Case: Pending Tomasi Latutupou v. Blogy Wogy (2026) CV 07

[powder]

Tomasi Latutupou (Tonga1), Plaintiff

v.

Blogy Wogy (BlogWorldExpo), Defendant

Civil Complaint:
This civil complaint is intended to pursue copyright violations committed by BlogWorldExpo.

Parties:
Identify the plaintiff(s); defendant(s); co-defendant(s); and third parties by name.

1. Tonga1, Plaintiff, represented by powderuwu on behalf of Royal Dragon & Shell
2. BlogWorldExpo, Defendant

Factual Allegations:

The defendant has violated the plaintiffs copyright protection regarding the tonga church.

The defendant misled the MEC in believing that the plaintiff had authorized the pasting of the tonga church, when the plaintiff in fact, did not authorize such an action

Legal Claims:

Specify the legal claims or causes of action being asserted by the plaintiff, such as breach of contract, negligence, or fraud.

1. The defendant violated the . intellectual property rights granted by the Establish Copyright Protections Act
2. The defendant violated the plaintiffs right against government overreach of powers as granted by the constitution

Prayer for Relief:

Request the specific relief sought by the plaintiff, including monetary damages, injunctive relief, or other appropriate remedies. Please review the Court Orders, Powers, and Judgments thread for further explanation.

1. Payment of 25,000 to powderuwu as counsel in legal fees
2. Payment of 5000$ to plaintiff for violation of plaintiffs constitutional rights
3. 50K for the unauthorized pasting of plaintiffs intellectual property.

Verification:

I, Powderuwu, hereby affirm that the allegations in the complaint AND all subsequent statements made in court are true and correct to the best of the plaintiff's knowledge, information, and belief and that any falsehoods may bring the penalty of perjury.

 

[powder]

Additional evidence
Due to file size limitations, additional files have been uploaded externally to imgur.

https://imgur.com/a/kBJWoE6

 

[Westray]

Writ of Summons

Azalea Isles District Court, Civil Case (CV)

Case No. CV-26-07
​

Plaintiff: Tomasi Latutupou (Tonga1)
Defendant: Blogy Wogy (BlogWorldExpo)

​

The Defendant is required to appear before the court in the case of Tomasi Latutupou v. Blogy Wogy. Failure to respond within 48 hours may result in a default judgement. Both parties are ask to familiarize themselves with the relevant court documents, including proper formats, as well as the laws referenced in the complaint. Ensure that you comply with any court orders.

If you wish to hold this trial at the Azalea Courthouse in-person, please note that in your response. The Court will try to work with both parties to hold live hearings at convenient times.

​

Signed,
Hon. Chief Justice Raymond West

 

[RandomIntruder]

Answer to Civil Complaint:
The Defendant would like to argue that there was no copyright to be violated.

On the factual allegations the Plaintiff has listed:
“The defendant has violated the plaintiffs copyright protection regarding the tonga church.”
The Defendant DISAGREES with this fact as it is the central theme of the court case and has not been sufficiently argued yet. At this point, this cannot be factually established.

“The defendant misled the MEC in believing that the plaintiff had authorized the pasting of the tonga church, when the plaintiff in fact, did not authorize such an action.”
The Defendant DISAGREES with this fact as the Plaintiff fails to prove the Defendant was not authorized such an action.

The Defence would like to add the following factual allegations:
1. The Defendant never claimed to have designed the tonga church.
2. At the time of filing, the tonga church is not located anywhere in the Isles.

Legal Defenses or Challenges:
The Plaintiff has failed to specify what was protected by copyright. The work “the tonga church” is not a registered copyright according to the MEA.

The Defendant could not have violated the Plaintiff’s right against government overreach of powers not specified by the constitution as the Defendant is not a government entity but rather a private citizen. Furthermore, the second claim in “Factual Allegation” specifically separates the Defendant from the government entity of the MEC by stating that the defendant “misled” the entire MEC, representing them as separate entities.

Rebuttal to Prayers for Relief:
The Defense would like the Court to consider the following points for point 1 of the Prayers to Relief:
1. The attached screenshots, specifically tongarep.png, shows that counsel was offered free of charge for the Plaintiff (specifically without charge). Therefore, legal fees should not be part of the prayer for relief.

Verification:
I, Random Intruder, hereby affirm that the allegations in the answer AND all subsequent statements made in court are true and correct to the best of the defendant’s knowledge, information, and belief and that any falsehoods may bring the penalty of perjury.

 

[Westray]

The Plaintiff has 48 hours to present an opening statement.

@powder

 

[powder]

Opening Statement

Our opening statement shall serve as a direct rebuttal to the defendant's answer to our complaint, as we believe this is the most efficient and concise method of opening our case.

Formatting shall be as follows: Any text using in-line code formatting shall be interpreted as plaintiff's answers to the defendant's response to complaint.

Rebuttal begins below:

On the factual allegations the Plaintiff has listed:
“The defendant has violated the plaintiffs copyright protection regarding the tonga church.”
The Defendant DISAGREES with this fact as it is the central theme of the court case and has not been sufficiently argued yet. At this point, this cannot be factually established.

> Defendant was explicitly asked to provide compensation prior to the pasting of the Tonga Church. Which they had failed to do, therefore failing to procure permission to use the copyright, and violating plaintiff's copyright.


The defendant misled the MEC in believing that the plaintiff had authorized the pasting of the tonga church, when the plaintiff in fact, did not authorize such an action.”
The Defendant DISAGREES with this fact as the Plaintiff fails to prove the Defendant was not authorized such an action.

> Defendant misled MEC officials into believing plaintiff had granted permission for the usage of the Tonga Church. Which is simply untrue. Plaintiff never gave such authorization. We intend to call upon a witness to testify to the defendant's misleading conduct.

The Defence would like to add the following factual allegations:
1. The Defendant never claimed to have designed the tonga church.
2. At the time of filing, the tonga church is not located anywhere in the Isles.

> Objection, Hearsay to 1.
>
> The plaintiff has never claimed the defendant took credit for the church.
>
> Objection, Relevance to 2.
>
> The matter of weather "At the time of filing, the tonga church is not located anywhere in the Isles." is not relevant to this case. This case pursues copyright violations that had already been committed by the defendant. We are seeking reparation for the damages.


Legal Defenses or Challenges:
The Plaintiff has failed to specify what was protected by copyright. The work “the tonga church” is not a registered copyright according to the MEA.
> Per the Establish Copyright Protections Act, within Article 3, (a) Copyright exists automatically for all intellectual property. Plaintiff needs not register the copyrighted material for it to be legally recognized as copyrighted. (b) further clarifies this by saying "may elect" implying that registration is optional.
>
> Additionally, within Article 6 of the same act, buildings are explicitly covered as a work that can be copyrighted: "(ii) When a building is concerned"

The Defendant could not have violated the Plaintiff’s right against government overreach of powers not specified by the constitution as the Defendant is not a government entity but rather a private citizen. Furthermore, the second claim in “Factual Allegation” specifically separates the Defendant from the government entity of the MEC by stating that the defendant “misled” the entire MEC, representing them as separate entities.

> Objection, Argumentative
>
> Defendant states conclusions rather than facts. This response invites agreement with a legal argument rather than testimony. And asks no factual question.

Rebuttal to Prayers for Relief:
The Defense would like the Court to consider the following points for point 1 of the Prayers to Relief:
1. The attached screenshots, specifically tongarep.png, shows that counsel was offered free of charge for the Plaintiff (specifically without charge). Therefore, legal fees should not be part of the prayer for relief.

> The plaintiff would like to make a motion to amend evidence containing a more complete copy of their agreement with Royal Dragon & Shell

 

[Westray]

At this time, all respective objections are overruled.

An answer to a complaint is the Defendant's initial position with respect to the allegations asserted. Objections based on relevance, hearsay, and an overly argumentative statement are premature where the Defendant has not yet had an opportunity to present its full case. The Court cannot adjudicate disputed factual assertions at the pleading stage.

For example, the Defendant has alleged that "The Defendant never claimed to have designed the tonga church" with the Plaintiff responding that "The plaintiff has never claimed the defendant took credit for the church" in their initial remarks. The Court has not yet been presented with evidence substantiating either contention. Resolution of these factual disputes will be determined based on the testimony and arguments at trial.

I would encourage the Plaintiff to avoid anticipatory objections. Unless there is an egregious factual error or improper conduct used by the Defendant in their arguments, please limit it to purely evidence admission, procedure, and witness testimony.

As to the remaining motions, given the early stage of the case and the relevance of the material to the Plaintiff's claim of legal fees, the motion to include the evidence from the Plaintiff's discussion with Luke Thegreatfired is accepted.

The Defendant, represented by @RandomIntruder, has 48 hours to provide their opening statement.