ADM F. 500 (Rev. 03/22) Order and Judgment
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF RIDGEWAY
DANNLABS
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
DOCKET NO. RSC-CV-421
Plaintiff
v.
STANLEY_LABSON
Defendant
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff raises two claims before this court. The first, fraud, and the second, tortious interference. The
Defendant in this case released and published a number of advertisements throughout Ridgeway County.
Among these, was an advertisement that purported a “FACT”, that Dannlabbs “supports the furry bill.” Another
suggested that, among other people, Dannlabbs “kick dogs.” Within that advertisement is an image of a small
puppy. In a Discord conversation with other people, Defendant created an advertisement that told individuals to
“OPPOSE DANNLABS” for being a “furry hunter, child lover, [and] corrupt judge.”
In another Discord that both the Defendant and the Plaintiff were in, the Defendant created an
advertisement that appeared to quote Dannlabs saying “I support the furry hunting bill, and you should too!” In
another advertisement that was released in game, the Defendant posted an image of Dannlab’s face suggesting
that he said “YUMMY!” In support of “Stanlab’s Blue,” a product purportedly being sold at Bloxmart.
In each of these cases, the Defendant stated before this court that at the time they were published, they
never believed any of the statements to be factually accurate. Yet, they disseminated some of them using the
in-game advertisement system, and others, over a Discord channel. Within the Discord channel are friends of
both the Plaintiff and the Defendant. The Defendant testified that they did not gain anything economically from
the production and in some cases release of these advertisements, rather, they simply did it for fun.
The Defendant testified that this was entirely true with one exception, that being the advertisement that
Plaintiff kicked dogs. That advertisement, the Defendant testifies, was “political speech.” I do not find merit in
this assertion. I do not believe the Defendant when they argue that they made a series of advertisements that
they knew were false, simply for fun, but this specific advertisement had a deeper political meaning. Coupled
with the fact that there is a dog portrayed in the image, I find the Defendant published this assertion of fact,
knowing it was false, for reasons that are not political.
JUDGMENT
In order to be liable for tortious interference, in this case, the defendant must have caused damage to the
Plaintiff’s career. The plaintiff is a Judge, and these advertisements made that fact clear. This court believes that
the intentional misrepresentation of fact, as it relates to a public official, no doubt has an effect on one’s career.
Dannlab’s legitimacy in the public eye, and the weight of his rulings, rely on the fact that people trust him to be
a careful and reasoned jurist. But individuals who “kick dogs,” or Judges who make endorsements of store
products, make known their policy viewpoints, and encourage the hunting of other people are not individuals
whom the public would readily trust.
I believe that the dissemination of these claims throughout the in-game advertisement system, and
through the discords, has harmed Plaintiff’s career as a Judge by degrading the public’s trust in his legitimacy.
The lies intentionally disseminated by the Defendant harmed Plaintiff’s career, and because of that, the
Defendant must be liable for tortious interference.
In order to be liable for fraud, an individual must intentionally deceive another in order to secure an
unlawful or unfair gain or to deprive a victim of a legal right. There is no question whether the Defendant
intentionally deceived parties in this case. I do not find that there was an unlawful or unfair gain on the
Defendant’s behalf. This leaves one other ground for relief; demonstration of a legal right that has been
deprived as a result of this deception.
When the Senate wrote into law a series of tort claims, they sought to outline legal rights and remedies
when individuals incur an injury. When a statute provides that someone can seek legal remedy in the courts for
certain conduct, the Senate is establishing a legal right to be free from that kind of conduct. Having found that
the Plaintiff has a legal right not to face career harm as a consequence of someone’s dissemination of factual
inaccuracies, it becomes clear that the Defendant in this case intentionally deceive[d] others which deprive[d] a
victim of a legal right.
CONCLUSION
This court enters a judgment for the Plaintiff as to both claims alleged in the civil complaint against
Stanley_Labson. This court assesses the cost of damages at $1,500 for the claim of tortious interference and
$2,000 for the claim of fraud. The Defendant is further ENJOINED from knowingly posting and sharing factual
inaccuracies about the Plaintiff.
IT IS SO ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED.
At Palmer, Ridgeway, this 4th day of August, 2022.
/s/ Hecxtro
SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE
