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

[Derek C. Holloway]

StreetWise News v. The Los Santos Network

Your Honour,

---

The plantiff has decided to use third party testimonies as an evidence to loss of economic status and reputational damage, such as survey data, I will provide some tapes below which shows clear loss of economic status and reputational damage.

---

Mr.Kray's Interview:

Spoiler

[21:44:30] * Piper Lynch turns on her camera, faces toward Mobon, records.
[21:44:43] * Both audio and video is recording (Piper Lynch)
[21:44:46] * Mobon Kray clears his throat
[21:44:54] It is the 28th of January, 2025. Time is 17:45:09 CET or 09:11 in the game world.
[21:44:58] Screenshot Taken - sa-mp-410.png
[21:45:42] Piper Lynch says: We are conducting a survey to understand how public perception of SWN has been impacted by the article of TLSN
[21:45:56] Mobon Kray says: mhm
[21:46:09] * Mobon Kray eyes the camera
[21:46:11] Piper Lynch says: What's your age sir and name.
[21:46:23] Mobon Kray says: Im Mobon , Mobon Kray , im 32
[21:46:42] Piper Lynch says: Have you been a viewer or Subscriber of SWN Before?
[21:46:47] Mobon Kray says: Yes.
[21:47:03] Piper Lynch says: How often did you engage with SWN before January 3, 2025?
[21:47:09] Mobon Kray says: Daily.
[21:47:28] Piper Lynch says: Great
[21:48:02] Piper Lynch says: Are you aware of the article titled "The Truth Behind StreetWise News" published by the Los Santos News Net..
[21:48:02] ..work?
[21:48:15] Mobon Kray says: Yes im well aware about that article.
[21:48:29] Piper Lynch says: Did you read or hear about this article?
[21:48:36] Mobon Kray says: i read it myself.
[21:48:51] Piper Lynch says: Did the article change your perception of StreetWise News?
[21:49:32] Mobon Kray says: It surely did change , i had some suspicions after it.
[21:49:40] Mobon Kray says: about the swn news
[21:49:41] Piper Lynch says: Mhm..
[21:50:03] Piper Lynch says: On a scale of 1-5, how trustworthy do you find SWN after reading the article?
[21:50:39] Mobon Kray says: 3 , those suspicions made me trust it 3 in the scale of 5.
[21:50:45] Piper Lynch says: Do you believe SWN operates with professionalism & integrity?
[21:51:42] Mobon Kray says: yes ,but the article the suspicious gots into my head and im unsure now
[21:53:15] Mobon Kray says: yes but after reading that article im unsure about it , that article influenced my thoughts about swn
[21:53:55] Mobon Kray says: But in my opinion that article can be misleading because since start im watching the news and its pretty good
[21:54:08] Mobon Kray says: and never noticed wrong news or biased news in it
[21:54:39] Mobon Kray says: It seems like that article is defaming them for some personal reason maybe
[21:54:54] Piper Lynch says: Have you reduced your engagement with SWN because of the article? eg, stopped watching or rarely watch now?
[21:55:24] Mobon Kray says: yeah , rarely now.
[21:55:34] Piper Lynch says: mhm
[21:55:47] * Mobon Kray coughs.
[21:56:01] Piper Lynch says: what specific reasons influenced your decision?
[21:57:47] Mobon Kray says: After the article i think that swn is biased narrative .But im repeating it looks like they are misleading
[21:57:58] Mobon Kray says: and wrong
[21:59:55] Mobon Kray says: im thinking now that SWN shows blantant favoritism
[22:00:37] Mobon Kray says: i mean i was*
[22:00:41] Piper Lynch says: Have you recommended SWN to others after reading the article?
[22:00:51] Mobon Kray says: After no , before yes.
[22:01:22] Piper Lynch says: Are you less likely to support SWN financially because of the article? eg. Donation or ads.
[22:01:40] Mobon Kray says: yeah.
[22:02:08] Piper Lynch says: In your opinion, how has the article by TLSN impacted SWN reputation?
[22:02:46] Mobon Kray says: If a man like me , who used to watch it daily is unsure about them , i cant say anything about others then.
[22:03:17] Mobon Kray says: As they were misleading and harming their reputation by their articles
[22:03:33] Mobon Kray says: Without a proof.
[22:03:50] Piper Lynch says: Do you have any additional comments about SWN news or the article?
[22:03:56] * It's lucky hour! Enjoy boosted perks.
[22:04:18] Mobon Kray says: Additional , yeah i think we shouldnt take any decision about something unless proofs are provided
[22:05:31] Piper Lynch says: Thanks for your time sir.
[22:05:38] Mobon Kray says: No problem , madam.
[22:05:42] Piper Lynch says: We shall end it here, have a nice day.
[22:05:44] Mobon Kray says: i hope you guys get justice.
[22:05:48] * Piper Lynch turns off her camera.

---

Mr. Marshall's Interview:

Spoiler

[17:17:12] It is the 30th of January, 2025. Time is 13:16:57 CET or 15:17 in the game world.
[17:17:13] Piper Lynch says: Hello sir, we are from the SWN.
[17:17:19] * Piper Lynch shows their press card.
[17:17:19] * The press card would show {FFCC00}StreetWise News Supervisory Staff Piper_Lynch (Piper Lynch)
[17:17:28] Jimmy Marshall says [American accent]: Hello, sir
[17:17:30] Jimmy Marshall says [American accent]: hello mam
[17:17:50] Piper Lynch says: We are conducting a survey to understand how public perception of SWN has been impacted by the article rele..
[17:17:50] ..ased by TLSN
[17:17:55] Piper Lynch says: What's your name and age
[17:17:57] Jimmy Marshall says [American accent]: this side Jimmy marshall #500 from LSPD
[17:18:04] Jimmy Marshall says [American accent]: And i am 28 yrs old
[17:18:15] *** [3 | 37] John McCane [low]: Why underground?
[17:18:20] Piper Lynch says: Have you been a viewer or Subscriber of SWN before?
[17:18:50] Jimmy Marshall says [American accent]: yes, before getting into my job i do read their news
[17:18:57] Piper Lynch says: How often did you engage with SWN before January 2025?
[17:19:09] Piper Lynch says: Eg, Daily, Weekly and so
[17:19:17] Jimmy Marshall says [American accent]: Umm, so Last november I came back to the city
[17:19:31] Jimmy Marshall says [American accent]: and since december i am following up with SWN continiously
[17:19:43] Piper Lynch says: Are you aware of the article titled The Truth Behind StreetWise News published by TLSN?[17:20:21] Jimmy Marshall says [American accent]: Yes, I read that article. TBH that was hard to believe. But as far as i think that was..
[17:20:21] .. totally a lie
[17:20:32] Piper Lynch says: Did you read or hear about this article?
[17:20:50] Jimmy Marshall says [American accent]: First i heard that article. then i went to read it
[17:20:58] Piper Lynch says: Did the article change your perception of StreetWise News?
[17:21:00] Jimmy Marshall says [American accent]: but what i saw after few days it was removed
[17:21:33] Jimmy Marshall says [American accent]: No, Like if you are removing any article from your main page then it must be a lie
[17:21:51] Piper Lynch says: On a scale of 1-5, how trustworthy do you find SWN after reading the article?
[17:21:55] {B00EC9}[Question] Fahed_Alqurashi (40):{FFFFFF} What does it help? heron
[17:22:15] Jimmy Marshall says [American accent]: See, we all know there should me some "masala" to make news interesting
[17:22:22] Jimmy Marshall says [American accent]: so i wont say 5/5
[17:22:42] Piper Lynch says: mhm
[17:22:47] Jimmy Marshall says [American accent]: i will be honest for TLSN I will be 1/5 but for SWN i will be 3/5
[17:23:07] Piper Lynch says: mhm, sir I mean after the article
[17:23:11] Piper Lynch says: On a scale of 1-5, how trustworthy do you find SWN after reading the article?

[17:22:42] Piper Lynch says: mhm
[17:22:47] Jimmy Marshall says [American accent]: i will be honest for TLSN I will be 1/5 but for SWN i will be 3/5
[17:23:07] Piper Lynch says: mhm, sir I mean after the article
[17:23:11] Piper Lynch says: On a scale of 1-5, how trustworthy do you find SWN after reading the article?
[17:23:35] Piper Lynch says: Trustworthy as in, you know they accused us of bias and corruption and false narrative
[17:23:48] Jimmy Marshall says [American accent]: See for me that TLSN article was tottaly fake. so i wont judge SWN on basis of that
[17:22:20] Jimmy Marshall says [American accent]: See, we all know there should me some "masala" to make news interesting
[17:22:22] Jimmy Marshall says [American accent]: so i wont say 5/5
[17:24:47] Piper Lynch says: Have you reduced your engagement with SWN because of the article? Eg, unsubscribed or stopped watching or l..
[17:24:47]..ess watch time?
[17:25:01] Jimmy Marshall says [American accent]: No, I am still following SWN
[17:25:18] Jimmy Marshall says [American accent]: But i used to follow TLSN Too which i have stopped after that article

[17:26:31] Piper Lynch says: Are you less likely to support SWN financially because of the article? Eg. donations or advertising?
[17:27:08] Jimmy Marshall says [American accent]: I would support SWN.
[17:27:30] Piper Lynch says: In your opinion, how has the article by TLSN impacted SWN reputation?
[17:27:59] Jimmy Marshall says [American accent]: SWN reputation was hampered by that article
[17:28:06] Piper Lynch says: Do you have any additional comments about SWN or the article?
[17:28:39] Jimmy Marshall says [American accent]: I Would say, if any news company deleting their article after publishing it
[17:28:53] Jimmy Marshall says [American accent]: than you should not take that news company seriously
[17:28:58] Jimmy Marshall says [American accent]: because what i know
[17:29:10] Piper Lynch says: mhmm dight
[17:29:12] Piper Lynch says: right
[17:29:13] Piper Lynch says: Thanks for the survey sir, we appreciate your valuable time.
[17:29:13] Jimmy Marshall says [American accent]: to publish something news company has to do good research
[17:29:22] Jimmy Marshall says [American accent]: come with all the facts
[17:29:30] Piper Lynch says: Mhm yea. Absolutely
[17:29:34] Jimmy Marshall says [American accent]: than only they have to publish it
[17:29:43] Piper Lynch says: You believe TLSN failed to provide any facts in their article.
[17:29:43] Jimmy Marshall says [American accent]: so that no one can say against it
[17:29:58] Jimmy Marshall says [American accent]: yes, it was all baseless and without proofs
[17:30:08] Piper Lynch says: Right mhm. thanks sir

---

Mr. DeLuca Kray's Interview:

Spoiler

[17:40:45] Piper Lynch says: We are from the SWN, we are conducting a survey
[17:40:47] > Kane Smith sets the camera angle on Deluca's face.
[17:40:47] It is the 30th of January, 2025. Time is 13:40:33 CET or 16:51 in the game world.
[17:40:52] Deluca Kray says: yes maam carry on
[17:40:55] Piper Lynch says: Can we have a few minutes of your time
[17:40:59] Piper Lynch says: Alright
[17:41:00] Deluca Kray says: yup why not
[17:41:24] * Piper Lynch shows their press card.
[17:41:24] * The press card would show {FFCC00}StreetWise News Supervisory Staff Piper_Lynch (Piper Lynch)
[17:41:30] * The conversation is being recorded. (Kane Smith)
[17:41:31] Piper Lynch says: What's your name and age sir
[17:41:43] Deluca Kray says: my name is Deluca and i am 29 years old
[17:41:50] Piper Lynch says: We are conducting a survey to understand how public perception of SWN has been impacted by the article rele..
[17:41:50] ..ased by TLSN
[17:42:06] Deluca Kray says: alr be quick
[17:42:10] Piper Lynch says: Have u been a viewer or Subscriber of SWN before?
[17:42:20] Deluca Kray says: yes i am a viewer
[17:42:29] Piper Lynch says: How often did you engage with SWN before January 2025?
[17:42:37] Deluca Kray says: i used to do daily
[17:42:46] Piper Lynch says: Are you aware of the article titled The Truth Behind StreetWise News published by TLSN?
[17:42:57] Deluca Kray says: ye i am well aware about it
[17:43:06] Piper Lynch says: Did you read or hear about this article?
[17:43:15] Deluca Kray says: i read it
[17:43:19] Piper Lynch says: Did the article change your perception of SWN?
[17:43:47] Deluca Kray says: it made suspicions in my mind about swn
[17:43:52] Piper Lynch says: On a scale of 1-5, how trustworthy do you find SWN after reading the article?
[17:43:58] Deluca Kray says: 2
[17:44:10] Piper Lynch says: Do you believe SWN operates with professionalism and integrity?
[17:44:27] Deluca Kray says: i used to believe it but now i have suspicions
[17:44:36] Piper Lynch says: Have you reduced your engagement with SWN because of the article? Eg, stopped watching or unsubscribe?
[17:44:56] Deluca Kray says: i stopped watching it untill i am clear about the whole situation
[17:44:59] Piper Lynch says: What specific reasons influenced your decision?
[17:45:06] Deluca Kray says: the article did
[17:45:37] Piper Lynch says: Yes but what specific reason? They accused us of Bias narrative, corruption and lack of professionalism
[17:46:40] Deluca Kray says: biased narrative
[17:46:47] * Mask_01191 eyes the camera
[17:46:53] Piper Lynch says: Have you recommended SWN to others after reading the article
[17:47:01] Deluca Kray says: no
[17:47:19] Piper Lynch says: Are you less likely to support SWN financially because of the article? Eg, donation or ads
[17:47:30] Deluca Kray says: yes
[17:47:43] Piper Lynch says: In your opinion, how has the article by TLSN impacted SWN reputation?
[17:47:59] Deluca Kray says: it made a huge impact on swn on everyones mind
[17:48:06] Deluca Kray says: of*
[17:48:07] Piper Lynch says: Do you have any additional comments?
[17:48:29] Deluca Kray says: i wish they provide proofs on that article
[17:48:40] Deluca Kray says: so i can be sure about the situation
[17:49:07] Piper Lynch says: see ya sir. thanks
[17:49:12] Deluca Kray says: np
[17:49:13] Mask_01191 says: see ya guys
[17:49:13] Deluca Kray says: cya

---

I belive we have provided the correct evidence that shows clear reputational damage and a loss of economic status, I'd please the court to proceed further!

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 present matter StreetWise News v. The Los Santos Network, arises from a civil claim initiated by the Plaintiff against the Defendant concerning allegations of defamation by the Defendant, The Los Santos Network, due to the publication of an alleged defamatory article on 1st of January, 2025. The Court finds the Plaintiff's defamation claim against the Defendant admissible despite the Defendant's attempts at rebuttal.

The Defendant's legal counsel failed to provide sufficient documentation within the given timeframe to establish the authenticity and timeline of the evidence submitted in defense against the Plaintiff's defamation claims. Despite multiple opportunities to do so, the Defendant did not present any corroborating material to validate the date of the evidence intended to nullify the defamation allegations. Consequently, the Court finds that the Defendant has not met the burden of proof required to challenge the Plaintiff's claims successfully. A critical factor in establishing defamation is the falsity of the alleged defamatory statement and, without an authenticated timeline, the Court cannot determine whether the statements in question were made with truth or falsity at the time of their publication. Given this evidentiary gap, the Court deems the Plaintiff's defamation claim valid and properly throughout the trial before the Court for adjudication.

The Court recognizes the Plaintiff's use of third-party testimonies and surveys to support claims of reputational harm. While these provide insight into public perception and the potential impact of the Defendant's statements, they remain subjective and do not establish a clear financial valuation of the damage. Their credibility is further assessed based on potential biases, survey methodology, and the lack of direct evidence of economic loss.
The Court acknowledges the evidentiary value of third-party testimonies and surveys in supporting the Plaintiff’s claims of reputational damage. However, as they do not provide definitive proof of financial or professional harm, the Court finds it appropriate to grant only partial recognition to these claims, adjusting compensation to ensure a fair and reasonable outcome.

The Court has reviewed evidence that was concealed, despite being material to the litigation, resulting in misleading the Court and the Plaintiff. Such conduct constitutes a violation of U.S.C. VI, Section (D)(1), a federal criminal statute. Additionally, this conduct also constitutes a violation of SA-PSC § II.11. Tampering with evidence, a state criminal statute.

II. RULINGS:

The Court rules the case in favor of the Plaintiff, StreetWise News, and finds the Defendant, The Los Santos Network, guilty of the charge set forth against them under SA-PSC § I.8. Defamation. The article in question contained defamatory statements; thus, the defamation charge is justified and has been weighed against the Defendant throughout the trial.

This Court, having been initiated in a civil case capacity, lacks jurisdiction to impose criminal penalties pursuant to U.S.C. VI, Section (D)(1), as criminal prosecution and sentencing fall within the purview of federal authorities. However, if the Plaintiff wishes to pursue prosecution at the state level under SA-PSC § II.11, they may refer to this precedent and submit the matter to the Department of Justice of the State of San Andreas for further evaluation. While this remains a civil proceeding, the Court acknowledges Ms. Sarah Martinez's transgression of federal and state law and its impact on these proceedings. Therefore, the Plaintiff retains the right to file a separate criminal case against the Defendant based on the violations established in the precedent of this case.

The Court expresses its profound disappointment at the blatant disregard for judicial authority and procedural decorum, despite primary warnings and an explicit ultimatum. The integrity of this Court demands adherence to due process, and such conduct whether minor or egregious undermines the fair administration of justice. The imposed sanctions serve as a firm reminder that court directives are not mere suggestions but fundamental requirements of legal proceedings.

The Court finds the Plaintiff's demands to be excessive and beyond what is reasonable under the circumstances. While the Plaintiff has successfully established their claim, the requested remedies and penalties exceed what is justified by the evidence and legal precedent. Accordingly, the Court will reduce the Plaintiff's demands to a fair and proportionate resolution that aligns with the principles of justice and reasonableness.

Failure to comply with any sentencing or financial penalties imposed in this ruling within the designated timeframe shall constitute a violation of SA-PSC § II.9. Failure to abide a court order. Noncompliance will result in further legal consequences, including but not limited to additional fines and interest rates, enforcement actions, seizure of assets, or potential escalation to criminal liability as deemed necessary by the Court.
*(( Remit the fines separately and once you do take a screenshot with /td and send it to my discord, "highwaymxn". ))

To the Plaintiff:

• The Court also finds the Plaintiff in contempt of court for submitting unsolicited commentary during the proceedings. While defensive and less severe, this violation remains unacceptable while given an ultimatum beforehand, and the Plaintiff is sentenced to remit a monetary fine of $100,000.00 as a penalty. This monetary fine must be remitted within seven days of this ruling (11/02/2025 to 18/02/2025) (Group account: #1).

To the Defendant:

• The Defendant shall reimburse the Plaintiff for reasonable attorney fees and litigation costs incurred due to the removal of evidence and prolonging the proceedings, the amount of which shall be determined based on the attorney-client retainer contract between the Plaintiff and their attorney. This reimbursement is pursuable by the Plaintiff. The retainment of this reimbursement for attorney fees and costs expires on the date of (18/02/2025).
  Off Topic

  *((Usually, this is settled between the opposing parties, for confirmation and validity of the attorney-client retainer contract you may send a private message to me for evaluation.))

• The Defendant is sentenced to compensate the Plaintiff for a total amount of $850,000.00 via bank transaction to the Plaintiff's attorney (Private account: #944). The amount of this compensation is estimated to remedy the reputational and financial losses of the Plaintiff. This compensation is to be completed within a timeframe of seven days from the date of this ruling (11/02/2025 to 18/02/2025).
  *If the Defendant fails to remit full payment of the monetary compensation by the end of the seven-day period, an additional penalty of 20% will be added to the total fine amount for every 24 hours the payment remains unremitted. The total amount due will continue to increase by 20% for each additional 24-hour period that the full payment is delayed.

• The Defendant, The Los Santos Network, is subjected to an injunction of media blackout for the duration of fourteen days of this ruling (11/02/2025 to 25/02/2025).
  Should The Los Santos Network fail to adhere to this injunction in regards to a media blackout, they will be held liable for their willful violation of the Court's order.

• The Defendant is ordered to prepare an appropriate public apology directed to the Plaintiff, StreetWise News. This formal apology must be delivered within a timeframe of seven days from this ruling (11/02/2025 to 18/02/2025).

• The Court finds the Defendant in contempt of court for submitting unsolicited commentary and redundant arguments despite prior reminder regarding courtroom decorum. As a result, the Defendant is sentenced to remit a monetary fine of $200,000.00 as a penalty for willful disregard of this Court's instructions. This monetary fine must be remitted within seven days of this ruling (11/02/2025 to 18/02/2025) (Group account: #1).

• The Defendant, as the judgment debtor, is ordered to pay court fees in the total amount of $50,000.00 (Group account: #1). This payment shall be made within seven days of this ruling (11/02/2025 to 18/02/2025).

*Should either party believe that this decision is unjust or that errors were made throughout these legal proceedings, they are entitled to file an appeal with the Supreme Court ((or the House of Representatives as there's no functional Supreme Court as of now)). The appeals process ensures that all parties have an opportunity to seek further review and that justice is upheld to its fullest extent.

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED.
Hon. Martin Winchester
Presiding Judge
First Judicial District Court

EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY AS OF 11/02/2025