Case: Pending Anthony_org v. Hot Truth Azalea

[Anthony_org]

Anthony_org ​

v. ​

Hot Truth Azalea

---

FACTUAL BACKGROUND​

Hot Truth Azalea published an article titled “MOJ Lawsuits” that discusses multiple lawsuits filed against the Ministry of Justice.

The Article expressly references Plaintiff Anthony_org by name and purports to summarize the nature of his lawsuits and the relief sought.

The Article presents itself as a factual news publication rather than opinion, satire, or commentary.

---

FALSE AND DEFAMATORY STATEMENT​

Within the Article’s section titled “Prayer for Relief,” Hot Truth Azalea published the following statement as a factual assertion:

“The plaintiffs also request changes to the criminal code and constitution.”

This statement is false and materially misleading.

Plaintiff did bring civil actions alleging that the Ministry of Justice acted in violation of existing constitutional protections. However, Plaintiff did not request any amendment, modification, or change to the Constitution of Azalea Isles, nor any alteration to the criminal code, as relief in any lawsuit filed.

Alleging that a government actor violated the Constitution is legally distinct from seeking to change the Constitution itself. Plaintiff’s lawsuits sought enforcement, recognition, and remedy under the Constitution as written, not legislative reform, constitutional amendment, or restructuring of criminal law.

The Article improperly conflates these distinct concepts and falsely attributes to Plaintiff a request for constitutional and criminal code changes that was never made. This misrepresentation is objectively verifiable by reviewing the plain text of Plaintiff’s pleadings and prayers for relief.

By asserting that Plaintiff sought changes to the Constitution and criminal code, Defendants mischaracterized the nature of Plaintiff’s legal actions and portrayed them as an attempt to pursue political or systemic reform through the courts rather than to seek accountability under existing law. This false attribution harmed Plaintiff’s reputation and credibility.

---

FAULT​

Defendants failed to exercise reasonable care by inaccurately summarizing Plaintiff’s requested relief and by publishing a statement that was contradicted by the underlying court filings.

A reasonable publisher exercising basic diligence would have recognized the distinction between alleging constitutional violations and seeking constitutional amendments.

Defendants therefore acted at minimum with negligence, and in the alternative with reckless disregard for the truth.

---

DAMAGES​

As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ false statement, Plaintiff suffered reputational harm and public mischaracterization of his legal actions.


The harm is ongoing while the Article remains published without correction or retraction.

---

ANONYMITY AND NEED FOR DISCLOSURE​

Hot Truth Azalea operates with undisclosed ownership and editorial control.

This anonymity prevents Plaintiff from identifying responsible parties, effectuating proper service, and obtaining complete relief.

Plaintiff has made a prima facie showing of defamation sufficient to justify limited, court-supervised disclosure of the identity of the owner and individuals exercising editorial control over Hot Truth Azalea.

This request is narrowly tailored and does not infringe upon lawful press freedoms.

---

Exhibits

---

PRAYER FOR RELIEF​

1. Compensatory damages of $1,000

2. The disclosure of the owner-operator of Hot Truth Azalea

3. Retraction of defamatory statements from the "MoJ Lawsuits" article.

---

VERIFICATION​

I, Anthony_org, affirm under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.