I've drafted the following response:

---

---

---

---

---

---

Your honours,



Starting upon Saturday the 18th of October 2014 but continuing to this present day a number of individuals have publicized allegations that the plaintiff, myself, and others were engaged in a criminal conspiracy to commit electoral fraud and in doing so committed treason against The Coalition of The South Pacific. These individuals have been given every opportunity to substantiate their allegations and bring the appropriate criminal charges against myself but have to this date refused to do so.

The Code of Laws defines defamation as "communication of a statement which makes a false claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, in an attempt to harm the reputation of another user or group of users on the forum." There are thus four clear elements to a defamation charge;

1. Communication; that a statement is made
2. False claim; that the statement is false
3. Stated or implied to be factual; that the statement is claimed to be true
4. Attempt to harm the reputation; that the statement, if believed, would cause harm to the reputation of others

Your honours, there can be no question that the requirements of a defamation charge are met in this matter. The only question that needs to be addressed is whether or not the statements made since the 18th of October 2014 are false, and this question can only be addressed during trial. It is the contention of the plaintiff that during trial not only will the accused be unable to substantiate the various accusations and claims they have made since this date, but that the plaintiff will be able to actively disprove many if not all of them.

At trial will present a comprehensive list of such accusations and claims, and will systematically demonstrate the false and malicious nature of them. We will present evidence that shows not only that the plaintiff did not commit such acts that have been alleged, but will demonstrate that the plaintiff was physically incapable of committing many of such acts. In doing so we will go well beyond the standard requirements of defamation cases, in which the burden of proof lies with the defendants to substantiate their claims.

As such, the plaintiff hereby formally files defamation charges against the following individuals;

Cormac Stark
Kringalia
Glen Rhodes
Unibot
Escade

Due to the fact that the plaintiffs case against each individual will be substantively identical to that against all other individuals, with only the precise nature of the defamatory statements varying, we request that this matter be conducted via a single trial.

---

---

---

---

After deliberation the Court has found insufficient evidence for a trial and has chosen to dismiss this case on the grounds of lack of sufficient evidence and the lack of the offending statement(s) as required by Article 5.2 of the Code of Laws. The Court has agreed to leave this case open for 72 hours to allow the Complainant to provide the offending statements for further review by the court following which the Court will review whether sufficient evidence exists for a trial.

As Article 4.2 does not provide procedure for filing charges against non-citizens the Court finds Cormac Stark ineligible to be a defendant.