O. Ben. on Jul 22, 2014 5:16:41 GMT -6
We object to the motion to dismiss on the grounds that this action is intended as a civil, not criminal, action.
We can only assume that the defendant's assumption that this was intended as a criminal suit is based upon our requested relief including a civil disability.mas we examine this closer, however, we see that the inclusion of this May have been misguided. However, we did not allege the commitment of a criminal offense anywhere in our brief and,but for the civil disability, request only equitable relief.
Were the court to find in our favor, we recognize and expect that the court would impose a civil penalty in keeping with its discretion and it's interpretation of the law.
|
|
Sir C. M. Siervicül
Posts: 9,636
Talossan Since: 8-13-2005
Knight Since: 7-28-2007
Motto: Nonnisi Deo serviendum
|
Post by Sir C. M. Siervicül on Jul 23, 2014 4:43:32 GMT -6
Your Honour, the defence is grateful for the clarification offered by Adm. Asmourescu, and based on that clarification I withdraw the motion to dismiss. I'm consulting with my client and will inform the cort later today or tomorrow regarding whether we intend to file a new motion in light of our new understanding of the nature of the complaint.
|
|
Owen Edwards
Puisne Justice
Posts: 1,400
Talossan Since: 12-8-2007
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Jul 23, 2014 6:07:33 GMT -6
Understood.
|
|
Sir C. M. Siervicül
Posts: 9,636
Talossan Since: 8-13-2005
Knight Since: 7-28-2007
Motto: Nonnisi Deo serviendum
|
Case 14-04
Jul 25, 2014 16:36:51 GMT -6
via mobile
Post by Sir C. M. Siervicül on Jul 25, 2014 16:36:51 GMT -6
MOTION TO MAKE MORE DEFINITE AND CERTAIN
Defendant moves that the Court order Plaintiff to provide a more definite statement of the allegations in the complaint, because the complaint as currently framed is too vague to provide Defendant a reasonable opportunity to respond. Defendant requests that the allegations be stated with greater particularity in the following respects:
1. Plaintiff should clarify whether the complaint is based on the tort of defamation or whether Plaintiff maintains that the complaint sets forth a cause of action based on any other theory.
Based on Plaintiff’s out-of-court statements and the general tenor of the complaint, Defendant understands the complaint to be one (at least primarily) sounding in defamation. But as the complaint does not explicitly identify any statutory or common-law cause of action and includes some facts and argument with little apparent relevance to the elements of defamation, Plaintiff should state his legal theory and/or theories more definitively in the interest of judicial economy and avoiding unfair surprise to Defendant.
2. Plaintiff should state with particularity the statements allegedly made by Defendant that Plaintiff believes to be defamatory, as well as when, where, and in what manner they were made.
Section 2 of the complaint contains a numbered list of alleged “untruths,” but it is unclear whether this list is comprehensive in terms of the statements Plaintiff contends were defamatory. Also, some of the statements from Defendant included in the list appear to be paraphrased (particularly item #1 in the list), and it is unclear which of Defendants’ statements in section 1 of the complaint (“Factual Background”) are referenced by the items in the list. The defences available to Defendant may vary according to the particularities alleged in response to this request.
Respectfully submitted this 25th day of July, 2014/XXXV.
/s/ C. M. Siervicül Counsel for Defendant
|
|