We are working on a brand new version of the game! If you want to stay informed, read our blog and register for our mailing list.
Bill: OOC/RP: Pragmatic Party v. Wei Jianxing
Details
Submitted by[?]: 务实的党 (Pragmatic Party)
Status[?]: passed
Votes: This bill is a resolution. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: November 4465
Description[?]:
| 7 May 4462 - Central Tian'an District Court The Pragmatic Party wishes to sue Wei Jianxing for defamation concerning his comments published in The Kaizhou Inquirer that falsely implied the Pragmatic Party sued Wei Zhenya. In fact, it is an independent non-profit think tank, the Pragmatic Institute, that has sued Wei Zhenya. Wei Jianxing used this false information to defame the party with a cheap attack that suggested party officials were spending their time in court rather than with the common people. When Wei was contacted to retract, apologize, and correct his false statement, he refused. It should be noted that Wei holds considerable influence with the population, being the leader of the second-largest political party in Indrala by seats. The Pragmatic Party holds no seats in the legislature and has minimal exposure in the press at the time of this legal case — which makes it more vulnerable and less capable of defending itself in the popular press. The Pragmatic Party demands Wei pay $65,400 INS in damages to the Pragmatic Party, which has suffered damage to its reputation unfairly as an upcoming political party. The party also demands that Wei retract his false statement, apologize, and release a correction to the press. Offending comment: "While Wei Zhenya and the Pragmatists would rather meet with lawyers and litigators in Tian’an to fight a petty legal battle, I’d much rather be here with you," - Wei Jianxing (12 April 4462 published via The Kaizhou Inquirer) - Feng Zhelan Attorney representing the Pragmatic Party VERDICT: DROPPED, PRAGMATIC PARTY MUST REIMBURSE WEI JIANXING $28,400 IN LEGAL EXPENSES, $5,230 WILL BE REDUCED FROM THE NEXT GOVERNMENT SUBSIDY FOR THE PRAGMATIC PARTY. TOTAL EXPENSE $33,630. |
Proposals
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 05:22:31, October 04, 2018 CET | From | 莲花党 (Lotus Party) 🌸 | To | Debating the OOC/RP: Pragmatic Party v. Wei Jianxing |
| Message | The Defence is prepared to counter the charges brought by the Claimant in five ways. First, the Defence denies that Mr. Wei Jianxing's comments meant anything defamatory of the Claimant. In fact, Mr. Wei never mentioned specifically the Pragmatist Party in his comments. In his comments, Mr. Wei simply referenced the "Pragmatists," a noun which the Defence acknowledges could be construed as alluding to supporters or members of the Pragmatic Party, but in reality and when considered in context, referenced the on-going lawsuit between Ms. Wei Zhenya and the Pragmatic Institute. The Defence asserts that the noun "Pragmatists" was used as a descriptor of members and supporters of the Pragmatic Institute; this is reinforced by the fact that Mr. Wei Jianxing references the on-going lawsuit between the Pragmatic Institute and Ms. Wei Zhenya. Second, the Defence denies that Mr. Wei Jianxing lied about anything, particularly anything regarding the Claimant, given that he did not reference the Pragmatic Party of Indrala. Rather, Mr. Wei made a truthful statement, referencing the very real fact that the Pragmatic Insitute and Ms. Wei Zhenya have been engaged in an lawsuit since 8 March 4458. Third, the Defence submits the most obvious point of contention to the charges brought by the Claimant, which would have been resolved had the Claimant's counsel seriously examined the criminal law of the State of Indrala. The first two defences aside, Mr. Wei Jianxing, as a member of the legislature of this nation is granted the right to parliamentary privilege, which under current law states that: "Members of the legislature are exempted from any civil or criminal liability for their speech or actions, but this immunity can be overruled by a vote in the nation's legislative body" (http://classic.particracy.net/viewvariable.php?variable=PARLIAMENTARY_IMMUNITY). No such vote has been undertaken in the Grand Assembly. As such, any comments made by Mr. Wei Jianxing are protected by parliamentary privilege, and thus not liable to civil cases. Thus, the court will observe that in the first two points of defence, we have categorically denied the charges brought by the Claimant and offered explanations on the basis of truth, and lack of malicious intent toward the Pragmatic Party. In the third point of defence, we have demonstrated how there is no way for a legal defamation case to be filed against a sitting member of the Grand Assembly due to our long-established principles of parliamentary privilege. The Claimant has accused the Defendant of making his comments in an effort to "defame the [Pragmatic Party] with a cheap attack," using "false information." It is, perhaps ironically the Pragmatic Party that has, through it's capitalization on a noun not limited to their own organization, manipulated the comments of the Defendant to serve their political motivations. In doing so, the Pragmatic Party has attacked the character of the Defendant, and has publicly charged that Mr. Wei Jianxing is a slanderous and libellous individual. To this end, the Defence is lodging a counter-suit against the Pragmatic Party of Indrala and Feng Zhelan (Attorney representing the Pragmatic Party) for defamation against the character of Mr. Wei Jianxing, and is seeking damages of $130,800 in addition to all legal costs accrued by the Defendant. Lee Ji-yeon Chief Counsel to Mr. Wei Jianxing |
| Date | 05:23:35, October 04, 2018 CET | From | 莲花党 (Lotus Party) 🌸 | To | Debating the OOC/RP: Pragmatic Party v. Wei Jianxing |
| Message | OOC: should be corrected to "The Defence is prepared to counter the charges brought by the Claimant in three ways:" |
| Date | 07:25:33, October 04, 2018 CET | From | 务实的党 (Pragmatic Party) | To | Debating the OOC/RP: Pragmatic Party v. Wei Jianxing |
| Message | The Prosecutor rejects the assertion that Wei Jianxing was specifically referring to the Pragmatic Institute in the noted statement. If Wei Jianxing purely meant "Pragmatists" to mean "Pragmatic Institute", he would have not construed his statement in the form of criticizing a competing political party. A think tank does not conduct political campaigns (not typically) and as such would be strange for members or supporters of such to go out to local farms to seek support. Funding for think tanks is not usually raised in that fashion. The Defence is correct in regards to parliamentary immunity and as a result, the Plaintiff requests to drop this case given the Defendant would not be held liable even in the result of a ruling in the Plaintiff's favour. The Plaintiff however demands that the counter-suit also be dropped on grounds that an attorney cannot be sued for representing their own client as is the duty of their occupation. In addition, the Prosecutor does not agree with the Defence's assertion that the Pragmatic Party (not the Pragmatic Party of Indrala, which name does not exist) engaged in defamation. The Plaintiff has made no public comments or press releases concerning the events of this case outside this court. The Prosecutor also does not agree with the assertion that the Pragmatic Party has manipulated the comments of the Defendant for political motivations beyond that of preserving its own reputation. The Plaintiff stands by that had the Defendant posted a correction with a statement that confirmed specifically that it was the Pragmatic Institute, not the Pragmatic Party that had sued Wei Zhenya, this lawsuit would have never occurred. The Plaintiff would have preferred the Defendant refer specifically to the Pragmatic Institute rather than using a general term that could be interpreted as either the institute or the party — both of which operate independently of each other. If an agreement is made to dismiss the case, including the counter-suit, the Plaintiff agrees not to discuss any events of this case with the press and not lodge any civil lawsuits against the Defendant for as long as parliamentary immunity is active and no overruling have been made. - Feng Zhelan Attorney representing the Pragmatic Party |
| Date | 07:28:46, October 04, 2018 CET | From | 务实的党 (Pragmatic Party) | To | Debating the OOC/RP: Pragmatic Party v. Wei Jianxing |
| Message | OOC: Date 8 May 4462 |
| Date | 17:09:15, October 04, 2018 CET | From | 莲花党 (Lotus Party) 🌸 | To | Debating the OOC/RP: Pragmatic Party v. Wei Jianxing |
| Message | My Client has advised me that he is far too predisposed with his important work for his constituents to pursue a long legal battle. However, the Defence takes exception to the Claimant's suggestion that this lawsuit took place because Mr. Wei Jianxing refused to modify his non-defamatory statement. This lawsuit has been filed because the opposition counsel had absolute disregard for the laws of Indrala, ignorance of the facts of this case and a militant attitude toward silencing critics on behalf of their political organization. In so doing, the Claimant has completely made a mockery of the independent judiciary of the State of Indrala and has wasted vital state resources that could have been spent on cases of merit, not cases of performance. We will still be pursing a counter-suit for all legal costs accrued by this trial and by the Defendant in the course of this lawsuit, given that the lawsuit had no legal basis on which to be filed. My Client has informed me that in the interest of bringing a punctual end to this charade, he will not be pursing further damages. Lee Ji-yeon Chief Counsel to Mr. Wei Jianxing |
| Date | 19:06:01, October 04, 2018 CET | From | 莲花党 (Lotus Party) 🌸 | To | Debating the OOC/RP: Pragmatic Party v. Wei Jianxing |
| Message | OOC: correct "predisposed" to "disposed" |
| Date | 23:30:45, October 04, 2018 CET | From | 务实的党 (Pragmatic Party) | To | Debating the OOC/RP: Pragmatic Party v. Wei Jianxing |
| Message | 8 May 4462 The Prosecutor disagrees strongly with the Defence's assertions, although in hindsight admits that the lawsuit would be fruitless due to the Defendant being protected by parliamentary immunity. The Plaintiff agrees to pay for all the Defendant's legal fees from this case as much as its government-allocated budget can supply. Unless the Defence has any further comment, this will be our final statement. - Feng Zhelan Attorney representing the Pragmatic Party |
| Date | 00:24:45, October 05, 2018 CET | From | Drania Cívica 🏴 시민당 | To | Debating the OOC/RP: Pragmatic Party v. Wei Jianxing |
| Message | 8 May 4462 This case should not have been permitted to continue for as long as it has due to the national laws on parliamentary immunity. Therefore, this case shall be thrown out. The Court accepts the agreement made between both parties for the Plaintiff to compensate the Defendant for their legal fees. Bai Chun Justice |
| Date | 20:24:56, October 05, 2018 CET | From | 莲花党 (Lotus Party) 🌸 | To | Debating the OOC/RP: Pragmatic Party v. Wei Jianxing |
| Message | COSTS ACCRUED BY DEFENDANT: $26,000 - Retainer, Attorney Lee Ji-yeon $2,400 - Trial Defence Fees, Attorney Lee Ji-yeon = $28,400 - Defendant Legal Fees COSTS BORNE BY STATE: $4,600 - Courtroom costs, renumeration (one day in trial) $630 - Document processing = $5,230 - State cost Total = $33,630 |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||
| yes |
Total Seats: 668 | |||
| no | Total Seats: 0 | |||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: In cases where players have failed to clearly and accurately reference their nation's RP laws in the "Bills under debate" section, Moderation will rule them invalid if a challenge is made to their validity. |
| Random quote: "A man who has no office to go to - I don't care who he is - is a trial of which you can have no conception." - George Bernard Shaw |