STATE OF RIDGEWAY
FINDKILLREPEAT
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
DOCKET NO. RSC-CV-412
Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant
v.
BETATHEWOLFGAMER
Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff
RESPONSE TO COUNTERCLAIM AND MOTION TO DISMISS THE COUNTERCLAIM
RESPONSE TO THE COUNTERCLAIM
Counter-Defendant FindKillRepeat, by and through undersigned counsel, hereby, pursuant to
Ridgeway Rule of Civil Procedure 8(b), answers the Complaint.
I. GENERAL DENIAL
Unless expressly admitted below, Counter-Defendant denies each and every allegation that
Counter-Plaintiff has set forth in their Complaint.
II. INTRODUCTION
1. Admitted. Counter-Defendant recognizes they got the date wrong in their initial Civil
Complaint. These events, in both the original and counter suit, occurred on or about May
the 1st.
2. Denied.
III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
3. Admitted.
4. Admitted.
IV. PARTIES
5. Admitted.
6. Admitted.
V. CAUSE OF ACTION (ASSAULT)
7. Denied.
8. Denied.
VI. PRAYERS FOR RELIEF
Counter-Defendant avers that Counter-Plaintiff is not entitled to any relief. The
Counter-Defendant is not liable to any torts listed in this complaint.
This space is intentionally left blank.
STATE OF RIDGEWAY
FINDKILLREPEAT
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
DOCKET NO. RSC-CV-412
Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant
v.
BETATHEWOLFGAMER
Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff
MOTION TO DISMISS THE COUNTERCLAIM
I. COUNTERCLAIM IS IMPROPERLY FILED
One of the fundamental parts of our court system is that when a civil suit is brought, the torts of
the suit are clearly listed, in their own section. The counterclaim contains no torts section. The
counterclaim never specifically states which tort my client is accused of. It is hinted at the fact that the
counter-defendant is accused of committing an assault, but it is not clearly listed. Thus, this leads the
counter-defendant to believe that the counterclaim is based on no tort. The counter-plaintiff, thus, not
accusing the counter-defendant of violating a tort, nor citing said tort, essentially says “we are suing you
for the fun of it.”
The counter-plaintiff must either withdraw the suit or amend the countersuit to include a section
on the alleged tort violation.
II. COUNTER-DEFENDANT NEVER COMMITTED ASSAULT; COUNTER-PLAINTIFF
IS NOT ENTITLED TO RELIEF
In the event that it is deemed that the counter-plaintiff properly alleges that the counter-defendant
committed assault, then that is just wrong. Assault is defined as “"Any individual who intentionally and
voluntarily caused reasonable apprehension of an immediate harmful or offensive contact is assault.”
The counter-plaintiff alleges that because the counter-defendant was close in proximity to the
counter-plaintiff, there was a chance that the counter-defendant could pull a knife and was within a
“close striking distance,” and thus is liable for assault. This is an insane assumption. Under this
backwards logic - anyone who is in this arbitrarily defined “close striking distance” is liable for assault.
That is not the intent of the statute, nor the tort. Enforcing assault like that would essentially make it so
that if you ever entered somebody's bubble, you were guilty of assault. That would be insane. Beyond
just the intent of the statute, it doesn't even fit the definition of assault. Being in a close striking distance
is not a “reasonable apprehension” that there will be immediate harmful or offensive contact.
Brandishing a weapon would be. Saying fighting words would be. Things along those nature fit the
definition. What the counter-defendant did here today simply does not fit the definition nor intent of the
tort of “assault.”
Looking into what was said between the counter-plaintiff and counter-defendant, we can see that
no fighting words were said by the counter-defendant. The counter-plaintiff alleges that my client
“aggressively” approached the defendant by saying “What you looking at.” That statement, in no way,
fits the definition of assault. My client has the right to disrespectfully verbally engage with the police,
which he does do. What this statement isn’t however, is a statement that shows there will be immediate
harmful or offensive contact. It may be rude, it may be vulgar, it may be downright annoying, but it is
not in any way shape or form “fighting words.” Is the counter-defendant being mean? Sure. Is the
counter-defendant trying to provoke a fight? No. Therefor, his conduct is not becoming of the tort of
assault.
This space is intentionally left blank.
CONCLUSION
The counter-defendant is not-liable for the tort of assault. The motion to dismiss should be
granted, and the countersuit should be dismissed.
Respectfully Submitted,
Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant FindKillRepeat
By and through their Attorneys,
/s/ OfficerVideoGame
OfficerVideoGame, RSB#17124
Dated: July 16th, 2022
