[CV-0124] StreetWise News v. The Los Santos Network

[Darius Tanz]

Honorable court,
The plaintiff representative claiming that the proof that we have presented here is irrelevant, The Los Santos Network were revealing the truth behind Streetwise news' inaccurate announcements and offensive articles.
**Darius would be speaking calmly while grabbing another evidence**

Another Streetwise news announcement

**Darius would be adjusting their papers, arranging them**
We have here another example for the inaccurate news that does not portray the truth but building illusion inside the audience head, this is not the goal of a news agency.
The primary goal of a news agency is to provide accurate, timely, and impartial information to inform the public, foster understanding, and uphold the principles of journalism.

Today, I had a chat with one of the San Andreas National Guard personnel, a brave lady that were there shoulder to shoulder with her colleagues. She told me that this war between San Andreas National Guard and Whetstone Woodland Insurgency lasted roughly 1 hour and half, unlike what Streetwise news announced on their article that San Andreas National Guard handled it in less than a minute. She also highlighted that San Andreas National Guard deployed less than 10 tanks.

[Martin Winchester]

State of San Andreas
First Judicial District Court
United States Courthouse
3321 Downtown Avenue, Los Santos, San Andreas

---

StreetWise News
v.
The Los Santos Network

CASE # CV-0124
HONORABLE JUDGE PRESIDING:
Martin Winchester

---

* The courtroom is filled with loud, heated arguments and chaos, where Judge Winchester strides in with an obvious exasperation.
* The Judge ascends to the bench and his movements are deliberate while gaiting to take his seat on the Chair of Judgment. He grabs the gavel and furiously bangs it against the sound block a few times, which would echo throughout the courtroom.

Hon. Judge Winchester: "This courtroom shall be restored to order, I will not preside over unruly chaotic proceedings-... SILENCE!"

* Judge Winchester slams the gavel once more but louder this time and the remaining noises fade into silence.
* The Judge's piercing gaze sweeps across the courtroom, pausing momentarily on the Plaintiff's table, then the Defendant's.

Hon. Judge Winchester: "I will not tolerate this level of unprofessionalism and outright misconduct in my courtroom. The behavior I just witnessed is nothing short of contemptuous. This is not a playground for petty squabbling-
Order and Obedience-...
this court of law demands nothing less."

* The Judge shuffles through the files on his desk before mouthing off: "Now, to address the matter at hand…"

---

I. FINDINGS:
The Court finds it necessary to address the misconduct of both parties during these proceedings, the repeated submission of unsolicited commentary and evidence by both the Plaintiff and the Defendant indicate a disregard for the Court's authority and decorum of procedures, it will be furtherly clarified under II. ORDERS section.

The Court acknowledges that the article in question was indeed published on The Los Santos Network's website and finds no evidence to suggest it was fraudulently fabricated. The focus now shifts to the circumstances of its removal based on the timing and intent, which are critical to determining any potential felony committed by the Defendant.

The Court has reviewed the evidence submitted by the Defendant, in its effort to counter the Plaintiff's claims. However, most of the submissions made by the Defendant are deemed irrelevant to the current assessment phase and are excluded for now.

The Defendant has stated that the article in question was removed following a direct threat from the StreetWise News' supervisor. However, this explanation does not align with the submitted evidence by the Defendant, which has been deemed invalid by the Court's independent evidence evaluations. This discrepancy strongly suggests that the Defendant's legal counsel has provided a false justification for the article's removal, raising concerns about potential obfuscation of the truth or deliberate attempt to mislead this Court by stating **quotes: "The Los Santos Network CEO removed the article after receiving a direct threat from the StreetWise News Supervisory Ray." ** as it is not supported by any sort of valid evidence.
The Court is immensely concerned about the lack of a credible explanation for the removal of the article in question from The Los Santos Network (www.tlsn.com) (( TLSN Discord Server )). The matter will be held in abeyance pending resolution.

The Plaintiff has claimed that the Defendant's statements defamed StreetWise News, yet their concerns about the reliance on constitutional rights are misplaced and denied. The Plaintiff is reminded that: "Section I, Article I of the U.S. Constitution protects free speech and opinion protected statements but does not extend immunity to false and harmful statements."
Consequently, the Plaintiff will be addressed to provide a detailed outline of the alleged defamatory statements made by the Defendant, presented in a line-by-line format with annotations to substantiate their claims of reputational and financial loss for the next phase of hearings.

The Court does not sustain the objection made by the Plaintiff due to the unrequested commentary and exclusion of the submitted evidence by the Defendant.

II. ORDERS:
Despite being unequivocally reminded of this Court's intolerance for contemptuous behavior, both the Plaintiff and the Defendant have engaged in unsanctioned commentary and repetitive objections that were neither requested nor permitted by the Court. This conduct has disrupted the proceedings and demonstrated a lack of respect for courtroom procedure and decorum. Accordingly, at the conclusion of this hearing phase, the Court will hold both parties in contempt of court and impose a monetary fine for each unsolicited and redundant reply.

The Defendant is further admonished for presenting baseless and irrelevant evidence to the Court, resulting in a misuse of judicial time and resources. The Defendant is expected to provide only pertinent, and credible evidence.

The Court hereby orders a temporary suspension of proceedings pending clarification of the specified matters which are the intent and timing of the article removal from the website of The Los Santos Network's website, after which the hearings shall proceed.

To the Plaintiff:

• The Plaintiff is hereby directed to refrain from submitting any evidence or arguments unless permitted by the Court.

To the Defendant:
The Defendant is hereby explicitly directed by the Court to provide a truthful explanation for the matters listed below, the Court regards this issue with the utmost seriousness. The Defendant's legal counsel is instructed to submit these explanations supported by any relevant evidence or documentation in an affidavit to the Court, signed under penalty of perjury, within the next 48 hours of this order.

• (1) Was the article in question deleted after the initiation of this civil case? If so, confirm the exact date of its removal.

• (2) However, if the article was indeed deleted following the initiation of this case, the Court requires a clear and comprehensive explanation for the deletion of the mentioned article.

ADJUDICATED.
Hon. Martin Winchester
Presiding Judge
First Judicial District Court

EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY AS OF 13/01/2025

[Darius Tanz]

Honorable court,
(1) Was the article in question deleted after the initiation of this civil case? If so, confirm the exact date of its removal.
The article was removed on 08th of January 2025 at the time of 13:56, meaning it was deleted after the initiation of this civil case.
(2) However, if the article was indeed deleted following the initiation of this case, the Court requires a clear and comprehensive explanation for the deletion of the mentioned article.
The intentions behind deleting the article was to de-escalate the situation. We're not denying that the article was posted.
The deletion was not an acknowledgment of any liability but was done in good faith to avoid potential misunderstandings or misinterpretations while the case is ongoing.

[Martin Winchester]

State of San Andreas
First Judicial District Court
United States Courthouse
3321 Downtown Avenue, Los Santos, San Andreas

---

StreetWise News
v.
The Los Santos Network

CASE # CV-0124
HONORABLE JUDGE PRESIDING:
Martin Winchester

I. FINDINGS:
The Court finds that the Defendant's actions regarding the removal of the article in question, specifically the timing and conflicting explanations provided thus far, to be undermining the integrity of this judicial process. The Defendant initially claimed the removal was due to alleged threats from StreetWise News Supervisory Staff but later asserted it was done to prevent misunderstandings while this case is ongoing. Regardless of whether the intent behind the deletion was benevolent or malevolent, the removal of the article which serves as critical evidence in this proceeding is considerably deemed unjustifiable. However, the Defendant has yet failed to provide a proper affidavit to the Court as previously ordered.

II. ORDERS:
The Court reminds both parties that the judicial process demands transparency and accountability. Any alteration or removal of evidence impairs the Court's ability to assess the facts and undermines the fairness and smoothness of the proceedings.

To the Plaintiff:

• The Plaintiff is directed to prepare and provide a detailed and annotated outline of the specific statements within the article they allege to be defamatory. This outline must clearly and notably identify each statement alleged to be false or harmful per SA-PSC § I.8. Defamation, such as:
  ^1* how each statement deviate from the truth?
  ^2* how these statements caused reputational or financial harm to the news agency of Streetwise News?

• The Plaintiff's submission is due within 48 hours, they may proceed after the Defendant's affidavit.

To the Defendant:

• The Defendant is directed once again to properly submit an affidavit signed under the penalty of perjury addressing the previously submitted admission within the next 12 hours of this order.

• Refrain from further commentary and promptly provide the ordered affidavit to the Court within the specified timeframe. Should the Defendant fail to submit the ordered affidavit, they will be declared liable to a charge of SA-PSC § II.10. Obstruction of justice for this failure of submission.

SO ORDERED.
Hon. Martin Winchester
Presiding Judge
First Judicial District Court

EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY AS OF 13/01/2025

[Darius Tanz]

To:
First Judicial District Court

I, Sarah Martinez, residing at Los Santos, being duly sworn, depose and state as follows:

I am the defendant in the matter of StreetWise News v.The Los Santos Network#CV-0124 currently pending in the First Judicial District Court.

Statement of Facts:
(1) Was the article in question deleted after the initiation of this civil case? If so, confirm the exact date of its removal.
The article was removed on 08th of January 2025 at the time of 13:56, meaning it was deleted after the initiation of this civil case.
(2) However, if the article was indeed deleted following the initiation of this case, the Court requires a clear and comprehensive explanation for the deletion of the mentioned article.
The intentions behind deleting the article was to de-escalate the situation. We're not denying that the article was posted.
The deletion was not an acknowledgment of any liability but was done in good faith to avoid potential misunderstandings or misinterpretations while the case is ongoing.

Purpose of Affidavit:
This affidavit is being provided in support of as evidence in the case and requested by Honorable judge Martin Winchester.

Affirmation:
I affirm under penalty of perjury that the foregoing statements are true and correct.

Further affiant sayeth not.

Dated this 13rd of January, 2025.

Signature of Affiant: Sarah Martinez
Sarah Martinez

[Derek C. Holloway]

StreetWise News v. The Los Santos Network

To the honourable court,

---

While, TLSN claims, that it has some evidence to support the relevant contended statements, their publication and framing are defamatory due to context and intent.

• “Statement”: The LS Blacks are fifty percent homosexual.
  
  Deviation from the truth: TLSN sensationalized the statement without proper context, mischaracterizing it both for SWN and associating it with an inflammatory racially charged narrative. Harm: Misrepresentation leading to public outcry, indignation and consequent reputational damage and financial losses suffered by SWN.

---

• Statement: “StreetWise News operates with corruption and biased narratives.”
  
  Deviation from Truth: TLSN does not produce compelling evidence for that sweeping claim, rendering it a bald and pernicious generalization. Harm caused: This detracted from SWN's credibility, eliciting loss of trust, viewers, and prospects. Statement: “StreetWise News is unprofessional and untrustworthy.”
  
  Deviation from truth: TLSN could not substantiate this broad assertion and presented it as fact, not as an opinion. Harm: It impugns SWN's reputation among other journalists, resulting in loss of revenue and strained relationships.

---

Even if some of TLSN's claims were based on evidence, they were nonetheless framed maliciously and caused enormous damage. This response is this filed by SWN and asserts that TLSN should be held liable.

Respectfully,

State Licensed Attorney

[Martin Winchester]

State of San Andreas
First Judicial District Court
United States Courthouse
3321 Downtown Avenue, Los Santos, San Andreas

---

StreetWise News
v.
The Los Santos Network

CASE # CV-0124
HONORABLE JUDGE PRESIDING:
Martin Winchester

I. FINDINGS:
The Court finds that the Defendant's affidavit concerning the removal of the article, combined with the conflicting explanations provided, constitutes a prima facie violation of U.S. Code TITLE VI - CRIMES INVOLVING PERSONS, Section (D) Statements or Entries (1). Specifically, the Defendant has concealed an essential evidence and made inconsistent explanations regarding the deletion of the said evidence in these proceedings.

The Court has reviewed the central evidence presented by the Plaintiff in the initiation of this civil case, namely the article titled "The Truth Behind StreetWise News" published by The Los Santos Network. This article forms the crux of the Plaintiff's allegations of defamation against the Defendant. Upon examination, the article contains specific assertions regarding StreetWise News categorized under three headings; "Corruption in Coverage", "Biased Narratives", and "Lack of Professionalism". These claims accuse StreetWise News of favoritism, sensationalism, distortion of facts, and professional negligence, among other issues.

The Plaintiff has asserted that these statements are defamatory. However, the Plaintiff has failed to substantiate the veracity of their previous allegations by linking specific content from the article to demonstrable deviation of truth, and reputational or financial harm. The Plaintiff has provided no direct evidence demonstrating that The Los Santos Network's claims were false, published with malice, or resulted in reputational or financial harm to StreetWise News.

The Court finds both the Plaintiff's and Defendant's previous submissions, which included generalized statements such as; "The LS Blacks are fifty percent homosexual" and "StreetWise News operates with corruption and biased narratives" outside the scope of these proceedings unless explicitly tied to the published article under review. The Court does not recognize these statements as relevant to the present allegations at this stage of appraisal, as they were previously submitted unsolicitedly in an apparent attempt to accuse the opposing party. This Court remains committed to ensuring fairness and impartiality by proceeding solely based on legitimate and relevant submissions.


II. ORDERS:
The Court finds Ms. Sarah Martinez in violation of "U.S. Code TITLE VI - CRIMES INVOLVING PERSONS, Section (D) Statements or Entries (1)". Such unlawful actions will not be tolerated, however, since an affidavit was provided to the Court in its admission, potential commutation will be considered for the Defendant. Consequently, the Court reclassifies this civil case, CV-0124, as a criminal case.

The Court emphasizes that any further submissions by either party must remain strictly within the scope of these proceedings. Irrelevant or unsolicited commentary will not be recognized and might as well result in penalties.

The Court formally lifts the previously imposed order suspending proceedings. The hearings shall now proceed with a focus on the veracity and impact of the article in question.

To the Plaintiff:
The Plaintiff is ordered to provide a detailed and substantiated outline of the alleged defamatory statements within the article in question within the next 48 hours of this order. The Plaintiff must present this in a line-by-line format with annotations that explicitly address
the matter in this format:

• Which specific statements in the article are allegedly false?

• How do these statements deviate from the truth?

• Evidence that these statements caused reputational or financial harm to StreetWise News.

To the Defendant:
The Defendant is granted one opportunity to submit a rebuttal addressing the Plaintiff’s claims. The Defendant may provide credible evidence or arguments to demonstrate the truth of the statements in the article or the absence of malicious intent in its publication. This rebuttal must be submitted within 48 hours following the Plaintiff's next submission.

SO ORDERED.
Hon. Martin Winchester
Presiding Judge
First Judicial District Court

EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY AS OF 18/01/2025

[Derek C. Holloway]

StreetWise News v. The Los Santos Network

Your Honour,

---

The Plaintiff respectfully presents this meticulously detailed and well substantiated outline of allegedly defamatory statements from the article entitled "The Truth Behind StreetWise News," pursuant to the court direction.

---

Statement 1:
''Corruption in coverage"

How this statement departs from the truth:
Corruption is totally unfounded. StreetWise has maintained ethical journalism and transparency in its coverage. There are no cases of corruption, either identified or proven.

Evidences of damage caused:
This accusation has directly stained the image of StreetWise News, causing new evils such as public distrust and the loss of credibility, which will ultimately lead to dwindling subscriptions of viewership as well as advertisement revenues.

---

Statement 2:
"Biased Narratives"

How this statement departs from the truth:
The assertion that the StreetWise News creates narratives that are biased is false. SWN defers to strict editorial guidelines to be impartial and fair in reporting. TLSN has so far produced no evidence of any bias against it.

Evidence of harm caused:
This statement created distrust about the integrity of StreetWise News, which withdrew key sponsorships and partnerships and incurred measurable financial losses.

---

Statement 3:
"Lack of Professionalism"

How this statement deviates from the truth:
StreetWise News operates within journalistic standards to ensure professionalism for all its reporting and editorial practices. TLSN has made an unproven defamatory allegation.

Evidence of damage caused:
The said statement has impugned the public confidence in StreetWise News and deterred potential collaborators and stakeholders, bringing long-term reputational and financial damage.

---

Conclusion:
The above statements published by TLSN are claimed to have been made without evidence and caused measurable harm to StreetWise.

Respectfully,

State Licensed Attorney

[Darius Tanz]

StreetWise News v. The Los Santos Network

Honorable court,
The plaintiff failed to present a solid proof of his claims. The previously presented evidences were brought to the public by SWN through their either official forums or announcements.

---

Statement 1:
"The LS Blacks are 50 percent homosexual."

How it misrepresents the truth:
That was taken out of context and was grossly sensationalized. TLSN misrepresented any statement or data from SWN to present a false racially charged narrative, with which SWN never intended nor supported.

Proof of injury:
This created grave reputational injury to SWN, linking it to racially insensitive and destructive materials, which called for public outcry and boycotts, and as a result, financial losses due to negative viewership and strained partnerships."
The statement lacks any verifiable evidence or reliable data to support the claim that 50% of the specified group is homosexual. Without credible evidence, it becomes a baseless assertion.
Misleading claims like this can fuel division within and between communities.

---

Statement 2:
"StreetWise News operates with corruption and biased narratives."

The truth:
There is absolutely no evidence provided by TLSN to prove that broad allegation, therefore making the accusation a fallacy against SWN's journalistic integrity.
Proof of harm:
It tarnished the credibility of SWN, therefore, decreased audience trust for SWN and subsequently lost the advertisers and the collaboration partners, which affected the revenue of SWN."
Right here we have 2 recent announcements as an example of how SWN often attempting to fuel outrage and in-fact, this would be considered as a propaganda against the San Andreas Police Department.

Propaganda against SAPD

---

Statement 3:
"StreetWise News is unprofessional and untrustworthy."

The fact that this is not true:
This claim is devoid of factual basis and is a sweeping castigation against SWN. TLSN has failed to present specific examples to back up the claim.
Proof of injury:
The statements put SWN down in the industry, thus diminishing its stature among peers and avenues for partnerships, thereby causing financial loss.
There's a solid evidence and a pure example for the this specific statement.

unprofessional announcements by SWN

---

I would also like to backup what I showed you here right now with one more evidence that would show how the SWN using metaphor in their articles which would lead to potential risk for either a payback or revenge from the offended party. I am of course against WWI but what I meant is that when they or their families read such an article, they would bask in revenge while the battle took more than 1 and half hour.

inaccurate news by SWN

---

That's all what I can say for now, thank you.

[Martin Winchester]

State of San Andreas
First Judicial District Court
United States Courthouse
3321 Downtown Avenue, Los Santos, San Andreas

---

StreetWise News
v.
The Los Santos Network

CASE # CV-0124
HONORABLE JUDGE PRESIDING:
Martin Winchester

I. FINDINGS:
The Court has reviewed the Plaintiff's detailed outline of allegedly defamatory statements from the article titled "The Truth Behind StreetWise News" published by The Los Santos Network. The Plaintiff claims that statements such as "Corruption in Coverage", "Biased Narratives" and "Lack of Professionalism" are defamatory and untrue, while alleging reputational and financial harm as a result of their publication.

The Plaintiff has, however, failed to present reliable evidence to substantiate its claims of loss due to reputational or financial harm. While the Plaintiff asserts the following harm; (public distrust and the loss of credibility, diminishment of subscriptions of viewership as well as the advertisement revenues, distrust about the integrity of StreetWise News, withdrawal of key sponsorships and partnerships, measurable financial losses), however, no verifiable documentation has been provided to demonstrate a direct link between the article's statements and the alleged losses, such as survey data or loss of sponsorship, etcetera.

The Court has also considered the Defendant's rebuttal, wherein they refute the Plaintiff's claims, asserting that the statements in the article were either truthful or representative of fair commentary. The Defendant argues that StreetWise News' alleged unprofessional conduct justifies The Los Santos Network's criticism, the Defendant has provided limited evidence to support its claim of truth or fair reporting under the third statement of their argument. In evaluating the veracity of the allegedly defamatory article, the Court recognizes the importance of the time frame in which supporting evidence is presented. The Defendant has to justify the truthfulness of its claims, it must demonstrate that the purported "Corruption in Coverage," "Biased Narratives," or "Lack of Professionalism" existed at or before the publication date (01/01/2025) of the article in question.

The Court recognizes that any conduct by StreetWise News occurring after the publication date of The Los Santos Network's article does not retroactively validate the claims made in the article. Evidence of subsequent practices or publications by StreetWise News may only be admissible if it can reasonably establish the alleged conduct that was ongoing before the publication date (01/01/2025).

Furthermore, the inclusion of statements and evidence such as "The LS Blacks are 50 percent homosexual" or "inaccurate news by SWN" cited by the Defendant, falls outside the scope of the current defamation proceedings unless it can be explicitly tied to three outlined elements of The Los Santos Network's article. Assertions that are irrelevant to the case or unsupported by substantial evidence are disregarded at this stage.

This Court recognizes the seriousness of defamation claims and the potential harm they can inflict. Although, it also emphasizes the importance of credible evidence to substantiate such claims. A prima facie case of defamation where the Plaintiff party seeks compensation for the stated loss, requires evidence of reputational harm or financial harm while none of which have been sufficiently established by the Plaintiff at this stage.

II. ORDERS:
Nonetheless, the Defendant's reliance on the unverified timeline of evidence and generalized claims of truthfulness weakens their rebuttal. Similarly, the Plaintiff's claim of reputational or financial loss should be properly documented and established before this Court. Assertions made without a specified timeline and documentation do not meet the evidentiary threshold required for these proceedings.

To the Plaintiff:
The Plaintiff is directed to submit verifiable evidence substantiating its claims of reputational harm and financial loss within the next 72 hours of this order. This evidence may include third-party testimonies, survey data, and other documentations.

To the Defendant:
The Defendant is hereby directed to submit supplementary evidence that supports the timeline of all publications or materials by StreetWise News that are being relied upon to nullify the defamatory allegations within the next 72 hours of this order.
(( Screenshot of /td or OOC evidence of time and date of the publications are admissible in this case of evaluation. ))

HEREBY ORDERED.
Hon. Martin Winchester
Presiding Judge
First Judicial District Court

EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY AS OF 27/01/2025