- The defendant intended to harm myself and NAP through the poll, reasons shown below:
- Defendant knowingly presented Mhadsher as an alternate leader to NAP
- Defendant knew people perceive Mhadsher as an alternate leader but decided to post a damaging statement
I request the court ask the defendant to remove the statement or change the statement "National Alliance Party (Senior Member - Mhadsher101)"
I request the defendant compensate $500 for damaged Party, legal fees and time lost due to stressed-out members of NAP.
I thank the court for hearing the case, I respect any decision.
Unless more is asked from the court or the defendant, I rest.
Your honor, much of my argument in this case has already been made, however I will provide a brief summary of the points in this case.
The Plaintiff has insisted that I intended only to damage their reputation with my survey. However, they have provided no evidence of said intent. The best they have done is point to my refusal to change a question mid survey as evidence of my intent to damage their reputation. This argument ignores both my stated reason for not changing the poll (the reason being scientific integrity - changing a question mid survey would render it useless) and the reality that such a refusal is a refusal to change a survey and contains no subtext or malicious suggestion at all.
Furthermore, the question under litigation here is phrased in a way that is clear to anyone at all familiar with election polling to be hypothetical. The only reason party leaders were listed on the question was to clarify the variable being studied. There was no intent to damage the Plaintiff's reputation. There was no malice in my refusal to change a question mid survey. The only conclusion that can be reached by the evidence presented by the Plaintiff is that I was trying to study the effects of changing the leader of the NAP in a scientifically rigorous way.
Additionally, the testimony of the leader of another political party (The honorable Krix of the DRP) has stated repeatedly that no reasonable party leader would be harmed by the inclusion of alternate leaders in a poll. In fact, the testimony has shown that the inclusion of other leaders in a poll should be beneficial to a political organization's leader.
Your Honor, I can go over the evidence over and over again, but the only further argument I can make would be to again re state the Plaintiff's failure to carry the burden of proof. They rely solely on my refusal to comply with their demands as evidence of intent on my part.
I ask to be permitted to release the results of the poll in question.