Hello, Guest

By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.
By:
Advanced search…
What's new

Case: Pending Nanicholls v. Azalea Isles (2025) CV 01

N

nanicholls

New member
Joined
Dec 2, 2024
Messages
5
Nanicholls

v.

Azalea Isles


Civil Complaint:

On January 17th 2025 the Crown introduced case CR 03, Azalea Isles v. Galavance. In the Crowns filing, section "Factual Allegations" subsection 3, the Crown accused the following "On January 11, 2025, in the Ministry of Justice’s internal communication channel #High-Command, Galavance held discussions with Nanicholls and Spyrolix—both loyal APA members—about prosecuting political opponents."

In the case filing, there was no evidence showing the plaintiffs name in any of the screenshots provided, however the plaintiff was still referred to in the filing showing clear intent to slander the plaintiffs name and a violent infringement of the plaintiffs rights according to article 1, section 10 of the Constitution of Azalea.

As of January 19th, the plaintiff has not been charged with a crime or subject to criminal proceedings at hands of the Ministry of Justice.



Parties:

  1. Plaintiff: Nanicholls Nanicholls
  2. Defendant: The Azalea Isles


Factual Allegations:

Intentional slander of the plaintiffs reputation hours before the opening of an election:
1. The lawsuit was filed just 12 hours before the opening of an election campaign.
2. The plaintiff is a political opponent of the current government.
3. The plaintiffs name was mentioned in the case filing, and allegations made about him.
4. Evidence to support said allegations were not included in the case filing.

Violation of the plaintiffs right against government overreach:
5. The plaintiff has a right to innocence until guilt is proven.
6. The plaintiff has not been charged with a crime.
7. The defendant has not produced evidence of the claims in which they have publicly made.


Legal Claims:

1. The Anti-Slander Act
The act of slandering someone is hereby illegal.
2. The Constitution of the Azalea Isles
1.10 - The right against government overreach of powers not specified by the constitution.

Prayer for Relief:

A minimum fine of $50 at the discretion of the courts.


Verification:

I, Nanicholls, hereby affirm that the allegations in the complaint AND all subsequent statements made in court are true and correct to the best of the plaintiff's knowledge, information, and belief and that any falsehoods may bring the penalty of perjury.
 
Considering this is a civil case, would the Plaintiff be able to please clarify what damages they are seeking? (the money/relief being sought from the Defendant). Is it the $50 to be payable to the Plaintiff?
 
Yes, Your honour. As the Anti-Slander Act states, "A minimum fine of $50 at the discretion of the courts".
 

Writ of Summons

Azalea Isles Civil Court (CR)

Case No. CV-25-01

Plaintiff: Nanicholls Nanicholls (nanicholls)
Defendant: Government of Azalea Isles

The Defendant is required to appear before the court in the case of Nanicholls v. Azalea Isles. Failure to respond within 48 hours may result in a default judgement.

Both parties are ask to familiarize themselves with the relevant court documents, including proper formats, as well as the laws referenced in the complaint. Ensure that you comply with any court orders.
​
Signed,
Hon. Justice Raymond West
​
 
MOTION TO DISMISS
Your honour, at the bare minimum slander, is defined as a false spoken statement about someone that damages their reputation.

Nanicholls has failed to even ALLEGE that the statement is false.

If Nanicholls cannot under oath swear that the statement is false, that they were not involved in the discussion to prosecute political opponents there is no case here and it should be dismissed.
 
The Plaintiff, Nanicholls, has 24 hours to respond to the motion to dismiss before the Court makes a decision on it.
 
Your Honor, In response to the defendant’s motion to dismiss, I respectfully submit the following points and request: The defendant claims in their prosecution in CR 03 that, and I quote, “If Nanicholls cannot under oath swear that the statement is false, that they were not involved in the discussion to prosecute political opponents, there is no case here and it should be dismissed.”I would like to clarify that the prosecution has not denied being involved in the discussion that took place in #high-command. However, the defendant’s statement regarding this discussion, as quoted from the prosecution’s materials, is misleading and incomplete.

The defendant claims that “High Command strategized about how best to remove these individuals from office and bar them from participating in the upcoming election even though there was no legal justification to do so” — Exhibit B. This statement is factually incorrect and is based solely on a picture containing two messages, without any proper context to substantiate the claim.

I must further clarify that I am not able to provide hard evidence to refute these claims, as the mentioned communication channels have been locked down, restricting access to anyone besides the prosecution of CR 03. Additionally, my recent resignation from the Ministry of Justice has permanently revoked my access to these channels, thus making it impossible for me to retrieve or present any proof related to these communications.

If the court finds it necessary for the prosecution to provide hard proof to establish the falsehood of the claims made by the defendant, I respectfully request immediate access to the communication channels in question, either directly or through court proceedings.

The truth of these allegations is vital, and in the absence of context or factual evidence, we believe that the defendant’s claims cannot be upheld.

By granting access to these communications, the court will enable the prosecution to provide the necessary proof to refute the false statements and substantiate the position that these claims were without merit.

Thank you for your consideration.
 
After careful consideration, the Defendant's motion to dismiss is denied with conditions. Procedural fairness dictates that parties must have reasonable opportunities to present their case.

To be clear, the Plaintiff must provide evidence or some form of argumentation to explain two key metrics to meet the definitions of the Anti-Slander Act:
  1. The statement(s) made by the Defendant must be false.
  2. The Defendant intentionally made the statement knowing it was false.
In line with this request, the Court will be asking that the Defendant provide the Plaintiff with the chat records for these channels, including access to records in #department-chat and #high-command channels of the Ministry of Justice during the time of the alleged incidents. The Plaintiff may screenshot this ruling and provide it directly to an official of the Ministry to obtain such evidence.

After 72 hours, the Plaintiff will be asked to provide a response to the Court. Should they have any issue obtaining access to these records, they are asked to mention it here at their earliest convenience.

Thereafter, the Court will reassess this case, including potential dismissal, following this period of discovery for possible evidence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top