Summons: Beckett v. de Frand

[MCVDK 2851]

BECKETT v. DE FRAND

3rd of Tobias’ Bounty, 1803

The Plaintiff, EVAN BECKETT,

    Represented by WILLIAM T. AUBERT of AUBERT LEGAL CO.,

   

    DESIRES TO SUMMON THE FOLLOWING PARTY TO COURT;

                AIMEE DE FRAND

ON THE BASIS OF THE FOLLOWING PRINCIPLE(S), DOCTRINE(S), EDICT(S) OR ARTICLES OF LAW:

 

202.083 - Where an individual disseminates false information about an individual, with intent to harm the reputation of that individual, in a public space or by distribution of printed materials, this shall be defamation in the first degree, a misdemeanor. 

 

Oren Revised Code, CH202 ‘Injury against the Person’

 

    The Plaintiff, Evan Beckett, henceforth referred to as the Plaintiff [alternatively Mr. Beckett], as represented by William T. Aubert, henceforth referred to as Mr. Aubert, Solicitor of Aubert Legal Co., has throughout the past decade suffered multiple injuries and damages in relation to the events of the following document. It has been seen fit by the Plaintiff, as counseled and represented by Mr. Aubert, to sue the Defendant, Aimee de Frand, henceforth referred to as the Defendant [alternatively Miss de Frand] for the injuries caused through the legal breachment of the above denoted article of law, as presented within the Oren Revised Code, henceforth referred to as the ORC, therein the Plaintiff, as represented by Mr. Aubert, presents the following affidavit to the Circuit Court and the Defendant as an explanation of charges presented within this document. 

 

    Within the year of 1791, prior to the evacuation of Arcas, the Plaintiff and the Defendant had met within the borders of Helena, residing within the territory of the Holy Orenian Empire, where the Defendant had requested the Plaintiff to speak within private, which resulted in the Plaintiff leading the Defendant to his own residence within Helena. Within the residence of the Plaintiff, wherein his daughter resided at the time, the Defendant attempted to convince the Plaintiff to engage in nightly activities within the Plaintiffs personal quarters, all the while the daughter of the Plaintiff was a mere floor above them. In accordance with the ideals of the Canon Church and the articles of law presented within the ORC, the Plaintiff promptly refused the attempt of the Defendant, hereafter the Defendant allegedly spoke: “You do want to make me an enemy of yours - I have little to live for.” [Note: The Plaintiff does not wish to take a personal stance of the latter statement in relation to their personal reasons to live]. 

 

    Shortly after the incident presented in the above paragraph, multiple events occurred in relation to the Defendant which resulted in the unfortunate mistaken imprisonment of the Defendant. Due to the incident of the imprisonment, and the unfortunate miscommunication between officers of the Imperial State Army and the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff took it upon himself to ensure that the Defendant was alright within the cells of the Imperial State Army. As the Plaintiff entered the cells, the Defendant [allegedly] beat herself prior to shouting for the other soldiers of the Imperial State Army, which presumably was fueled through the prior conversation of the Plaintiff and the Defendant. Above incident led to the first injury of the situation caused against the Plaintiff, as the situation led to the immediate discharge of the Plaintiff, which is, as seen above, a result of defamation caused through the self-harm of the Defendant. 

 

    Throughout the following collection of years, the case remained within a state of stalemate. The Plaintiff nor the Defendant had pressed charges against one another throughout the next couple of years. However, within the year of 1796, just prior to the evacuation of Arcas, the Plaintiff and Defendant met once more within the Eye of Man, wherein a conversation emerged between the two parties which led to the Defendant claiming that the Plaintiff utilized violence against her within the past, which refers directly back the above paragraph in relation to the discharge of the Imperial State Army. 

 

    As a result of the situation within the Eye of Man, charges were subpoenaed against the Plaintiff issued through the Ministry of Justice, presumable on behalf of the information given to them from the Defendant, which stands as a definite public form of defamation as the charges of the subpoena were presented within the public forums of Oren. All charges against the Plaintiff were dropped further within the case, whereas precedent denotes, through the utilization of the non bis idem legal defense: “210.011A - Where an individual has been tried for a crime in a previous court of law, that individual cannot be tried again for the same crime. [Oren Revised Code, CH210 ‘On Legal Defenses’]”, that the Plaintiff does not stand, at present date, with the guilt of the charges presented within the case, therefore resulting in the claims of the individuals within the case standing as defamation against the Plaintiff. 

 

AS A RESULT OF SUCH, THE PLAINTIFF WISHES: 

It is the opinion of the Plaintiff, as represented by Mr. Aubert, that the damages caused within the events described in the above paragraphs shall be returned in form of monetary remittance, as determined by the Judge presiding over the case, as a form of compensation to the multiple injuries, which will be listed beneath this section, caused to the Plaintiff. 

 

The Plaintiff has suffered the following injuries or damages throughout the period, in reference to the initial confrontation between the parties, as well as the case which followed in the later years: 

(i) The Plaintiff has been disowned (Social Damage)

(ii) The Plaintiff has been discharged from the Imperial State Army (Social and Financial Damage) 

(iii) The Plaintiff has been charged with crimes before the public (Social Damage). 

 

INVOCATION OF PRECEDENCE: 

    The Plaintiff, as represented by Mr. Aubert, is aware that the Circuit Court does not have civil suits often. Therefore, it is the wish of the Plaintiff to invoke, and remind the Court, of precedence in relation to the nature of civil suits. Civil suits occur in the scenario of damages caused against an individual's personal nature, wherein the Ministry of Justice does not see fit to invoke legal activity against the Defendant, wherein the Plaintiff is required to take personal legal action against the damages, specifically those of financial nature, caused against the Plaintiff. 

 

Furthermore, in relation to the defamation charge presented above, there is an established legal precedence of permitting the above charge within civil suits. Throughout the case of Bren v. O’Rourke, as presented to the Court by Konstantin Wick, henceforth referred to as Mr. Wick, Solicitor of Christiansen-Wick Solicitors, wherein the exact defamation charge, as presented above, is shown within the summons of the civil suit. Upon further investigation of the case of Bren v. O’Rourke, it can be found that the case has been concluded within the Circuit Court through a settlement agreement, wherein the precedence of agreements is required to be recalled. It is the nature of the Court to approve all agreements between parties, which has been presented after the submission of the summons, to ensure all legal aspects of these settlements are followed. Therefore, as no judge of the Circuit Court has invoked their right to halt the agreement, which would have been done in the scenario of presenting unlawful charges, invokes the precedence of the Court, as this settlement have not been halted, that the Circuit Court permits the invocation of the defamation charge within civil suits. 

 

    Of course, it is the opinion of the Plaintiff, as represented by Mr. Aubert, that the primary argument presented within the above paragraph must reside within the nature of the civil suit rather than the scenario related to the case of Bren v. O’Rourke. However, as demanded within the Courts of Law, all arguments of the legal aspects must be presented which has resulted in the inclusion of the former case and precedence established. 

WITH THE PRESENCE OF THE FOLLOWING RELEVANT PARTY OR PARTIES:

 

    LILLIAN GARNET

    CARTER KOMNENOS

   

    ON THE DESIRED DATE OF:

    [[DATE OF TRIAL / PENDING DISCUSSION WITH DEFENDANT]

 

YOURS HUMBLY,

    WILLIAM T. AUBERT on behalf of EVAN BECKETT,

    AUBERT LEGAL CO., SELM STREET 6, PROVIDENCE

    [[MCVDK#9258]]

[Levicourpos 465]

Aimee de Frand frowns at the summoning. She notes that not only has the plaintiff, as 202.083 states, "disseminated false information" about myself, in claiming I tried to "engage in nightly activities", but they have done so in "printed material". In any case there must be a counter-sue against the plaintiff.

 

Additionally, it must also be noted to the plaintiff that it is not down to the innocence of Mr Beckett that the case was dismissed, but that I was never notified of the trial or of it's occurring and therefore was unable to provide the numerous amounts of evidence against the plaintiff. This error down to the lack of organisation of the Ministry, as such was understandable due to the chaos of the inferni.

 

Furthermore, I should remind the courts and the plaintiff that it is an undoubted fact in which he assaulted and battered my person in the public tavern in Helena, prior to our move to Almaris, as well as the further battery which occurred in Bastille afterwards. The plaintiff now accuses myself of acting improper, which I reiterate is further defamation. 

 

Again, it is nonsensical to assume that everyone who is found innocent has been defamed by their accuser. It is in no question that I did not spread the information or claim that you committed an act that was not witnessed by countless amounts in the public tavern in Helena, and again must say that it is not defamation to take one to trial for a crime that was passed through a hearing stage (which I do not believe there ever was), and therefore implies the judge had incorrect judgement.  

 

The defendant heavily advises Mr Beckett to retract the claim as to avoid further social detriment. 

[KamikazeReaper 457]

THE CENTRAL CIRCUIT COURT

3rd of Tobias' Bounty, 1803

 

In accordance with the Legal Procedure Act of 1772, The Rt.hon. Judge  Henrik Larson  Judge of the Central Circuit Court, does duly assign himself to these proceedings. Accordingly, the assigned Judge shall schedule a preliminary hearing with the Plaintiff and the Defendant in order to review the merits of the case and decide if the matter shall be allowed to proceed to trial.

 

The following parties are to contact Judge  Larson to arrange a suitable date to present themselves before the Court:

 

- The Plaintiff Evan Beckett [ @CasualNuker ] and his representative Solicitor William T.Aubert [ @MCVDK ]

 

- The Defendant Aimee De Frand  [ @Levicourpos ]

 

The following parties are required to perform the following actions for the sake of procedure:

 

- The Defendant is obliged to present to the Court a Replying Affidavit at least one saint day before the time of the trial, outlining their responses to the alleged crimes.

 

- Both parties are to exchange their Books of Evidence and submit them to the Court at least one saint day before the trial is to occur.

[MCVDK 2851]

BECKETT v. DE FRAND

4th of Tobias’ Bounty, 1803

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT