Lawsuit: In Session jsrkiwi v Trentrick_Lamar [2025] DCR 90

[jsrkiwi]

Case Filing

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

jsrkiwi
Plaintiff

v.

Trentrick_Lamar
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

The Defendant unlawfully killed me sixteen seconds after I had tasered and cuffed him, then immediately uncuffed him. The Defendant claims self-defence, but the circumstances clearly show intentional lethal action after being restrained and released.

Separately, in a DHS ticket, the Defendant called me “an absolute liar” and told me to “stop lying,” in front of multiple Government personnel. These statements were false and intended to discredit me professionally.

I. PARTIES
1. The Plaintiff is jsrkiwi.
2. The Defendant is Trentrick_Lamar.

II. FACTS
1. On 9th November 2025, the Plaintiff, acting in his capacity as a Police Recruit, attempted to apprehend Urb5n, a mass murderer wanted by police.
2. Urb5n was hiding in room CE102 at the university.
3. On the first attempt at arrest of Urb5n by the Plaintiff, Urb5n exited the room and proceeded to murder the Plaintiff further down the corridor at 19:11:54 UTC.
4. The Plaintiff immediately returned to the university to attempt a second arrest. On this second attempt at arrest of Urb5n by the Plaintiff, Urb5n used the Defendant as a human shield to avoid arrest.
5. At 19:12:31 UTC, the Plaintiff tasered the Defendant, whilst attempting to taser Urb5n.
6. At 19:12:32 UTC, the Plaintiff cuffed the Defendant, whilst attempting to cuff Urb5n.
7. Two seconds later at 19:12:34 UTC, the Plaintiff realised his error and uncuffed the Defendant.
8. The Plaintiff started typing out an apology message, however this was interrupted because sixteen seconds later after being uncuffed, at 19:12:50 UTC, the Defendant murdered the Plaintiff.
9. The Defendant faced no imminent threat from the Plaintiff. The plaintiff was motionless and was not holding a weapon.
10. The Defendant cannot claim self-defence, as there never was a threat of harm against the Defendant, and certainly none once 16 seconds had elapsed from after the Plaintiff had uncuffed him.
11. The Plaintiff’s armour was damaged by the Murder, as evidenced by exhibit 3.
12. The Plaintiff returned to the University to collect the clues from both murders, and in his capacity of a Detective solved the murder case stated in Fact 8 at 19:15:07 UTC, and solved the murder case stated in Fact 3 at 19:15:27 UTC.
13. The Plaintiff then arrested the Defendant at 19:17:15 UTC, read him his rights at 19:17:23 UTC, imprisoned him at 19:17:36 UTC.
14. At 19:19 UTC, the Defendant opened government ticket dhs-25340 with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
15. At 19:20 UTC, the Defendant posted a screenshot to the ticket purporting to show ‘self-defence’.
16. At 19:22 UTC, the Plaintiff responded with a factually accurate witness statement.
17. At 19:22 UTC, the Defendant responded “Absolute liar. I have a witness. | I would like Dolev added to this ticket. | He has your head that I tossed. | @Secretary | Dolev is even there in my screenshot standing right in front of me | Jsr, stop lying. Urbsn was not there. It was Dolev who was there, and he is literally right there in my screenshot.| Urbsn and Dolev do not have the same skin”. (n.b. “|” has been used instead of a new line).
18. These statements were made in the presence of third parties, including (for example) roryyy_, Dolev, Comet, and Culls.
19. Under the No More Defamation Act, false statements constitute Slander.
20. The Defendant provided no evidential basis for alleging that the Plaintiff lied.
21. Under the Legal Damages Act, each act of unlawful defamation permits a damages award.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The Defendant unlawfully killed the Plaintiff when no imminent threat of harm against the Plaintiff existed. Therefore, the Defendant committed the criminal act of Murder.
2. Upon these facts the Defendant is civilly liable for the unlawful killing and the Plaintiff claims compensatory damages under the Legal Damages Act.
3. The Defendant’s written statements constitute slander: “A false statement, usually made through either discord or in-game messages, which defames another person’s reputation, business, profession, or organization”.
4. The Defendant’s actions fulfil the elements of the tort under the No More Defamation Act, as the accusation (“liar”) was made as a statement of fact, not opinion, and injured the Plaintiff’s professional reputation.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following:
1. A declarative judgement finding that the Defendant murdered the Plaintiff.
2. $1 nominal compensatory damages for Murder.
3. A declarative judgement that the Defendant slandered the Plaintiff.
4. An order that the Defendant retract the defamatory claim by way of public statement, and apologise to the Plaintiff.
5. $1 nominal compensatory damages for Slander.

V. ATTACHED EVIDENCE
1. Transcript of government ticket dhs-25340, showing the defamatory statements.
2. Logs excerpt from 9th November 2025 between 19:11:00 UTC and 19:18:00 UTC, showing that the Plaintiff did not lie.
3. Screenshot showing damage to the Plaintiff’s armour.

By making this submission, I agree I understand the penalties of lying in court and the fact that I am subject to perjury should I knowingly make a false statement in court.

DATED: This 9th day of November 2025

 

[jsrkiwi]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
EMERGENCY MOTION TO PRESERVE EVIDENCE

The Plaintiff, jsrkiwi, respectfully moves this Court to order Defendant, Trentrick_Lamar, to preserve all Minecraft logs covering at least the period 19:11:00 UTC to 19:18:00 UTC on 9th November 2025, and in support thereof states as follows:

1. The Plaintiff has initiated a civil action against the Defendant in this Court concerning events that occurred on the DemocracyCraft Minecraft server during the above-stated period.
2. The logs maintained by the Defendant are likely to contain evidence relevant to the Plaintiff’s claims and the Defendant’s conduct.
3. Immediate preservation of these logs is necessary to prevent spoliation of evidence, as such digital records are susceptible to automatic deletion or alteration prior to the opening of discovery.
4. Without the preservation of these records, the Plaintiff’s ability to present relevant evidence and support the claims in this case will be materially impaired.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court issue an order requiring Defendant Trentrick_Lamar to:
1. Preserve all Minecraft logs covering at least the period 19:11:00 UTC to 19:18:00 UTC on 9th November 2025; and
2. Refrain from deleting, modifying, or altering any such records until further order of this Court.

 

[Trentrick_Lamar]

This is I love DemocracyCraft!ing stupid lol

 

[Muggy21]

Writ of Summons

@Trentrick_Lamar , is required to appear before the District Court in the case of jsrkiwi v Trentrick_Lamar [2025] DCR 90

In the interest of more efficient Courtroom proceedings, the Court will permit responses to motions without prior Court permission. The deadline for said motions shall be 48 hours.

Furthermore, in obedience with Rule 1.4, parties are advised that engaging in conduct that obstructs or interferes with the administration of this Court or its proceedings may be held in Contempt of Court.

Failure to appear within 72 hours of this summons will result in a default judgement based on the known facts of the case.

Both parties should make themselves aware of the Court Rules and Procedures, including the option of an in-game trial should both parties request one.

 

[Muggy21]

This is I love DemocracyCraft!ing stupid lol

You will refrain from speaking out of turn. Future outbursts and the Court will use Contempt powers.

 

[Trentrick_Lamar]

sorry your highness

 

[Muggy21]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
EMERGENCY MOTION TO PRESERVE EVIDENCE

The Plaintiff, jsrkiwi, respectfully moves this Court to order Defendant, Trentrick_Lamar, to preserve all Minecraft logs covering at least the period 19:11:00 UTC to 19:18:00 UTC on 9th November 2025, and in support thereof states as follows:

1. The Plaintiff has initiated a civil action against the Defendant in this Court concerning events that occurred on the DemocracyCraft Minecraft server during the above-stated period.
2. The logs maintained by the Defendant are likely to contain evidence relevant to the Plaintiff’s claims and the Defendant’s conduct.
3. Immediate preservation of these logs is necessary to prevent spoliation of evidence, as such digital records are susceptible to automatic deletion or alteration prior to the opening of discovery.
4. Without the preservation of these records, the Plaintiff’s ability to present relevant evidence and support the claims in this case will be materially impaired.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court issue an order requiring Defendant Trentrick_Lamar to:
1. Preserve all Minecraft logs covering at least the period 19:11:00 UTC to 19:18:00 UTC on 9th November 2025; and
2. Refrain from deleting, modifying, or altering any such records until further order of this Court.

Granted. Defendant shall preserve logs as described.

 

[BrownBerry]

Your Honor,

MZLD will be representing the Defendant.

 

[Muggy21]

Your Honor,

MZLD will be representing the Defendant. View attachment 66671

You shall have 48 Hours to present an Answer.

 

[Muggy21]

@Rory (@Kaiserin_ , courtesy ping in case DoJ can answer on behalf of DHS).

Interrogatory by the Court: Are DHS tickets inherently classified when initially filed?

 

[Kaiserin_]

Your honour,

To ignore any other concerns about privacy and confidentiality - no, DHS tickets are not automatically assigned a classification status when opened.

 

[Muggy21]

Court Order

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Sua Sponte Dismissal of Complaint in Part.


Prayer #1 is dismissed with prejudice. This Court is not equipped to issue declaratory judgements of summary offenses that occurred outside of its purview. A declaratory judgement of this nature may impart a duty on this Court to affirm actions that have otherwise been adjudicated by the DHS. This Court has a duty to hear appeals on DHS actions, this Court will never make a declaratory judgment in a civil proceeding affirming a criminal action.

So ordered,
Magistrate Mug

 

[BrownBerry]

Your Honor,

Defendant requests a 24 hour extension to file an Answer for IRL reasons and also because of the relatively high quantity of evidence submitted by Plaintiff. I also note that we filed an appearance well within the 72 hour timeframe so the effect on the overall proceedings is minimal.

 

[jsrkiwi]

Your Honor,

Defendant requests a 24 hour extension to file an Answer for IRL reasons and also because of the relatively high quantity of evidence submitted by Plaintiff. I also note that we filed an appearance well within the 72 hour timeframe so the effect on the overall proceedings is minimal.

Your Honour, the Plaintiff does not object to the request for extension by the Defendant.

 

[Muggy21]

Your Honor,

Defendant requests a 24 hour extension to file an Answer for IRL reasons and also because of the relatively high quantity of evidence submitted by Plaintiff. I also note that we filed an appearance well within the 72 hour timeframe so the effect on the overall proceedings is minimal.

Answer Due : 11/13/25

 

[jsrkiwi]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

MOTION TO WITHDRAW PORTIONS OF COMPLAINT

The Plaintiff, jsrkiwi, respectfully moves this Court, in light of the Court’s Order at 04:21 UTC on 10 November 2025, to withdraw certain portions of the Complaint to simplify the case, and in support thereof states as follows:

1. The Plaintiff seeks to withdraw Fact 11 from Section II (Facts) of the Complaint.

2. The Plaintiff seeks to withdraw Prayer 2 from Section IV (Prayer for Relief) of the Complaint.

3. The Plaintiff seeks to withdraw Exhibit 3 from Section V (Attached Evidence) of the Complaint.

4. These withdrawals are made to streamline the litigation and focus on the remaining claim.

5. No other facts, claims, or prayers for relief are affected by this motion.

 

[jsrkiwi]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND EXCLUSION OF VERNICIA FROM THIS LITIGATION

The Plaintiff respectfully submits this motion, due to the urgency of the matter arising from MZLD’s egregious conduct as detailed below.

The Plaintiff moves the Court for the following relief.

I. FACTS
1. On 10 November 2025 at 00:04 UTC, Your Honour served a Writ of Summons to the Defendant.
2. 11 minutes after the Writ of Summons was filed, at 00:15 UTC, Vernicia directly contacted the Plaintiff in private Discord messages, making the following vague threat: “Hi , i belive you want withraw that case before i get involved”.
3. 22 minutes later, at 00:37 UTC, Vernicia continued with her threats, threatening strange “sanctions” such as ordering a “500 word apology” and forcing the Plaintiff to draw a cake.
4. Given the timing immediately after the Writ of Summons and the content of the messages threatening ‘sanctions’ and demanding a “500 word apology”, the Plaintiff perceives these communications as an attempt to intimidate him into withdrawing or settling the case. These unsanctioned communications pose a real risk of influencing the Plaintiff’s decisions regarding litigation and thereby undermining the administration of justice.
5. The counsel of record actually representing the Defendant is BrownBerry, not Vernicia. Under ordinary adversarial procedure, only counsel of record communicates on behalf of a party.
6. Furthermore, unsanctioned communications such as these have the potential to distort negotiation channels and risk poisoning the evidential record

II. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Vernicia’s threats violate the expected professional decorum of this Honourable Court. Indeed, a seasoned lawyer, such as Vernicia, is no doubt fully aware of the basic decorum expected of lawyers in the Commonwealth of Redmont.
2. These threats by Vernicia potentially amount to the crime of Obstruction of Justice (“willfully interferes with the process of justice by influencing, threatening, harming, or impeding a witness, potential witness, or law enforcement officer”, Criminal Code Act), since the Plaintiff was to be called as a witness in this case.
3. Furthermore, Your Honour has already cautioned all parties to this case, including MZLD, that “in obedience with Rule 1.4, parties are advised that engaging in conduct that obstructs or interferes with the administration of this Court or its proceedings may be held in Contempt of Court”. Therefore, this interference with the case by Vernicia potentially amounts to the crime of Contempt of Court (“engages in conduct that obstructs or interferes with the administration of justice”, Criminal Code Act).
4. The conduct of MZLD and its owner Vernicia is sufficiently egregious to warrant the imposition of appropriate Sanctions.

III. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff respectfully asks this Honourable Court:
1. To Order that Vernicia is formally excluded from any role, oversight, direction, or supervision on this case;
2. To Order that all defence communications must come exclusively from counsel-of-record (BrownBerry);
3. To find Vernicia in Contempt of Court, should the Court determine that the evidence warrants such a finding;
4. To refer the matter to the Department of Justice for determination of potential Obstruction of Justice; and
5. To consider awarding monetary sanctions against MZLD and Vernicia, including but not limited to reimbursement of the Plaintiff’s costs incurred as a result of their improper conduct (estimated at $500 for 20 minutes work in preparing this motion), and any fines the Court deems appropriate to deter future misconduct.

IV. ATTACHED EVIDENCE
4. Screenshot of the Discord messages from Vernicia to the Plaintiff (jsrkiwi), dated 10 November 2025.

Respectfully submitted,
Plaintiff.

 

[Franciscus]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND EXCLUSION OF VERNICIA FROM THIS LITIGATION

The Plaintiff respectfully submits this motion, due to the urgency of the matter arising from MZLD’s egregious conduct as detailed below.

The Plaintiff moves the Court for the following relief.

I. FACTS
1. On 10 November 2025 at 00:04 UTC, Your Honour served a Writ of Summons to the Defendant.
2. 11 minutes after the Writ of Summons was filed, at 00:15 UTC, Vernicia directly contacted the Plaintiff in private Discord messages, making the following vague threat: “Hi , i belive you want withraw that case before i get involved”.
3. 22 minutes later, at 00:37 UTC, Vernicia continued with her threats, threatening strange “sanctions” such as ordering a “500 word apology” and forcing the Plaintiff to draw a cake.
4. Given the timing immediately after the Writ of Summons and the content of the messages threatening ‘sanctions’ and demanding a “500 word apology”, the Plaintiff perceives these communications as an attempt to intimidate him into withdrawing or settling the case. These unsanctioned communications pose a real risk of influencing the Plaintiff’s decisions regarding litigation and thereby undermining the administration of justice.
5. The counsel of record actually representing the Defendant is BrownBerry, not Vernicia. Under ordinary adversarial procedure, only counsel of record communicates on behalf of a party.
6. Furthermore, unsanctioned communications such as these have the potential to distort negotiation channels and risk poisoning the evidential record

II. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Vernicia’s threats violate the expected professional decorum of this Honourable Court. Indeed, a seasoned lawyer, such as Vernicia, is no doubt fully aware of the basic decorum expected of lawyers in the Commonwealth of Redmont.
2. These threats by Vernicia potentially amount to the crime of Obstruction of Justice (“willfully interferes with the process of justice by influencing, threatening, harming, or impeding a witness, potential witness, or law enforcement officer”, Criminal Code Act), since the Plaintiff was to be called as a witness in this case.
3. Furthermore, Your Honour has already cautioned all parties to this case, including MZLD, that “in obedience with Rule 1.4, parties are advised that engaging in conduct that obstructs or interferes with the administration of this Court or its proceedings may be held in Contempt of Court”. Therefore, this interference with the case by Vernicia potentially amounts to the crime of Contempt of Court (“engages in conduct that obstructs or interferes with the administration of justice”, Criminal Code Act).
4. The conduct of MZLD and its owner Vernicia is sufficiently egregious to warrant the imposition of appropriate Sanctions.

III. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff respectfully asks this Honourable Court:
1. To Order that Vernicia is formally excluded from any role, oversight, direction, or supervision on this case;
2. To Order that all defence communications must come exclusively from counsel-of-record (BrownBerry);
3. To find Vernicia in Contempt of Court, should the Court determine that the evidence warrants such a finding;
4. To refer the matter to the Department of Justice for determination of potential Obstruction of Justice; and
5. To consider awarding monetary sanctions against MZLD and Vernicia, including but not limited to reimbursement of the Plaintiff’s costs incurred as a result of their improper conduct (estimated at $500 for 20 minutes work in preparing this motion), and any fines the Court deems appropriate to deter future misconduct.

IV. ATTACHED EVIDENCE
4. Screenshot of the Discord messages from Vernicia to the Plaintiff (jsrkiwi), dated 10 November 2025.

Respectfully submitted,
Plaintiff.

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT FOURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION — BREACH OF PROCEDURE

Your Honor,

With respect to the matter of the Plaintiff’s editing of their motion after submission, it is my understanding that Plaintiffs should generally not do this. To the best of my knowledge, there is a default grace period of 5 minutes built into the forums, and it is common sense that this time could be used for things like spelling/grammar mistakes.

That being said, as I was reading the Plaintiff’s brief, it was edited, and a screenshot of that edit (for posterity's sake) is included below as Exhibit D-ZZ0. This was outside of the narrow window to fix basic mistakes that the forums software affords.

Exhibit D-ZZ0

The Defense requests that the Plaintiff indicate the changes made in the brief since it was originally posted or, in the alternative, that the brief be stricken (amendments to motions are not automatically granted under the rules).

 

[jsrkiwi]

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT FOURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION — BREACH OF PROCEDURE

Your Honor,

With respect to the matter of the Plaintiff’s editing of their motion after submission, it is my understanding that Plaintiffs should generally not do this. To the best of my knowledge, there is a default grace period of 5 minutes built into the forums, and it is common sense that this time could be used for things like spelling/grammar mistakes.

That being said, as I was reading the Plaintiff’s brief, it was edited, and a screenshot of that edit (for posterity's sake) is included below as Exhibit D-ZZ0. This was outside of the narrow window to fix basic mistakes that the forums software affords.

Exhibit D-ZZ0
View attachment 66695

The Defense requests that the Plaintiff indicate the changes made in the brief since it was originally posted or, in the alternative, that the brief be stricken (amendments to motions are not automatically granted under the rules).

The amendment was to remove a blank line before the title "IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT", and to add bold formatting to headings.

 

[Muggy21]

The amendment was to remove a blank line before the title "IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT", and to add bold formatting to headings.

The Court reviewed the history, Plaintiff's explanation is substantiated.

Overruled.

 

[Muggy21]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

MOTION TO WITHDRAW PORTIONS OF COMPLAINT

The Plaintiff, jsrkiwi, respectfully moves this Court, in light of the Court’s Order at 04:21 UTC on 10 November 2025, to withdraw certain portions of the Complaint to simplify the case, and in support thereof states as follows:

1. The Plaintiff seeks to withdraw Fact 11 from Section II (Facts) of the Complaint.

2. The Plaintiff seeks to withdraw Prayer 2 from Section IV (Prayer for Relief) of the Complaint.

3. The Plaintiff seeks to withdraw Exhibit 3 from Section V (Attached Evidence) of the Complaint.

4. These withdrawals are made to streamline the litigation and focus on the remaining claim.

5. No other facts, claims, or prayers for relief are affected by this motion.

Granted in part. Exhibit 3 will not be struck.

 

[BrownBerry]

Answer to Complaint

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

jsrkiwi
Plaintiff

v.

Trentrick_Lamar
Defendant

---

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT​

1. Defendant AFFIRMS paragraph 1 of the Complaint.
2. Defendant AFFIRMS paragraph 2 of the Complaint.
3. Defendant AFFIRMS paragraph 3 of the Complaint.
4. Defendant AFFIRMS paragraph 4 of the Complaint.
5. Defendant AFFIRMS paragraph 5 of the Complaint.
6. Defendant AFFIRMS paragraph 6 of the Complaint.
7. Defendant AFFIRMS paragraph 7 of the Complaint.
8. Defendant DENIES paragraph 8 of the Complaint. Defendant's killing of Plaintiff was justified by reason of self defence; it was not murder.
9. Defendant DENIES paragraph 9 of the Complaint.
10. Defendant DENIES paragraph 10 of the Complaint.
11. [Paragraph 11 struck by Plaintiff on motion.]
12. Defendant NEITHER AFFIRMS NOR DENIES paragraph 12 of the Complaint.
13. Defendant AFFIRMS paragraph 13 of the Complaint.
14. Defendant AFFIRMS paragraph 14 of the Complaint.
15. Defendant AFFIRMS paragraph 15 of the Complaint.
16. Defendant DENIES paragraph 16 of the Complaint. Plaintiff's statement was not correct: Defendant did not murder Plaintiff.
17. Defendant AFFIRMS that Defendant made the statement alleged in paragraph 17 of the Complaint. Defendant DENIES any defamatory import.
18. Defendant AFFIRMS paragraph 18 of the Complaint.
19. Defendant NEITHER AFFIRMS NOR DENIES paragraph 19 of the Complaint. Legal conclusions should not appear in the facts of a Complaint.
20. Defendant NEITHER AFFIRMS NOR DENIES paragraph 20 of the Complaint. It is neither here nor there whether Defendant provided evidence of their claims: the question is whether the claims are true.
21. Defendant NEITHER AFFIRMS NOR DENIES paragraph 21 of the Complaint. This is a legal conclusion that should not be included in the facts. In any case, Plaintiff has only alleged one act of unlawful defamation; this issue is moot.

---

II. DEFENCES​

A. Truth​

Plaintiff claimed Defendant murdered him. Defendant disputed the accuracy of that statement. Plaintiff sued for defamation. Although the nominal issue is the accuracy of Defendant's statement, the underlying issue is whether the Plaintiff's witness statement was true, and therefore, the case turns on the issue of whether Defendant murdered Plaintiff or whether it was justified by reason of self-defence.

Defendant claims that the killing was protected by the defence of self-defence. The force used by Defendant was proportionate and reasonable as Defendant believed that Plaintiff was going to attempt to murder them for a second time.

Defendant will introduce evidence in support of this defence and will further develop it during the course of this proceeding.

B. Privilege​

Defendant would also like to raise a novel issue with the Court relating to whether the statements were protected by a criminal investigation privilege to be found in the common law. Defendant will file a Motion to Dismiss during discovery and the Court will have the opportunity to take submissions from both parties on this issue.

---

By making this submission, I agree I understand the penalties of lying in court and the fact that I am subject to perjury should I knowingly make a false statement in court.

Dated this 12th day of November 2025.

 

[BrownBerry]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND EXCLUSION OF VERNICIA FROM THIS LITIGATION

The Plaintiff respectfully submits this motion, due to the urgency of the matter arising from MZLD’s egregious conduct as detailed below.

The Plaintiff moves the Court for the following relief.

I. FACTS
1. On 10 November 2025 at 00:04 UTC, Your Honour served a Writ of Summons to the Defendant.
2. 11 minutes after the Writ of Summons was filed, at 00:15 UTC, Vernicia directly contacted the Plaintiff in private Discord messages, making the following vague threat: “Hi , i belive you want withraw that case before i get involved”.
3. 22 minutes later, at 00:37 UTC, Vernicia continued with her threats, threatening strange “sanctions” such as ordering a “500 word apology” and forcing the Plaintiff to draw a cake.
4. Given the timing immediately after the Writ of Summons and the content of the messages threatening ‘sanctions’ and demanding a “500 word apology”, the Plaintiff perceives these communications as an attempt to intimidate him into withdrawing or settling the case. These unsanctioned communications pose a real risk of influencing the Plaintiff’s decisions regarding litigation and thereby undermining the administration of justice.
5. The counsel of record actually representing the Defendant is BrownBerry, not Vernicia. Under ordinary adversarial procedure, only counsel of record communicates on behalf of a party.
6. Furthermore, unsanctioned communications such as these have the potential to distort negotiation channels and risk poisoning the evidential record

II. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Vernicia’s threats violate the expected professional decorum of this Honourable Court. Indeed, a seasoned lawyer, such as Vernicia, is no doubt fully aware of the basic decorum expected of lawyers in the Commonwealth of Redmont.
2. These threats by Vernicia potentially amount to the crime of Obstruction of Justice (“willfully interferes with the process of justice by influencing, threatening, harming, or impeding a witness, potential witness, or law enforcement officer”, Criminal Code Act), since the Plaintiff was to be called as a witness in this case.
3. Furthermore, Your Honour has already cautioned all parties to this case, including MZLD, that “in obedience with Rule 1.4, parties are advised that engaging in conduct that obstructs or interferes with the administration of this Court or its proceedings may be held in Contempt of Court”. Therefore, this interference with the case by Vernicia potentially amounts to the crime of Contempt of Court (“engages in conduct that obstructs or interferes with the administration of justice”, Criminal Code Act).
4. The conduct of MZLD and its owner Vernicia is sufficiently egregious to warrant the imposition of appropriate Sanctions.

III. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff respectfully asks this Honourable Court:
1. To Order that Vernicia is formally excluded from any role, oversight, direction, or supervision on this case;
2. To Order that all defence communications must come exclusively from counsel-of-record (BrownBerry);
3. To find Vernicia in Contempt of Court, should the Court determine that the evidence warrants such a finding;
4. To refer the matter to the Department of Justice for determination of potential Obstruction of Justice; and
5. To consider awarding monetary sanctions against MZLD and Vernicia, including but not limited to reimbursement of the Plaintiff’s costs incurred as a result of their improper conduct (estimated at $500 for 20 minutes work in preparing this motion), and any fines the Court deems appropriate to deter future misconduct.

IV. ATTACHED EVIDENCE
4. Screenshot of the Discord messages from Vernicia to the Plaintiff (jsrkiwi), dated 10 November 2025.

Respectfully submitted,
Plaintiff.

Your Honor,

I apologize for my out-of-time request (more than 24 hours; I had an exam today). Defendant would like to be heard on this Motion. Defendant believes there is directly relevant persuasive precedent from this Court that should be applied to this issue.

Alternatively, Defendant submits that—taking Plaintiff's motion at face value—since Vernicia is not counsel of record, she has not been afforded a right to be heard on this Motion, even though it relates directly to her conduct and a monetary and criminal penalty may be awarded against her. The Court must, out of fairness, grant Vernicia an opportunity to be heard and full due-process rights.

 

[Muggy21]

Your Honor,

I apologize for my out-of-time request (more than 24 hours; I had an exam today). Defendant would like to be heard on this Motion. Defendant believes there is directly relevant persuasive precedent from this Court that should be applied to this issue.

Alternatively, Defendant submits that—taking Plaintiff's motion at face value—since Vernicia is not counsel of record, she has not been afforded a right to be heard on this Motion, even though it relates directly to her conduct and a monetary and criminal penalty may be awarded against her. The Court must, out of fairness, grant Vernicia an opportunity to be heard and full due-process rights.

The Court will grant an extra 24 hours. For future reference, the response window for motions 48 Hours, not 24. You had an hour left on this timer when the Court responded.

 

[Muggy21]

Discovery is now open.
Present Deadline 11/17/2025 @ 23:00 EST.


============ WITNESSES TAB ==================
I'm going to have these notes and update as new witnesses (if any are called).

Present Witness List:
(Plaintiff/Defendant) / IGN / - Reason
(P) : jsrkiwi - Plaintiff
(P) : Trentrick_Lamar - Defendant
(P) : Urb5n – witness - Bystander

 

[BrownBerry]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND EXCLUSION OF VERNICIA FROM THIS LITIGATION

The Plaintiff respectfully submits this motion, due to the urgency of the matter arising from MZLD’s egregious conduct as detailed below.

The Plaintiff moves the Court for the following relief.

I. FACTS
1. On 10 November 2025 at 00:04 UTC, Your Honour served a Writ of Summons to the Defendant.
2. 11 minutes after the Writ of Summons was filed, at 00:15 UTC, Vernicia directly contacted the Plaintiff in private Discord messages, making the following vague threat: “Hi , i belive you want withraw that case before i get involved”.
3. 22 minutes later, at 00:37 UTC, Vernicia continued with her threats, threatening strange “sanctions” such as ordering a “500 word apology” and forcing the Plaintiff to draw a cake.
4. Given the timing immediately after the Writ of Summons and the content of the messages threatening ‘sanctions’ and demanding a “500 word apology”, the Plaintiff perceives these communications as an attempt to intimidate him into withdrawing or settling the case. These unsanctioned communications pose a real risk of influencing the Plaintiff’s decisions regarding litigation and thereby undermining the administration of justice.
5. The counsel of record actually representing the Defendant is BrownBerry, not Vernicia. Under ordinary adversarial procedure, only counsel of record communicates on behalf of a party.
6. Furthermore, unsanctioned communications such as these have the potential to distort negotiation channels and risk poisoning the evidential record

II. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Vernicia’s threats violate the expected professional decorum of this Honourable Court. Indeed, a seasoned lawyer, such as Vernicia, is no doubt fully aware of the basic decorum expected of lawyers in the Commonwealth of Redmont.
2. These threats by Vernicia potentially amount to the crime of Obstruction of Justice (“willfully interferes with the process of justice by influencing, threatening, harming, or impeding a witness, potential witness, or law enforcement officer”, Criminal Code Act), since the Plaintiff was to be called as a witness in this case.
3. Furthermore, Your Honour has already cautioned all parties to this case, including MZLD, that “in obedience with Rule 1.4, parties are advised that engaging in conduct that obstructs or interferes with the administration of this Court or its proceedings may be held in Contempt of Court”. Therefore, this interference with the case by Vernicia potentially amounts to the crime of Contempt of Court (“engages in conduct that obstructs or interferes with the administration of justice”, Criminal Code Act).
4. The conduct of MZLD and its owner Vernicia is sufficiently egregious to warrant the imposition of appropriate Sanctions.

III. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff respectfully asks this Honourable Court:
1. To Order that Vernicia is formally excluded from any role, oversight, direction, or supervision on this case;
2. To Order that all defence communications must come exclusively from counsel-of-record (BrownBerry);
3. To find Vernicia in Contempt of Court, should the Court determine that the evidence warrants such a finding;
4. To refer the matter to the Department of Justice for determination of potential Obstruction of Justice; and
5. To consider awarding monetary sanctions against MZLD and Vernicia, including but not limited to reimbursement of the Plaintiff’s costs incurred as a result of their improper conduct (estimated at $500 for 20 minutes work in preparing this motion), and any fines the Court deems appropriate to deter future misconduct.

IV. ATTACHED EVIDENCE
4. Screenshot of the Discord messages from Vernicia to the Plaintiff (jsrkiwi), dated 10 November 2025.

Respectfully submitted,
Plaintiff.

Your Honor, in response to Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions:

As to Claim for Relief #2, I'd make the immediate point that the comments by Vernicia, however construed, did not relate to Plaintiff's conduct as a witness. Just because an alleged threat is made against someone who happens to be a witness, it does not follow that obstruction of justice has occurred. There must be some relation. Clearly, in this instance, Vernicia's comments were directed to Plaintiff in his capacity as a plaintiff, not as a witness. The Motion should fail at this point.

But even then, I refer the Court to Post #30 in [2025] DCR 83 (Court's ruling on Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions). In that case, similar accusations were made that Defendant's counsel had threatened Plaintiff's counsel. This precedent is directly on point. The ultimate question is whether an undue threat is made. Clearly, that is not the case here.

I repeat two important points made in [2025] DCR 83:
1. A lawyer must advocate for their clients. They represent their client's interests to the exclusion of the interests of an opposing party. Oftentimes, this is not nice for the opposing party. Of course professional respect must be maintained (which it clearly has here).
2. Lawyers make demands of others all the time. For example, the statutory law of Redmont (the Intellectual Property Act) requires a cease-and-desist to be sent prior to filing a lawsuit. A cease-and-desist is simply a demand to cease infringing action or otherwise, litigation will be commenced. The same is true here: on behalf of Defendant, Vernicia has made a demand for certain compensation, or Defendant will refuse to do business with Plaintiff (and other related sanctions). It is well open to Defendant to refuse to serve Plaintiff in their stores unless this litigation is dropped. The prohibition against undue threats does not require litigants to be friends.

Defendant further submits that BrownBerry is not counsel of record in this case: the Mezimoří Legal Department is (see post #8: "MZLD will be representing"). As such, any lawyer from MZLD can file a document in this proceeding. The fact that one lawyer (me) is assigned to this case is merely a matter of continuity and to avoid confusion. It doesn't stop others from also participating. MZLD, like every law firm, is a team effort. A good team can rely on each other, and indeed, Multiman's objection (#18) is a quintessential example of this.

In this light, the proposed order for "Vernicia to be formally excluded [...] [from] this case" is—in effect—an order denying Defendant their chosen counsel. The Court must take the constitutional rights of Defendant into careful consideration before making such an order. As far as counsel knows, it is without precedent for a Court to order that counsel must remove themself from a case for supposed bad conduct. In the same vein, the second proposed order (that all communications must come from me, BrownBerry) has an equally significant effect upon Defendant's constitutional rights for the same reason.

Prayers for Relief 4 and 5 follow from the other Prayers. Defendant submits they should be denied for the reasons already given.

The Court should deny Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions for the reasons given.

 

[jsrkiwi]

Your Honor, in response to Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions:

As to Claim for Relief #2, I'd make the immediate point that the comments by Vernicia, however construed, did not relate to Plaintiff's conduct as a witness. Just because an alleged threat is made against someone who happens to be a witness, it does not follow that obstruction of justice has occurred. There must be some relation. Clearly, in this instance, Vernicia's comments were directed to Plaintiff in his capacity as a plaintiff, not as a witness. The Motion should fail at this point.

But even then, I refer the Court to Post #30 in [2025] DCR 83 (Court's ruling on Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions). In that case, similar accusations were made that Defendant's counsel had threatened Plaintiff's counsel. This precedent is directly on point. The ultimate question is whether an undue threat is made. Clearly, that is not the case here.

I repeat two important points made in [2025] DCR 83:
1. A lawyer must advocate for their clients. They represent their client's interests to the exclusion of the interests of an opposing party. Oftentimes, this is not nice for the opposing party. Of course professional respect must be maintained (which it clearly has here).
2. Lawyers make demands of others all the time. For example, the statutory law of Redmont (the Intellectual Property Act) requires a cease-and-desist to be sent prior to filing a lawsuit. A cease-and-desist is simply a demand to cease infringing action or otherwise, litigation will be commenced. The same is true here: on behalf of Defendant, Vernicia has made a demand for certain compensation, or Defendant will refuse to do business with Plaintiff (and other related sanctions). It is well open to Defendant to refuse to serve Plaintiff in their stores unless this litigation is dropped. The prohibition against undue threats does not require litigants to be friends.

Defendant further submits that BrownBerry is not counsel of record in this case: the Mezimoří Legal Department is (see post #8: "MZLD will be representing"). As such, any lawyer from MZLD can file a document in this proceeding. The fact that one lawyer (me) is assigned to this case is merely a matter of continuity and to avoid confusion. It doesn't stop others from also participating. MZLD, like every law firm, is a team effort. A good team can rely on each other, and indeed, Multiman's objection (#18) is a quintessential example of this.

In this light, the proposed order for "Vernicia to be formally excluded [...] [from] this case" is—in effect—an order denying Defendant their chosen counsel. The Court must take the constitutional rights of Defendant into careful consideration before making such an order. As far as counsel knows, it is without precedent for a Court to order that counsel must remove themself from a case for supposed bad conduct. In the same vein, the second proposed order (that all communications must come from me, BrownBerry) has an equally significant effect upon Defendant's constitutional rights for the same reason.

Prayers for Relief 4 and 5 follow from the other Prayers. Defendant submits they should be denied for the reasons already given.

The Court should deny Plaintiff's Motion for Sanctions for the reasons given.

REBUTTAL TO DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND EXCLUSION OF VERNICIA FROM THIS LITIGATION

While the Court’s Rules and Procedures do not expressly provide for a “Rebuttal”, the Plaintiff respectfully submits this rebuttal in the interests of fairness and procedural clarity. The Defendant’s response raises new arguments and new factual assertions which, if left unaddressed, could mislead the Court or leave material matters unresolved. To permit such assertions to stand unanswered would prejudice the Plaintiff and distort the factual record before this Honourable Court. It is therefore proper and consistent with the spirit of the rules and procedures that govern this Honourable Court that the Plaintiff be allowed to reply briefly to solely those new points.

I. ON DEFENDANT’S RELIANCE ON CastoloGR v. Raz0Baz0 [2025] DCR 83
1. The cited case (CastoloGR v. Raz0Baz0 [2025] DCR 83) is wholly distinguishable. In that matter, an alleged threat, “I'd also note that we intend to request the name of your client's anonymous source in discovery. It's in your client's interest to settle to avoid that”, was made between counsel, within the context of settlement talks (a legitimate adversarial context).
2. Here, by contrast, Vernicia contacted the Plaintiff outside any professional context, and immediately following service of the Writ. Such conduct is qualitatively different and falls well outside acceptable professional advocacy.
3. Advocacy ends where intimidation begins. The Defendant’s claim that Vernicia’s actions constitute zealous representation is untenable.

II. ON DEFENDANT’S ASSERTION THAT VERNICIA’S THREATS WERE “BUSINESS-RELATED”
1. The Defendant’s claim that Vernicia’s comments merely concerned “business” matters is a transparent attempt to reframe the facts. The timing of the messages (within minutes of the Writ being served) and the content referring to the Plaintiff’s “withdrawing the case” make it obvious that the threats were litigation-related.
2. No reasonable person could interpret “I believe you want to withdraw that case before I get involved” as related to business. It is a direct reference to an ongoing legal proceeding, aimed squarely at deterring the Plaintiff from exercising his lawful right to pursue justice.

III. ON CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND PROFESSIONAL DECORUM
1. The Defendant’s claim that excluding Vernicia “denies Defendant their chosen counsel” is disingenuous. Vernicia is not currently acting as counsel of record and has instead engaged in conduct that undermines her eligibility to continue in any capacity in this proceeding. The constitutional right does not extend so far as to allow a litigant to retain an advocate who engages in intimidation of the opposing party.

 

[Franciscus]

REBUTTAL TO DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND EXCLUSION OF VERNICIA FROM THIS LITIGATION

While the Court’s Rules and Procedures do not expressly provide for a “Rebuttal”, the Plaintiff respectfully submits this rebuttal in the interests of fairness and procedural clarity. The Defendant’s response raises new arguments and new factual assertions which, if left unaddressed, could mislead the Court or leave material matters unresolved. To permit such assertions to stand unanswered would prejudice the Plaintiff and distort the factual record before this Honourable Court. It is therefore proper and consistent with the spirit of the rules and procedures that govern this Honourable Court that the Plaintiff be allowed to reply briefly to solely those new points.

I. ON DEFENDANT’S RELIANCE ON CastoloGR v. Raz0Baz0 [2025] DCR 83
1. The cited case (CastoloGR v. Raz0Baz0 [2025] DCR 83) is wholly distinguishable. In that matter, an alleged threat, “I'd also note that we intend to request the name of your client's anonymous source in discovery. It's in your client's interest to settle to avoid that”, was made between counsel, within the context of settlement talks (a legitimate adversarial context).
2. Here, by contrast, Vernicia contacted the Plaintiff outside any professional context, and immediately following service of the Writ. Such conduct is qualitatively different and falls well outside acceptable professional advocacy.
3. Advocacy ends where intimidation begins. The Defendant’s claim that Vernicia’s actions constitute zealous representation is untenable.

II. ON DEFENDANT’S ASSERTION THAT VERNICIA’S THREATS WERE “BUSINESS-RELATED”
1. The Defendant’s claim that Vernicia’s comments merely concerned “business” matters is a transparent attempt to reframe the facts. The timing of the messages (within minutes of the Writ being served) and the content referring to the Plaintiff’s “withdrawing the case” make it obvious that the threats were litigation-related.
2. No reasonable person could interpret “I believe you want to withdraw that case before I get involved” as related to business. It is a direct reference to an ongoing legal proceeding, aimed squarely at deterring the Plaintiff from exercising his lawful right to pursue justice.

III. ON CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND PROFESSIONAL DECORUM
1. The Defendant’s claim that excluding Vernicia “denies Defendant their chosen counsel” is disingenuous. Vernicia is not currently acting as counsel of record and has instead engaged in conduct that undermines her eligibility to continue in any capacity in this proceeding. The constitutional right does not extend so far as to allow a litigant to retain an advocate who engages in intimidation of the opposing party.

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE

Your Honor:

Under the Rules of Procedure (and what I might refer to as the Magistrate Mug Court Rules Addendum that "In the interest of more efficient Courtroom proceedings, the Court will permit responses to motions without prior Court permission"), there does not appear to exist any permission for opposing counsel to issue a so-called "REBUTTAL TO DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION".

When it comes to response chains, we have to draw the line somewhere; the Federal Court has previously noted that "[t]he court room isn't a place where you can simply submit an infinite loop of arguments while the Judge isn't looking". This Court appears to have drawn the line at one filing for the movant and one filing for the respondent through the special rules permitted under Rule 1.2 that are mentioned in an above parenthetical. This extends the logic behind standard practice for objections: (i.e. that "[o]ne Objection and one Counter is allowed per matter") to all motions. But a response to a response to a motion is a different matter entirely, and does not appear to be explicitly permitted under the rules.

As such, the defense asks that this filing be stricken for breaching procedure - the spontaneous filing appears neither to be permitted under the standard Court Rules nor by the special dispensation Your Honor has granted to automatically respond to motions in this case.

 

[Muggy21]

REBUTTAL TO DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND EXCLUSION OF VERNICIA FROM THIS LITIGATION

While the Court’s Rules and Procedures do not expressly provide for a “Rebuttal”, the Plaintiff respectfully submits this rebuttal in the interests of fairness and procedural clarity. The Defendant’s response raises new arguments and new factual assertions which, if left unaddressed, could mislead the Court or leave material matters unresolved. To permit such assertions to stand unanswered would prejudice the Plaintiff and distort the factual record before this Honourable Court. It is therefore proper and consistent with the spirit of the rules and procedures that govern this Honourable Court that the Plaintiff be allowed to reply briefly to solely those new points.

I. ON DEFENDANT’S RELIANCE ON CastoloGR v. Raz0Baz0 [2025] DCR 83
1. The cited case (CastoloGR v. Raz0Baz0 [2025] DCR 83) is wholly distinguishable. In that matter, an alleged threat, “I'd also note that we intend to request the name of your client's anonymous source in discovery. It's in your client's interest to settle to avoid that”, was made between counsel, within the context of settlement talks (a legitimate adversarial context).
2. Here, by contrast, Vernicia contacted the Plaintiff outside any professional context, and immediately following service of the Writ. Such conduct is qualitatively different and falls well outside acceptable professional advocacy.
3. Advocacy ends where intimidation begins. The Defendant’s claim that Vernicia’s actions constitute zealous representation is untenable.

II. ON DEFENDANT’S ASSERTION THAT VERNICIA’S THREATS WERE “BUSINESS-RELATED”
1. The Defendant’s claim that Vernicia’s comments merely concerned “business” matters is a transparent attempt to reframe the facts. The timing of the messages (within minutes of the Writ being served) and the content referring to the Plaintiff’s “withdrawing the case” make it obvious that the threats were litigation-related.
2. No reasonable person could interpret “I believe you want to withdraw that case before I get involved” as related to business. It is a direct reference to an ongoing legal proceeding, aimed squarely at deterring the Plaintiff from exercising his lawful right to pursue justice.

III. ON CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AND PROFESSIONAL DECORUM
1. The Defendant’s claim that excluding Vernicia “denies Defendant their chosen counsel” is disingenuous. Vernicia is not currently acting as counsel of record and has instead engaged in conduct that undermines her eligibility to continue in any capacity in this proceeding. The constitutional right does not extend so far as to allow a litigant to retain an advocate who engages in intimidation of the opposing party.

The Court strikes the entirety of this Response and warns Plaintiff against responding to a response.

A defense may include novel arguments. In fact, they probably should.

 

[Muggy21]

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE

Your Honor:

Under the Rules of Procedure (and what I might refer to as the Magistrate Mug Court Rules Addendum that "In the interest of more efficient Courtroom proceedings, the Court will permit responses to motions without prior Court permission"), there does not appear to exist any permission for opposing counsel to issue a so-called "REBUTTAL TO DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION".

When it comes to response chains, we have to draw the line somewhere; the Federal Court has previously noted that "[t]he court room isn't a place where you can simply submit an infinite loop of arguments while the Judge isn't looking". This Court appears to have drawn the line at one filing for the movant and one filing for the respondent through the special rules permitted under Rule 1.2 that are mentioned in an above parenthetical. This extends the logic behind standard practice for objections: (i.e. that "[o]ne Objection and one Counter is allowed per matter") to all motions. But a response to a response to a motion is a different matter entirely, and does not appear to be explicitly permitted under the rules.

As such, the defense asks that this filing be stricken for breaching procedure - the spontaneous filing appears neither to be permitted under the standard Court Rules nor by the special dispensation Your Honor has granted to automatically respond to motions in this case.

Sustained.

 

[Muggy21]

Writ of Summons

@Vernicia, is required to appear before the District Court in the case of jsrkiwi v Trentrick_Lamar [2025] DCR 90

Failure to appear within 72 hours of this summons will result in a default judgement based on the known facts of the case.

Both parties should make themselves aware of the Court Rules and Procedures, including the option of an in-game trial should both parties request one.

(Counselors will not be permitted to question the witness, the Court is summoning Vernicia based on the filings of the Motion)

@Vernicia The Court has questions regarding your conduct during this litigation. (A lawyer may respond for Vernicia if authorization is attached to do so.)

1) The Court is aware that MZLD has represented Trentrick_Lamar in a previous case ([2025] DCR 81). Are clients of MZLD represented on a case-by-case basis or does your retainer agreement persist beyond the conclusion of a case?

2) In contacting the Plaintiff (jsrkiwi) via DMs, were you engaging in settlement discussions?

 

[taqticalduck]

Free tren he aint do nuthin

 

[Muggy21]

Free tren he aint do nuthin

TaqticalDuck is held in Contempt of Court. He shall be fined $500 and held imprisoned for 10 minutes.

 

[jsrkiwi]

DISCOVERY REQUESTS
Persuant to rule 4.7, the Plaintiff requests the following from the Defendant:
1. Full minecraft logs of Trentrick_Lamar covering the period 19:11:00 UTC to 19:18:00 UTC on 9th November 2025.


WITNESS LIST
Pursuant to Rule 4.9, the Plaintiff adds the following witnesses to the witness list:
1. jsrkiwi – plaintiff
2. Trentrick_Lamar – defendant
3. Urb5n – witness


VOLUNTARY SUBMISSION
Persuant to rule 4.6, the Plaintiff enters the following exhibits into evidence:
P-001: Final transcript of ticket 25340
P-002: The image “2025-11-09_11.13.12.png” referenced by link within P-001.
P-003: The image “Screenshot_20251109_192826_Discord.jpg” referenced by link within P-001.
P-004: Minecraft logs of the Plaintiff for the period 19:11:00 UTC and 19:18:00 UTC on 9th November 2025. This was previously named “Exhibit 2” attached to the Plaintiff’s original case filing.

 

[jsrkiwi]

Motion

MOTION TO COMPEL

The Plaintiff seeks to compel the release of the following logs, by this Court issuing an Order to the staff team for the production of the following:

1. Any and all logs that relate to Urb5n covering the period 19:11:00 UTC to 19:13:00 UTC on 9th November 2025.

2. For each individual log produced in response to no. 1, the location of Urb5n.

In order for staff to search location logs, they need a rough idea of the location as a starting point for their search. I suggest that the Court include within the Order that the location will be around the area 2024, 77, 3773. This corresponds to the building in which Facts 1-10 of the Complaint occurred.

 

[Muggy21]

Motion

MOTION TO COMPEL

The Plaintiff seeks to compel the release of the following logs, by this Court issuing an Order to the staff team for the production of the following:

1. Any and all logs that relate to Urb5n covering the period 19:11:00 UTC to 19:13:00 UTC on 9th November 2025.

2. For each individual log produced in response to no. 1, the location of Urb5n.

In order for staff to search location logs, they need a rough idea of the location as a starting point for their search. I suggest that the Court include within the Order that the location will be around the area 2024, 77, 3773. This corresponds to the building in which Facts 1-10 of the Complaint occurred.

Court Order

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Order to Compel

On motion from Plaintiff, and not seeing a plausible response from Defendant, the Court orders the production of logs. If the response is prejudicial, the Court will hear from Defendant on reconsideration.

@Staff
The Court requests the production of logs as described.

===============================================
Time Period: 19:11:00 UTC to 19:13:00 UTC on 9th November, 2025.
Location 2024, 77, 3773.

"Any and all logs that relate to player:Urb5n"
For each individual log produced in response to no. 1, the location of Urb5n

===============================================
The Court will open a staff ticket and request that a Staff Member (or Staff Team) respond in this thread if possible. If not, the Court will post the entirety of the ticket thread to this forum. No deadline shall be affixed to this order.

 

[Staff Team]

Court Order

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Order to Compel

On motion from Plaintiff, and not seeing a plausible response from Defendant, the Court orders the production of logs. If the response is prejudicial, the Court will hear from Defendant on reconsideration.

@Staff
The Court requests the production of logs as described.

===============================================
Time Period: 19:11:00 UTC to 19:13:00 UTC on 9th November, 2025.
Location 2024, 77, 3773.

"Any and all logs that relate to player:Urb5n"
For each individual log produced in response to no. 1, the location of Urb5n

===============================================
The Court will open a staff ticket and request that a Staff Member (or Staff Team) respond in this thread if possible. If not, the Court will post the entirety of the ticket thread to this forum. No deadline shall be affixed to this order.

All logs relating to urb5n between 19:11:00 UTC to 19:13:00 UTC on 9th November, 2025. Second image includes the location & the item picked up.
-Staff Team

 

[BrownBerry]

DISCOVERY REQUESTS
Persuant to rule 4.7, the Plaintiff requests the following from the Defendant:
1. Full minecraft logs of Trentrick_Lamar covering the period 19:11:00 UTC to 19:18:00 UTC on 9th November 2025.


WITNESS LIST
Pursuant to Rule 4.9, the Plaintiff adds the following witnesses to the witness list:
1. jsrkiwi – plaintiff
2. Trentrick_Lamar – defendant
3. Urb5n – witness


VOLUNTARY SUBMISSION
Persuant to rule 4.6, the Plaintiff enters the following exhibits into evidence:
P-001: Final transcript of ticket 25340
P-002: The image “2025-11-09_11.13.12.png” referenced by link within P-001.
P-003: The image “Screenshot_20251109_192826_Discord.jpg” referenced by link within P-001.
P-004: Minecraft logs of the Plaintiff for the period 19:11:00 UTC and 19:18:00 UTC on 9th November 2025. This was previously named “Exhibit 2” attached to the Plaintiff’s original case filing.

Your Honor,

I am treating Plaintiff's "discovery request" as a Motion to Compel, and I am responding to that Motion:

Defendant objects on the ground of relevance. Plaintitff has already entered their logs for that 8-minute period. Everything material to this case (e.g., fight started messages) is already included within Plaintiff's logs. It's not clear to Defendant what purpose this Motion to Compel actually serves. It's not in the Court's interest to admit duplicate evidence which clogs up judicial resources and makes it harder to follow this case's thread.

 

[Vernicia]

Writ of Summons

@Vernicia, is required to appear before the District Court in the case of jsrkiwi v Trentrick_Lamar [2025] DCR 90

Failure to appear within 72 hours of this summons will result in a default judgement based on the known facts of the case.

Both parties should make themselves aware of the Court Rules and Procedures, including the option of an in-game trial should both parties request one.

(Counselors will not be permitted to question the witness, the Court is summoning Vernicia based on the filings of the Motion)

@Vernicia The Court has questions regarding your conduct during this litigation. (A lawyer may respond for Vernicia if authorization is attached to do so.)

1) The Court is aware that MZLD has represented Trentrick_Lamar in a previous case ([2025] DCR 81). Are clients of MZLD represented on a case-by-case basis or does your retainer agreement persist beyond the conclusion of a case?

2) In contacting the Plaintiff (jsrkiwi) via DMs, were you engaging in settlement discussions?

I am present

1. If client gains/purchoses unlimited retainer, agreement persist beyond the conclusion of a case. Some clients ofc can purchose case by case service.

2. Yes, this was settlement discussion.

 

[jsrkiwi]

Your Honor,

I am treating Plaintiff's "discovery request" as a Motion to Compel, and I am responding to that Motion:

Defendant objects on the ground of relevance. Plaintitff has already entered their logs for that 8-minute period. Everything material to this case (e.g., fight started messages) is already included within Plaintiff's logs. It's not clear to Defendant what purpose this Motion to Compel actually serves. It's not in the Court's interest to admit duplicate evidence which clogs up judicial resources and makes it harder to follow this case's thread.

RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S OBJECTION TO DISCOVERY REQUEST

The Defendant’s objection fails because the requested logs go directly to the question of his state of mind at the moment of the killing. His claim of self-defence hinges on whether he genuinely faced an 'imminent threat'. The screenshot already in evidence (P-002) shows post-killing local chat messages (“rip” and “LMAO”), but that is only a fragment of the full exchange. Any further discussion by the Defendant in the minutes immediately after the killing bears on intent, attitude, and whether the claim of self-defence is credible.

The Plaintiff, therefore, seeks the Defendant’s logs for this short, defined period so the Court may review the complete contemporaneous record. This is not duplication; it is necessary context. The request for discovery should be compelled.

 

[Muggy21]

RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S OBJECTION TO DISCOVERY REQUEST

The Defendant’s objection fails because the requested logs go directly to the question of his state of mind at the moment of the killing. His claim of self-defence hinges on whether he genuinely faced an 'imminent threat'. The screenshot already in evidence (P-002) shows post-killing local chat messages (“rip” and “LMAO”), but that is only a fragment of the full exchange. Any further discussion by the Defendant in the minutes immediately after the killing bears on intent, attitude, and whether the claim of self-defence is credible.

The Plaintiff, therefore, seeks the Defendant’s logs for this short, defined period so the Court may review the complete contemporaneous record. This is not duplication; it is necessary context. The request for discovery should be compelled.

Overruled. Defendant's* logs may not include the entirety of the conversation after Defendant killed Plaintiff.

 

[Muggy21]

Motion

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND EXCLUSION OF VERNICIA FROM THIS LITIGATION

The Plaintiff respectfully submits this motion, due to the urgency of the matter arising from MZLD’s egregious conduct as detailed below.

The Plaintiff moves the Court for the following relief.

I. FACTS
1. On 10 November 2025 at 00:04 UTC, Your Honour served a Writ of Summons to the Defendant.
2. 11 minutes after the Writ of Summons was filed, at 00:15 UTC, Vernicia directly contacted the Plaintiff in private Discord messages, making the following vague threat: “Hi , i belive you want withraw that case before i get involved”.
3. 22 minutes later, at 00:37 UTC, Vernicia continued with her threats, threatening strange “sanctions” such as ordering a “500 word apology” and forcing the Plaintiff to draw a cake.
4. Given the timing immediately after the Writ of Summons and the content of the messages threatening ‘sanctions’ and demanding a “500 word apology”, the Plaintiff perceives these communications as an attempt to intimidate him into withdrawing or settling the case. These unsanctioned communications pose a real risk of influencing the Plaintiff’s decisions regarding litigation and thereby undermining the administration of justice.
5. The counsel of record actually representing the Defendant is BrownBerry, not Vernicia. Under ordinary adversarial procedure, only counsel of record communicates on behalf of a party.
6. Furthermore, unsanctioned communications such as these have the potential to distort negotiation channels and risk poisoning the evidential record

II. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Vernicia’s threats violate the expected professional decorum of this Honourable Court. Indeed, a seasoned lawyer, such as Vernicia, is no doubt fully aware of the basic decorum expected of lawyers in the Commonwealth of Redmont.
2. These threats by Vernicia potentially amount to the crime of Obstruction of Justice (“willfully interferes with the process of justice by influencing, threatening, harming, or impeding a witness, potential witness, or law enforcement officer”, Criminal Code Act), since the Plaintiff was to be called as a witness in this case.
3. Furthermore, Your Honour has already cautioned all parties to this case, including MZLD, that “in obedience with Rule 1.4, parties are advised that engaging in conduct that obstructs or interferes with the administration of this Court or its proceedings may be held in Contempt of Court”. Therefore, this interference with the case by Vernicia potentially amounts to the crime of Contempt of Court (“engages in conduct that obstructs or interferes with the administration of justice”, Criminal Code Act).
4. The conduct of MZLD and its owner Vernicia is sufficiently egregious to warrant the imposition of appropriate Sanctions.

III. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff respectfully asks this Honourable Court:
1. To Order that Vernicia is formally excluded from any role, oversight, direction, or supervision on this case;
2. To Order that all defence communications must come exclusively from counsel-of-record (BrownBerry);
3. To find Vernicia in Contempt of Court, should the Court determine that the evidence warrants such a finding;
4. To refer the matter to the Department of Justice for determination of potential Obstruction of Justice; and
5. To consider awarding monetary sanctions against MZLD and Vernicia, including but not limited to reimbursement of the Plaintiff’s costs incurred as a result of their improper conduct (estimated at $500 for 20 minutes work in preparing this motion), and any fines the Court deems appropriate to deter future misconduct.

IV. ATTACHED EVIDENCE
4. Screenshot of the Discord messages from Vernicia to the Plaintiff (jsrkiwi), dated 10 November 2025.

Respectfully submitted,
Plaintiff.

Court Order

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND EXCLUSION

Movant requests damages against MZLD/Vernicia for conduct unbecoming before the Court. Non-movant raises defenses pertinent to movant’s arguments.


Vernicia did not threaten Plaintiff or his witnesses. As such, the majority of the claims raised by Plaintiff are academic. The Court will not make references to the DoJ nor award sanctions against Vernicia for conduct. Lawyers must be able to advocate for clients, even if such advocacy could threaten a counterparty’s monetary or societal standing. Threats, where there exists an intention to inflict pain, injury or damage, are never tolerated.

That being said, the Court wishes to admonish the Mezimori Law Department for potentially attempting to settle a lawsuit in which it had no lawful interest.

The Court will make note of its admonishment but take no further action.



~Magistrate Mug

 

[Muggy21]

Magistrate Mug’s Trial Protocol and Rules

Pursuant to Rule 1.2, these shall be the rules herein imposed for the trial in jsrkiwi v. Trentrick_Lamar. The timeframes listed for each section may be changed on application for an extension.

Note: I understand parts of these rules may be a change to our normal trial procedure. I'd like to proceed with this protocol to avoid the messiness of some of our trials in other DCR cases and in some trials in the FCR. Furthermore, Opening/Closing Statements have become either repetitive or have missed their purpose. Your closing statement is when you make your BEST arguments both in fact and law.

Extensions are permitted as long as requested during the period in question. Extension requests outside of the period are at the discretion of the Court.
==================================================================================================

Opening Statements

1. Each Party shall submit an Opening Statement to the Court.
2. The purpose of the Opening Statement is to summarize what the Party intends to prove at trial and to present the strengths of its case.
3. Opening Statements from both Parties are due within forty-eight (48) hours after the conclusion of Discovery.
4. The Court will invite both parties to submit their opening statements by the same deadline. The Defendant will have the same deadline as Plaintiff.

---

Presentation of Witness Questions

1. Within twenty-four (24) hours after submitting his or her Opening Statement, each Party must submit all initial questions for his or her witnesses in a single post.
2. All objections to the submitted witness questions must be filed in one consolidated post.
3. Objections are due within twenty-four (24) hours after the deadline for submitting witness questions.

---

Witness Summonses & Testimony

1. Witnesses shall provide responses as directed by the Court.
2. Any objections to witness testimony must be submitted within twenty-four (24) hours of the witness's response.

---

Cross Examination

1. Each Party may conduct cross-examination of any opposing witness.
2. Cross-examination questions are due within twenty-four (24) hours after the witness has responded to direct questioning.
3. Cross-examination questions do not need to be consolidated.
4. Any objections to cross-examination questions are due within twenty-four (24) hours of submission by the Witness.

---

Closing Statement

1. Following the conclusion of all witness testimony and examination, the Court will invite each Party shall submit a Closing Statement.
   • Clearly label any legal arguments (e.g., “1. THEFT IS ILLEGAL” followed by the Party’s reasoning) - This is for the Court's sanity and ease of readability.
2. Plaintiff shall have 72 Hours to submit a Closing Statement. On submission of Plaintiff's statement, Defendant shall immediately have 72 hours to submit a Closing Statement.

---

Motions and Objections After Closing Statements

1. After both Closing Statements have been submitted, either Party may file post-argument motions or objections (e.g., Motion to Reconsider, Objection for Perjury, etc.).
2. The Party must notify the Court of its intent to file such motion or objection within twenty-four (24) hours of the Closing Statements being submitted.
3. Upon advisement from the Court, the Party will have forty-eight (48) hours to submit the requested motion, objection, or brief.

 

[BrownBerry]

Your Honor, I'd just like to clarify what information Defendant must provide in response to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel (if any)?

 

[Muggy21]

Your Honor, I'd just like to clarify what information Defendant must provide in response to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel (if any)?

Minecraft logs. Effectively chat logs.

 

[Franciscus]

Minecraft logs. Effectively chat logs.

Your honor,

Logs are attached for the requested time period.

Spoiler: Exhibit D-LG1

See attached file logs.txt

 

[Franciscus]

Your Honor:

The Defense submits the following motions and respectfully requests that this trial's progress on its timeline be delayed in place until these motions are ruled upon.

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

Your Honor,

The question in this motion is whether or not the Plaintiff has sufficient standing to pursue the first and second claims for relief. The Defense moves to dismiss the first and second claims for relief under Rule 5.12 (Standing Application) and in support thereof respectfully alleges:

1. Standing Requires that the Court can grant Remedy​

Under Rule 5.12, a case may be dismiseed "if the plaintiff fails to have sufficient standing in order to pursue the case". Standing itself is defined under Rule 2.1:

In order for a plaintiff to pursue a case, they must show the following to the court:

1. Suffered some injury caused by a clear second party; or is affected by an application of law.
2. The cause of injury was against the law.
3. Remedy is applicable under relevant law that can be granted by a favorable decision.

Now that the rule is established, the Defense will analyze whether or not the Plaintiff's remedies sought are "applicable under relevant law that can be granted by a favorable decision".

2. The complaint presently contains no prayers for relief regarding the first or second claims for relief​

The first and second claims for relief are as follows:

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The Defendant unlawfully killed the Plaintiff when no imminent threat of harm against the Plaintiff existed. Therefore, the Defendant committed the criminal act of Murder.
2. Upon these facts the Defendant is civilly liable for the unlawful killing and the Plaintiff claims compensatory damages under the Legal Damages Act.

In the complaint, the Plaintiff has provided several prayers for relief:

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following:
1. A declarative judgement finding that the Defendant murdered the Plaintiff.
2. $1 nominal compensatory damages for Murder.
3. A declarative judgement that the Defendant slandered the Plaintiff.
4. An order that the Defendant retract the defamatory claim by way of public statement, and apologise to the Plaintiff.
5. $1 nominal compensatory damages for Slander.

Examining the case record, Your Honor has already stricken the first prayer for relief, noting that declaratory judgements of this sort cannot be granted. The Plaintiff has also since withdrawn the second prayer for relief. As such, the remaining remedy sought by the Plaintiff here seems entirely unrelated to these prayers.

3. Absent applicable prayers for relief, the Court should dismiss related claims​

The defense struggles to see how the first two claims could themselves or together sustain any prayer for relief listed here that can be granted by a favorable decision, and therefore seeks dismissal for lack of standing demonstrated.

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

Your Honor,

Under Rule 5.5 (Lack of Claim), dismissal may occur "for failure to state a claim for relief, or against an claim for relief that has insufficient evidence to support the civil or criminal charge".

The central issue in this motion is whether or not the Plaintiff plausibly stated a claim for defamation in its complaint's third and fourth claims for relief. The Defense alleges that they do not, and move to dismiss the third and fourth claims under Rule 5.5, alleging:

1. The third and fourth claims are essentially defamation claims and require a showing of actual damages​

1a. The same standards for defamation are applied to cases of slander​

The Plaintiff's third and fourth claims for relief are as follows:

3. The Defendant’s written statements constitute slander: “A false statement, usually made through either discord or in-game messages, which defames another person’s reputation, business, profession, or organization”.
4. The Defendant’s actions fulfil the elements of the tort under the No More Defamation Act, as the accusation (“liar”) was made as a statement of fact, not opinion, and injured the Plaintiff’s professional reputation.

Under No More Defamation Act 4(1)(a), "The tort of defamation includes both libel and slander." The tort is defamation, and it can occur in two ways - libel or slander, the latter of which the Plaintiff claims here.

The No More Defamation Act 4(3)(a) defines Slander as: "A false statement, usually made through either discord or in-game messages, which defames another person’s reputation, business, profession, or organization."

Some may say "defames" in the definition of "slander" is a bit circular. I would tend to agree that the law could have been drafted better. But examining the structure of the law and how Courts have read it, there is no slander separately from defamation - the same standards for defamation are applied in cases of slander. As the District Court in Anthony_org v. Culls [2025] DCR 67 noted:

Precedent set in [2025] FCR 5 and later confirmed in [2025] DCR 14 sets the following as standards for defamation which can be applied for libel and slander:

1. The Statement has to be Published
2. The statement has to be False
3. The statement has to cause reputational harm

1b. Defamation requires actual damages to reputation​

Under No More Defamation Act 4(1)(a), "Defamation is a false statement and/or communication that injures a third party's reputation" (emphasis mine). The Plaintiff must prove, or at least attempt to prove, that the Plaintiff's reputation was actually injured for defamation to occur.

This is a standard that has been upheld by the Courts on numerous occasions. Perhaps the clearest articulation in the Federal Court (which binds the District Court) is in Vernicia v. RylandW [2025] FCR 5.

As noted above in 1a, slander and defamation are subject to a three-part test:

1. The Statement has to be Published
2. The statement has to be False
3. The statement has to cause reputational harm

Merely making false statements is not slander; rather, slander occurs only when a false statement "defames another person's reputation, business, profession, or organization"; as defamation itself requires reputational harm to a third party, reputational harm is required in all instances for slander.

Now that it is established that actual reputational damages must occur for defamation/slander to have occurred, the Defense turns to whether or not the Plaintiff's factual allegations, taken prima facie, would be able to support this burden.

2. Plaintiff's complaint does not plausibly allege actual reputational damages​

The issue becomes whether or not the Plaintiff's factual allegations, even if accepted arguendo, would lead to the legal conclusion that defamation occurred. The defense alleges that they do not.

2.1. The Plaintiff's complaint applies the incorrect rule when alleging that falsity alone constitutes slander​

While the Plaintiff provides much factual background, the Plaintiff's defamation/slander claims, in essence, boil down to the following:

1. that the statement made in the 17th factual allegation was false,
2. that "false statements constitute slander" in some per se sense (19th factual allegation; c.f. 3rd Claim for Relief)
3. that each "act of unawful defamation" entitles the Plaintiff to injuries (21st factual allegation; c.f. 4th claim for relief)

But this is a mistake under the law; it is not merely the case that making a false statement about another constitutes defamation. The Court in RylandW v. v__d - [2025] FCR 37 was quite clear on this: "Just because false statements are made does not mean they automatically harm the reputation of another".

2.2 If we apply the correct rule, the Plaintiff's complaint did not make sufficient allegations to support the conclusion of actual damages to reputation​

Reading through the factual allegations, the Plaintiff did not actually allege there that any individual's opinion of the Plaintiff had changed.

The only thing that could possibly save the case is the allegation that third parties saw the statement (18th factual allegation). But this was also the case in RylandW v. v__d - [2025] FCR 37; the Court record (for instance, the Answer to Complaint's affirmation on the 4th fact) reveals that third parties did presumably see the statements publicly made in that case.

But for the Court to conclude that actual damages to reputation occurred, merely that a false statement was seen by a third party is not enough. Evidence needed to be shown off actual reputational damage; while the Plaintiff in [2025] FCR 37 attempted to do that with opinion polling information and election results, the Court then found that such information was insufficient. Here, the Plaintiff in this case has even less - this case's Plaintiff does not even appear to have set about making sufficient factual allegations regarding reputational damage, nor have brought forward plausible evidence in support thereof.

3. The Third and Fourth Claims should be dismissed​

The central question in this motion is whether or not the Plaintiff plausibly stated a claim for defamation in its complaint's third and fourth claims for relief.

In short, we ask this Court to affirm that while legal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual allegations and/or evidence. When there are well-pleaded factual allegations or evidence, we ask that this court should assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief at the stage of a Motion to Dismiss.

In this case, as shown above, the Complaint misstates the rule regarding slander in the factual allegations. When we apply the actual rule, we conclude that the Plaintiff has failed to provide evidence or factual allegations that could serve as support of the requirements for the claim, and thus fails to plausibly state a claim for relief.

 

[dearev]

Given the appointment of hon. muggy21 to the federal court, i will now preside over this case. this court requests a list of all outstanding motions/objections in this case to be provided.

 

[Franciscus]

Given the appointment of hon. muggy21 to the federal court, i will now preside over this case. this court requests a list of all outstanding motions/objections in this case to be provided.

Your Honor:

Two motions to dismiss are pending: Lawsuit: In Session - jsrkiwi v Trentrick_Lamar [2025] DCR 90

I believe that is all.

 

[jsrkiwi]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

Your Honor,

The question in this motion is whether or not the Plaintiff has sufficient standing to pursue the first and second claims for relief. The Defense moves to dismiss the first and second claims for relief under Rule 5.12 (Standing Application) and in support thereof respectfully alleges:

1. Standing Requires that the Court can grant Remedy​

Under Rule 5.12, a case may be dismiseed "if the plaintiff fails to have sufficient standing in order to pursue the case". Standing itself is defined under Rule 2.1:



Now that the rule is established, the Defense will analyze whether or not the Plaintiff's remedies sought are "applicable under relevant law that can be granted by a favorable decision".

2. The complaint presently contains no prayers for relief regarding the first or second claims for relief​

The first and second claims for relief are as follows:



In the complaint, the Plaintiff has provided several prayers for relief:


Examining the case record, Your Honor has already stricken the first prayer for relief, noting that declaratory judgements of this sort cannot be granted. The Plaintiff has also since withdrawn the second prayer for relief. As such, the remaining remedy sought by the Plaintiff here seems entirely unrelated to these prayers.

3. Absent applicable prayers for relief, the Court should dismiss related claims​

The defense struggles to see how the first two claims could themselves or together sustain any prayer for relief listed here that can be granted by a favorable decision, and therefore seeks dismissal for lack of standing demonstrated.

PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS (RULE 5.12)

Plaintiff respectfully submits this Response in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss the first and second claims for relief on the ground of alleged lack of standing, and further raises the issue of the timeliness of the motion.

I. OPPOSITION – STANDING IS SATISFIED
1. Claim 1 must stand, as the question of whether the killing constituted Murder is directly tied to whether the Defendant’s “Absolute liar” remark (Fact 17) is defamatory.
2. The Plaintiff’s statement referred to in Fact 16 includes “he then proceeded to murder me”, and the truth or falsity of that underlying act is essential to determining the defamatory nature of the Defendant’s reply.
3. Because that determination affects Prayers 3, 4, and 5, Claim 1 is indispensable to the availability of those remedies.
4. As such, a clear and actionable remedy exists for Claim 1 through Prayers 3, 4, and 5.
5. However, the Defendant is correct that Claim 2 ought to have been struck alongside Prayer 2, and its survival appears to be an oversight.

II. TIMELINESS
1. Rule 5.2 requires that “a Motion to Dismiss must be submitted at any time before the beginning of opening statements”.
2. Discovery ended at “11/17/2025 @ 23:00 EST”, as per His Honour in #25. This equates to 04:00 UTC on 18th November 2025.
3. His Honour had posted amended trial rules and procedures for trial (#43) shortly before the end of Discovery. The opening statements phase was about to commence.
4. The Defendant’s Rule 5.12 Motion was filed at 18:07 UTC on 18th November 2025. This was after discovery closed and on the eve of opening statements.
5. The Plaintiff submits that the Defendant’s Motion was untimely, and therefore ought to be denied.

III. CONCLUSION
For the two foregoing reasons, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court deny Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss the first claim for relief on the ground of lack of standing.

---

The Plaintiff's response to the Defendant's Rule 5.5 Motion to Dismiss will be filed separately.

 

[jsrkiwi]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

Your Honor,

Under Rule 5.5 (Lack of Claim), dismissal may occur "for failure to state a claim for relief, or against an claim for relief that has insufficient evidence to support the civil or criminal charge".

The central issue in this motion is whether or not the Plaintiff plausibly stated a claim for defamation in its complaint's third and fourth claims for relief. The Defense alleges that they do not, and move to dismiss the third and fourth claims under Rule 5.5, alleging:

1. The third and fourth claims are essentially defamation claims and require a showing of actual damages​

1a. The same standards for defamation are applied to cases of slander​

The Plaintiff's third and fourth claims for relief are as follows:


Under No More Defamation Act 4(1)(a), "The tort of defamation includes both libel and slander." The tort is defamation, and it can occur in two ways - libel or slander, the latter of which the Plaintiff claims here.

The No More Defamation Act 4(3)(a) defines Slander as: "A false statement, usually made through either discord or in-game messages, which defames another person’s reputation, business, profession, or organization."

Some may say "defames" in the definition of "slander" is a bit circular. I would tend to agree that the law could have been drafted better. But examining the structure of the law and how Courts have read it, there is no slander separately from defamation - the same standards for defamation are applied in cases of slander. As the District Court in Anthony_org v. Culls [2025] DCR 67 noted:

1b. Defamation requires actual damages to reputation​

Under No More Defamation Act 4(1)(a), "Defamation is a false statement and/or communication that injures a third party's reputation" (emphasis mine). The Plaintiff must prove, or at least attempt to prove, that the Plaintiff's reputation was actually injured for defamation to occur.

This is a standard that has been upheld by the Courts on numerous occasions. Perhaps the clearest articulation in the Federal Court (which binds the District Court) is in Vernicia v. RylandW [2025] FCR 5.

As noted above in 1a, slander and defamation are subject to a three-part test:



Merely making false statements is not slander; rather, slander occurs only when a false statement "defames another person's reputation, business, profession, or organization"; as defamation itself requires reputational harm to a third party, reputational harm is required in all instances for slander.

Now that it is established that actual reputational damages must occur for defamation/slander to have occurred, the Defense turns to whether or not the Plaintiff's factual allegations, taken prima facie, would be able to support this burden.

2. Plaintiff's complaint does not plausibly allege actual reputational damages​

The issue becomes whether or not the Plaintiff's factual allegations, even if accepted arguendo, would lead to the legal conclusion that defamation occurred. The defense alleges that they do not.

2.1. The Plaintiff's complaint applies the incorrect rule when alleging that falsity alone constitutes slander​

While the Plaintiff provides much factual background, the Plaintiff's defamation/slander claims, in essence, boil down to the following:

1. that the statement made in the 17th factual allegation was false,
2. that "false statements constitute slander" in some per se sense (19th factual allegation; c.f. 3rd Claim for Relief)
3. that each "act of unawful defamation" entitles the Plaintiff to injuries (21st factual allegation; c.f. 4th claim for relief)

But this is a mistake under the law; it is not merely the case that making a false statement about another constitutes defamation. The Court in RylandW v. v__d - [2025] FCR 37 was quite clear on this: "Just because false statements are made does not mean they automatically harm the reputation of another".

2.2 If we apply the correct rule, the Plaintiff's complaint did make sufficient allegations to support the conclusion of actual damages to reputation​

Reading through the factual allegations, the Plaintiff did not actually allege there that any individual's opinion of the Plaintiff had changed.

The only thing that could possibly save the case is the allegation that third parties saw the statement (18th factual allegation). But this was also the case in RylandW v. v__d - [2025] FCR 37; the Court record (for instance, the Answer to Complaint's affirmation on the 4th fact) reveals that third parties did presumably see the statements publicly made in that case.

But for the Court to conclude that actual damages to reputation occurred, merely that a false statement was seen by a third party is not enough. Evidence needed to be shown off actual reputational damage; while the Plaintiff in [2025] FCR 37 attempted to do that with opinion polling information and election results, the Court then found that such information was insufficient. Here, the Plaintiff in this case has even less - this case's Plaintiff does not even appear to have set about making sufficient factual allegations regarding reputational damage, nor have brought forward plausible evidence in support thereof.

3. The Third and Fourth Claims should be dismissed​

The central question in this motion is whether or not the Plaintiff plausibly stated a claim for defamation in its complaint's third and fourth claims for relief.

In short, we ask this Court to affirm that while legal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual allegations and/or evidence. When there are well-pleaded factual allegations or evidence, we ask that this court should assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief at the stage of a Motion to Dismiss.

In this case, as shown above, the Complaint misstates the rule regarding slander in the factual allegations. When we apply the actual rule, we conclude that the Plaintiff has failed to provide evidence or factual allegations that could serve as support of the requirements for the claim, and thus fails to plausibly state a claim for relief.

PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS (RULE 5.5)

THE DEFENDANT IGNORES THE CENTRAL ALLEGATION: FACT 18
1. The Motion pretends that the Complaint contains no plausible basis for reputational harm. That is flatly wrong. Fact 18 explicitly alleges that the slanderous statement was made in the presence of senior officials and law-enforcement personnel, namely:

• roryyy_, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security;
• Comet, an on-duty Police Officer;
• Culls, a Police Trainee; and
• Every other employee of the Department of Homeland Security.

2. This is not a random audience whose opinion does not matter. The Defendant publicly called the Plaintiff a liar in front of individuals with direct authority over the Plaintiff’s professional standing, credibility, and future career prospects.
3. When slander occurs before superiors or officers responsible for enforcement, discipline, and professional assessment, reputational harm is not speculative. Reputational harm is the obvious and foreseeable inference.
4. At trial, the Plaintiff will testify regarding the workplace chatter among the individuals named in Fact 18 that followed the Defendant’s statement.
5. Fact 18, therefore, fully satisfies the reputational harm element required for Slander.
6. Accordingly, the third and fourth claims for relief rest on a clear and adequately pleaded factual basis.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff asks Your Honour to dismiss the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss under Rule 5.5

 

[jsrkiwi]

Your Honor:

Two motions to dismiss are pending: Lawsuit: In Session - jsrkiwi v Trentrick_Lamar [2025] DCR 90

I believe that is all.

Your Honour, I confirm that Franciscus’s statement is accurate and complete.

For clarity, Your Honour, will the trial proceed under the amended rules and procedures issued by His Honour Judge Mug in #43, or will those be set aside?

 

[Franciscus]

Your Honor:

The Defense submits the following motions and respectfully requests that this trial's progress on its timeline be delayed in place until these motions are ruled upon.

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

Your Honor,

The question in this motion is whether or not the Plaintiff has sufficient standing to pursue the first and second claims for relief. The Defense moves to dismiss the first and second claims for relief under Rule 5.12 (Standing Application) and in support thereof respectfully alleges:

1. Standing Requires that the Court can grant Remedy​

Under Rule 5.12, a case may be dismiseed "if the plaintiff fails to have sufficient standing in order to pursue the case". Standing itself is defined under Rule 2.1:



Now that the rule is established, the Defense will analyze whether or not the Plaintiff's remedies sought are "applicable under relevant law that can be granted by a favorable decision".

2. The complaint presently contains no prayers for relief regarding the first or second claims for relief​

The first and second claims for relief are as follows:



In the complaint, the Plaintiff has provided several prayers for relief:


Examining the case record, Your Honor has already stricken the first prayer for relief, noting that declaratory judgements of this sort cannot be granted. The Plaintiff has also since withdrawn the second prayer for relief. As such, the remaining remedy sought by the Plaintiff here seems entirely unrelated to these prayers.

3. Absent applicable prayers for relief, the Court should dismiss related claims​

The defense struggles to see how the first two claims could themselves or together sustain any prayer for relief listed here that can be granted by a favorable decision, and therefore seeks dismissal for lack of standing demonstrated.

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

Your Honor,

Under Rule 5.5 (Lack of Claim), dismissal may occur "for failure to state a claim for relief, or against an claim for relief that has insufficient evidence to support the civil or criminal charge".

The central issue in this motion is whether or not the Plaintiff plausibly stated a claim for defamation in its complaint's third and fourth claims for relief. The Defense alleges that they do not, and move to dismiss the third and fourth claims under Rule 5.5, alleging:

1. The third and fourth claims are essentially defamation claims and require a showing of actual damages​

1a. The same standards for defamation are applied to cases of slander​

The Plaintiff's third and fourth claims for relief are as follows:


Under No More Defamation Act 4(1)(a), "The tort of defamation includes both libel and slander." The tort is defamation, and it can occur in two ways - libel or slander, the latter of which the Plaintiff claims here.

The No More Defamation Act 4(3)(a) defines Slander as: "A false statement, usually made through either discord or in-game messages, which defames another person’s reputation, business, profession, or organization."

Some may say "defames" in the definition of "slander" is a bit circular. I would tend to agree that the law could have been drafted better. But examining the structure of the law and how Courts have read it, there is no slander separately from defamation - the same standards for defamation are applied in cases of slander. As the District Court in Anthony_org v. Culls [2025] DCR 67 noted:

1b. Defamation requires actual damages to reputation​

Under No More Defamation Act 4(1)(a), "Defamation is a false statement and/or communication that injures a third party's reputation" (emphasis mine). The Plaintiff must prove, or at least attempt to prove, that the Plaintiff's reputation was actually injured for defamation to occur.

This is a standard that has been upheld by the Courts on numerous occasions. Perhaps the clearest articulation in the Federal Court (which binds the District Court) is in Vernicia v. RylandW [2025] FCR 5.

As noted above in 1a, slander and defamation are subject to a three-part test:



Merely making false statements is not slander; rather, slander occurs only when a false statement "defames another person's reputation, business, profession, or organization"; as defamation itself requires reputational harm to a third party, reputational harm is required in all instances for slander.

Now that it is established that actual reputational damages must occur for defamation/slander to have occurred, the Defense turns to whether or not the Plaintiff's factual allegations, taken prima facie, would be able to support this burden.

2. Plaintiff's complaint does not plausibly allege actual reputational damages​

The issue becomes whether or not the Plaintiff's factual allegations, even if accepted arguendo, would lead to the legal conclusion that defamation occurred. The defense alleges that they do not.

2.1. The Plaintiff's complaint applies the incorrect rule when alleging that falsity alone constitutes slander​

While the Plaintiff provides much factual background, the Plaintiff's defamation/slander claims, in essence, boil down to the following:

1. that the statement made in the 17th factual allegation was false,
2. that "false statements constitute slander" in some per se sense (19th factual allegation; c.f. 3rd Claim for Relief)
3. that each "act of unawful defamation" entitles the Plaintiff to injuries (21st factual allegation; c.f. 4th claim for relief)

But this is a mistake under the law; it is not merely the case that making a false statement about another constitutes defamation. The Court in RylandW v. v__d - [2025] FCR 37 was quite clear on this: "Just because false statements are made does not mean they automatically harm the reputation of another".

2.2 If we apply the correct rule, the Plaintiff's complaint did make sufficient allegations to support the conclusion of actual damages to reputation​

Reading through the factual allegations, the Plaintiff did not actually allege there that any individual's opinion of the Plaintiff had changed.

The only thing that could possibly save the case is the allegation that third parties saw the statement (18th factual allegation). But this was also the case in RylandW v. v__d - [2025] FCR 37; the Court record (for instance, the Answer to Complaint's affirmation on the 4th fact) reveals that third parties did presumably see the statements publicly made in that case.

But for the Court to conclude that actual damages to reputation occurred, merely that a false statement was seen by a third party is not enough. Evidence needed to be shown off actual reputational damage; while the Plaintiff in [2025] FCR 37 attempted to do that with opinion polling information and election results, the Court then found that such information was insufficient. Here, the Plaintiff in this case has even less - this case's Plaintiff does not even appear to have set about making sufficient factual allegations regarding reputational damage, nor have brought forward plausible evidence in support thereof.

3. The Third and Fourth Claims should be dismissed​

The central question in this motion is whether or not the Plaintiff plausibly stated a claim for defamation in its complaint's third and fourth claims for relief.

In short, we ask this Court to affirm that while legal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual allegations and/or evidence. When there are well-pleaded factual allegations or evidence, we ask that this court should assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief at the stage of a Motion to Dismiss.

In this case, as shown above, the Complaint misstates the rule regarding slander in the factual allegations. When we apply the actual rule, we conclude that the Plaintiff has failed to provide evidence or factual allegations that could serve as support of the requirements for the claim, and thus fails to plausibly state a claim for relief.

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO AMEND

Your Honor,

I appear to have erroneously forgotten a “not” in the heading to argument 2.2 on the second motion to dismiss. It should read “If we apply the correct rule, the Plaintiff's complaint did not make sufficient allegations to support the conclusion of actual damages to reputation”.

I request leave to make this amendment.

 

[dearev]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO AMEND

Your Honor,

I appear to have erroneously forgotten a “not” in the heading to argument 2.2 on the second motion to dismiss. It should read “If we apply the correct rule, the Plaintiff's complaint did not make sufficient allegations to support the conclusion of actual damages to reputation”.

I request leave to make this amendment.

you may

 

[dearev]

Your Honour, I confirm that Franciscus’s statement is accurate and complete.

For clarity, Your Honour, will the trial proceed under the amended rules and procedures issued by His Honour Judge Mug in #43, or will those be set aside?

This trial shall proceed under the rules set by Hon. Judge mug on msg #43.
since the plaintiff claims the list sent to this court is inacurate the court asks the plaintiff to submit an acurate list.

 

[Franciscus]

Opening Statement

Your Honor and may it please the Court:

The central issue in this case is whether the defendant defamed the Plaintiff. We argue that the defendant did not do so.

The alleged defamation, per Plaintiff, proceeds from a statement made by the defendant within a DHS ticket. We do not contest that the statement was made, but we deny defamatory import.

The questions to be answered at trial then become:

1. Was the statement by the defendant substantially false?
2. If the statement was substantially false, did it actually cause reputational harm to the Plaintiff?

In civil cases, the burden of proof remains on the Plaintiff. As such, the Plaintiff is tasked with proving both of these in the affirmative. On the contrary, we, the defense, intend to demonstrate that the Plaintiff is unable to meet this burden.

In cross-examination, we will take the Court through various log files — logs of tickets transcripts (such as P-001) and Minecraft logs (such as P-004) — and establish that these logs do not support the plaintiff’s claim of defamation. The Defense will also direct the Court’s attention at trial to the dearth of evidence regarding actual reputational harm.

Thank you.

 

[jsrkiwi]

Your Honour, I confirm that Franciscus’s statement is accurate and complete.

For clarity, Your Honour, will the trial proceed under the amended rules and procedures issued by His Honour Judge Mug in #43, or will those be set aside?

This trial shall proceed under the rules set by Hon. Judge mug on msg #43.
since the plaintiff claims the list sent to this court is inacurate the court asks the plaintiff to submit an acurate list.

Your Honour, there's been a slight misunderstanding; the list is accurate.

 

[dearev]

Your Honour, there's been a slight misunderstanding; the list is accurate.

Apologies, there was a slight misunderstanding. Rulings on the pendencies will soon follow.

 

[jsrkiwi]

Opening Statement

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

Your Honour, and may it please the Court.

This case centres on defamatory remarks made by the Defendant, Trentrick_Lamar, in response to a witness statement filed by the Plaintiff, jsrkiwi, in ticket dhs-25340 (exhibit P-001). In that statement, jsrkiwi set out a series of factual claims. These facts are important, because they frame exactly what was alleged and what was denied.

Rather than politely engaging with those facts, Trentrick_Lamar responded with defamatory labels. He called jsrkiwi an “absolute liar” and later added “stop lying.” Those aren’t trivial insults; they amount to a damaging attack on jsrkiwi’s honesty and reputation.

We will call Trentrick_Lamar, because his testimony is central to understanding what he meant, why he said it, and when. We will dissect the very parts of jsrkiwi’s statement that prompted him to lash out. We will pin down precisely which factual claims enraged him, and whether he had any basis for accusing jsrkiwi of lying. We will confront him with his own screenshot (P-002) and logs (D-LG1) to see if he genuinely believed he faced an ‘imminent threat’ from the Plaintiff at the time he killed him.

At the same time, jsrkiwi will testify, giving a clear, truthful account of what he said in his witness statement, and the real-world consequences that followed. We will show that Trentrick_Lamar’s words did more than just sting, they sparked departmental gossip, undermined jsrkiwi’s credibility, and damaged his reputation among his peers. The accusation in front of his coworkers and bosses caused jsrkiwi to suffer genuine fear that he was to lose his job.

This is not a case of hurt feelings. It is about false allegations, made recklessly or maliciously, against a truthful account of events. By calling Trentrick_Lamar, we give this Court the opportunity to hear his version under oath, under pressure, and side-by-side with jsrkiwi’s version. The Court can decide whether the Defendant’s words “absolute liar” were justifiable, or whether it was a defamatory attack with serious consequences.

In the end, we ask this Court to recognise the harm done, and to provide redress, as a clear vindication of jsrkiwi’s reputation.

 

[jsrkiwi]

CONSOLIDATED LIST OF WITNESS QUESTIONS

In accordance with the Trial Protocol and Rules filed as #43 on 16th November 2025 by His Honour Judge Mug, the Plaintiff’s questions for witnesses are listed below. There are follow-up questions included. Please note, as Trentrick_Lamar is the Defendant, he is being questioned as a hostile witness, allowing the use of leading questions.


Witness 1: Trentrick_Lamar

1. To the best of your recollection, recount the events of 9th November 2025.

2. Open exhibit P-001 and turn to page 2. Read the message from jsrkiwi_ at 19:22:11 on 09/11/2025. For ease, I include the message here as a quotation:

jsrkiwi_ 09/11/2025, 19:22:11 | **Witness statement of jsrkiwi**
Urban was hiding in the room, using it for cover to avoid arrest, and periodically leaving the room to shoot at police. Indeed, I had been shot and killed by Urban outside in the corridor a mere minute earlier. There were three people in the room: Dolev, Trentrick and Urban (wearing a skimask). Trentrick was protecting Urban who was using him as a human shield. Trentrick got caught in the crossfire of a taser, suffering no harm beyond merely slight inconvenience of temporary immovability. I then attempted to cuff Urban who was behind him, accidentally cuffing Trentrick, who I immediately released. During the accidental cuffing, Urban escaped. Whilst I was typing out an apology to Trentrick, he then proceeded to murder me.

a. According to your recollection of the events referred to, is any of that statement by jsrkiwi false?​

b. If yes, which parts of the statement are false?​

3. Now read the next message in the ticket, which is from albus_cumbledore. For ease, I include the message here as a quotation:

albus_cumbledore 09/11/2025, 19:22:23 | Absolute liar. I have a witness.

a. Is ‘albus_cumbledore’ your Discord username?​

b. What specific ‘lies’ were you referring to in this message?​

c. What were you intending to happen as a result of calling jsrkiwi an ‘absolute liar’?​

4. Now read the next two messages in the ticket, both of which are from albus_cumbledore. For ease, I include the messages here as a quotation:

albus_cumbledore 09/11/2025, 19:22:31 | I would like Dolev added to this ticket.
albus_cumbledore 09/11/2025, 19:22:42 | He has your head that I tossed.

What was going through your mind when you said ‘He has your head that I tossed’?

5. Continue to read the next three messages in the ticket, all of which are from albus_cumbledore. For ease, I include the messages here as a quotation:

albus_cumbledore 09/11/2025, 19:23:26 | <@&686164712941158415>
albus_cumbledore 09/11/2025, 19:24:04 | Dolev is even there in my screenshot standing right in front of me
albus_cumbledore 09/11/2025, 19:25:27| Jsr, stop lying. Urbsn was not there. It was Dolev who was there, and he is literally right there in my screenshot.

What specific statements of jsrkiwi caused you to say ‘stop lying’?

6. Go to page 4 of the same exhibit (P-001), and read the first four messages starting with the message from jsrkiwi at 19:31:59 on 09/11/2025. For ease, I include the messages here as a quotation:

jsrkiwi_ 09/11/2025, 19:31:59 | The screenshot shows you had no reason to believe you were being assaulted. It shows that you were tased, cuffed then **immediately **uncuffed.
albus_cumbledore 09/11/2025, 19:32:33 | Right, and it was in the middle of a conversation I was having with Dolev while I had no stars or anything
jsrkiwi_ 09/11/2025, 19:32:44 | I remained motionless without a weapon whilst typing out
an apology. If you were being "assaulted", I wouldn't just stand there would I?
albus_cumbledore 09/11/2025, 19:33:35 | It's disingenuous to pretend that's completely impossible, and I killed you so fast that there was no "just standing there"

Is what you stated in these messages factually correct?

7. Review the entirety of exhibit P-001 to refresh your memory of the ticket.
Did you lie at any point in any of your messages?

8. Open exhibit D-LG1, and read lines 24 and 32. For ease, I include the logs here as a quotation:

[11:12:04] [Render thread/INFO]: [CHAT] L | Guide urb5n » question
[11:12:07] [Render thread/INFO]: [CHAT] L | Guide urb5n » are you part of the education dpt

a. Was Urb5n in the same room as you at the time of those logs?​

b. Was Urb5n talking to you?​

c. Familiarise yourself with the rest of your logs in exhibit D-LG1. If not you, who was he talking to?​

9. Read lines 48, 49, 50, 53, 54, and 58 of exhibit D-LG1. For ease, I include the logs here as a quotation:

[11:12:30] [Render thread/INFO]: [System] [CHAT] You are getting stunned!
[11:12:31] [Render thread/INFO]: [System] [CHAT] You're now being cuffed by jsrkiwi
[11:12:33] [Render thread/INFO]: [System] [CHAT] You're now uncuffed by jsrkiwi
[11:12:47] [Render thread/INFO]: [System] [CHAT] You have started a fight with jsrkiwi!
[11:12:49] [Render thread/INFO]: [System] [CHAT] Oh no, looks like you killed jsrkiwi and dropped some clues! You better one up and move it!
[11:13:06] [Render thread/INFO]: [CHAT] L | Senior Economist Trentrick_Lamar » LMAO

a. Is it correct that, according to your logs, your last interaction with jsrkiwi before you killed him was at 11:12:33 (local time)?​

b. Is it correct that, according to your logs, you attacked and killed jsrkiwi between 11:12:47 and 11:12:49 (local time)?​

c. Why did you pause for 14 seconds before attacking and killing jsrkiwi?​

d. At the time you attacked and killed jsrkiwi, did you believe that jsrkiwi posed an imminent threat to you?​

e. If yes, why did you believe that jsrkiwi posed an imminent threat to you?​

f. What was going through your mind when you sent the local chat message ‘LMAO’?​

Witness 2: jsrkiwi

1. To the best of your recollection, recount the events of 9th November 2025.

2. Open exhibit P-001 and turn to page 2. Read the message from jsrkiwi_ at 19:22:11 on 09/11/2025. For ease, I include the message here as a quotation:

jsrkiwi_ 09/11/2025, 19:22:11 | **Witness statement of jsrkiwi**
Urban was hiding in the room, using it for cover to avoid arrest, and periodically leaving the room to shoot at police. Indeed, I had been shot and killed by Urban outside in the corridor a mere minute earlier. There were three people in the room: Dolev, Trentrick and Urban (wearing a skimask). Trentrick was protecting Urban who was using him as a human shield. Trentrick got caught in the crossfire of a taser, suffering no harm beyond merely slight inconvenience of temporary immovability. I then attempted to cuff Urban who was behind him, accidentally cuffing Trentrick, who I immediately released. During the accidental cuffing, Urban escaped. Whilst I was typing out an apology to Trentrick, he then proceeded to murder me.

According to your recollection of the events referred to, is that statement true?

3. Now read the next message in the ticket, which is from albus_cumbledore. For ease, I include the message here as a quotation:

albus_cumbledore 09/11/2025, 19:22:23 | Absolute liar. I have a witness.

a. Is this statement factually true?​

b. How did you feel when you saw this message?​

c. What were the consequences of this message?​

d. How did your coworkers react?​

e. How has your professional career in the Department of Homeland Security been impacted?​

The Plaintiff no longer wishes to call Urb5n as a witness.

 

[Trentrick_Lamar]

1.) I was showing Dolev how to obtain a job and escorted him to the exam room, where I remained with him while he completed the exam. While speaking with Dolev, I was unexpectedly tazed and subsequently handcuffed.

2.) The assertion that I was “protecting Urbsn” is categorically incorrect. My sole purpose at the time was to instruct Dolev on gameplay. Any claim, whether explicit or implied, that I was knowingly or intentionally protecting Urbsn presupposes intent, which was absent. It is possible that Urbsn positioned himself in a way that resulted in me being used as a shield without my knowledge, but this does not constitute protection on my part, as protection requires both intent and action.

Additionally, I request that the court note that jsrkiwi edited his message in the ticket multiple times as I continued to provide my account. I ask that an audit of the message-edit history be provided, if possible, to clarify how his claims changed over the course of the ticket.

3.) Yes. As stated above, I raised the issue because the allegation that I was protecting Urbsn was untrue.

4.) The evidence shows that Dolev was present, as indicated in the screenshot. This corroborates my consistent statement that I was there solely to communicate with and assist Dolev, not to protect Urbsn.

5.) My statement to “stop lying” was made because jsrkiwi’s account was being edited in real time as I provided my explanation. This is why I again request an audit of the message-edit history.

6.) Yes.

7.) No. I was present exclusively to help Dolev get started on the server. I could not have intentionally protected Urbsn, nor was I aware of his presence, as my interactions were solely with Dolev and I remained in that room with him except when accompanying him through the university.

8.) I do not know, as I did not see that.

9.) Yes; yes. I was blinded and could not see what was occurring. From my perspective, whoever attacked me could have been preparing to kill me once my vision returned. The dropped head was humorous.

 

[Franciscus]

Witness 2: jsrkiwi

1. To the best of your recollection, recount the events of 9th November 2025.

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE

Your Honor,

This is not a question. If the Plaintiff is seeking information, they should ask a question, not issue an imperative command.

Witness 2: jsrkiwi

...

3. Now read the next message in the ticket, which is from albus_cumbledore. For ease, I include the message here as a quotation:

...

c. What were the consequences of this message?​

​

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - INCOMPETENT

Your Honor,

The Plaintiff is not God. The question is so broad and wide to be outside of qualifications or expertise of the Plaintiff to answer this question.

Witness 2: jsrkiwi

...
3. Now read the next message in the ticket, which is from albus_cumbledore. For ease, I include the message here as a quotation:

...

​

d. How did your coworkers react?​

​

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - HEARSAY

Your Honor,

The Plaintiff is essentially asking themself what their coworkers said to the Plaintiff after seeing the message. That would be hearsay, plain and simple.

If the Plaintiff wanted to get information regarding coworkers' reactions, the Plaintiff should have called some of the Plaintiff's coworkers; the Plaintiff's failure to do so does not permit the admission of hearsay here.

Witness 2: jsrkiwi
...

3. Now read the next message in the ticket, which is from albus_cumbledore. For ease, I include the message here as a quotation:

...

e. How has your professional career in the Department of Homeland Security been impacted?​

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE, SPECULATION

Your Honor,

The question presumes as true something as true that has not been established by evidence - namely that the professional career of jsrkiwi in the DHS has been impacted by this. There has been no evidence presented of any denials in rank, attempts to move up in rank, requests to take the PO test, nor any other items of evidence that could have established this. The Plaintiff had plenty of time in discovery to provide evidence to this had such items existed, but did not do so.

What's more, the extent to which the Plaintiff's career has been affected would be extremely speculative. Plaintiff cannot know what their career would look like but for this ticket - that is a decision that is plainly out of Plaintiff's hands and would be plainly outside of Plaintiff's personal knowledge. The Plaintiff could have called DHS leadership to discuss this, but did not; that is the Plaintiff's own fault, and the Plaintiff should not be permitted to wildly speculate to cover up this issue.

 

[jsrkiwi]

Witness 2: jsrkiwi
1. To the best of your recollection, recount the events of 9th November 2025.

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - BREACH OF PROCEDURE

Your Honor,

This is not a question. If the Plaintiff is seeking information, they should ask a question, not issue an imperative command.

RESPONSE TO OBJECTION
Your Honour, I respectfully submit that the defence’s objection mischaracterises the nature of the question. The form of the question (‘To the best of your recollection, recount the events of 9th November 2025’) is a proper, permissible open-ended question and not a breach of procedure. Objections to form should focus on what a question calls for (for example, whether it is leading, speculative, or based on hearsay) not on whether it’s phrased as a command or a question.

I further note that the Defence raised no objection when the very same question was put to Trentrick_Lamar.

Your Honour, based on the argument stated above, I respectfully ask that the question be permitted as stated. However, if the Court is not inclined to allow it, I request leave to amend the question to: “Could you give us a description of the events of 9th November 2025, to the best of your recollection?”.

---

Witness 2: jsrkiwi
...
3. Now read the next message in the ticket, which is from albus_cumbledore. For ease, I include the message here as a quotation:
...
c. What were the consequences of this message?

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - INCOMPETENT

Your Honor,

The Plaintiff is not God. The question is so broad and wide to be outside of qualifications or expertise of the Plaintiff to answer this question.

RESPONSE TO OBJECTION
Your Honour, the objection of incompetence only applies where a question calls for specialised knowledge that the witness does not possess. That is not the case here. The question does not demand technical or expert opinion; it merely asks the witness to state what happened after the defamatory remark was made.

Your Honour, based on the argument stated above, I respectfully ask that the question be permitted as stated. However, if the Court is not inclined to allow it, I request leave to amend the question to: “Did anything notable happen following the Defendant’s message?”.

---

Witness 2: jsrkiwi
...
3. Now read the next message in the ticket, which is from albus_cumbledore. For ease, I include the message here as a quotation:
...
d. How did your coworkers react?

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - HEARSAY

Your Honor,

The Plaintiff is essentially asking themself what their coworkers said to the Plaintiff after seeing the message. That would be hearsay, plain and simple.

If the Plaintiff wanted to get information regarding coworkers' reactions, the Plaintiff should have called some of the Plaintiff's coworkers; the Plaintiff's failure to do so does not permit the admission of hearsay here.

RESPONSE TO OBJECTION
Your Honour, the question was phrased “How did your coworkers react?”, not “What did your coworkers say?”. It does not call for hearsay. It is asking about the effect or reaction observed, not asking the witness to repeat out-of-court statements.

Your Honour, based on the argument stated above, I respectfully ask that the question be permitted as stated.

---

Witness 2: jsrkiwi
...
3. Now read the next message in the ticket, which is from albus_cumbledore. For ease, I include the message here as a quotation:
...
e. How has your professional career in the Department of Homeland Security been impacted?

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE, SPECULATION

Your Honor,

The question presumes as true something as true that has not been established by evidence - namely that the professional career of jsrkiwi in the DHS has been impacted by this. There has been no evidence presented of any denials in rank, attempts to move up in rank, requests to take the PO test, nor any other items of evidence that could have established this. The Plaintiff had plenty of time in discovery to provide evidence to this had such items existed, but did not do so.

What's more, the extent to which the Plaintiff's career has been affected would be extremely speculative. Plaintiff cannot know what their career would look like but for this ticket - that is a decision that is plainly out of Plaintiff's hands and would be plainly outside of Plaintiff's personal knowledge. The Plaintiff could have called DHS leadership to discuss this, but did not; that is the Plaintiff's own fault, and the Plaintiff should not be permitted to wildly speculate to cover up this issue.

RESPONSE TO OBJECTION
Your Honour, I respectfully submit that the defence’s objection is overstated, and the question is proper for the following reasons:

RE: ASSUMES FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE
1. The question does not assume that any impact occurred. It simply asks whether the Plaintiff’s DHS career has been affected, leaving full room for the witness to answer that nothing at all has changed, if that is the truth.
2. The purpose is to establish (or rule out) any factual consequences arising from the message already in evidence. In civil matters, asking about impact is a routine and permissible line of examination, and the question does not presuppose that impact exists; it merely seeks to determine it.

RE: SPECULATION
1. The question does not call for conjecture about hypothetical promotions, imagined futures, or internal decision-making that the witness cannot access. It asks solely for the witness’s direct personal knowledge of any real-world effects experienced.
2. The witness is not being asked to guess what might have happened in an alternative world, only to describe what has happened in the real one, which lies squarely within their competence.

Your Honour, based on the arguments stated above, I respectfully ask that the question be permitted as stated. However, if the Court is not inclined to allow it, I request leave to amend the question to: “e. Has your professional career in the Department of Homeland Security been impacted? | f. If yes, how so?”.

 

[Franciscus]

1.) I was showing Dolev how to obtain a job and escorted him to the exam room, where I remained with him while he completed the exam. While speaking with Dolev, I was unexpectedly tazed and subsequently handcuffed.

2.) The assertion that I was “protecting Urbsn” is categorically incorrect. My sole purpose at the time was to instruct Dolev on gameplay. Any claim, whether explicit or implied, that I was knowingly or intentionally protecting Urbsn presupposes intent, which was absent. It is possible that Urbsn positioned himself in a way that resulted in me being used as a shield without my knowledge, but this does not constitute protection on my part, as protection requires both intent and action.

Additionally, I request that the court note that jsrkiwi edited his message in the ticket multiple times as I continued to provide my account. I ask that an audit of the message-edit history be provided, if possible, to clarify how his claims changed over the course of the ticket.

3.) Yes. As stated above, I raised the issue because the allegation that I was protecting Urbsn was untrue.

4.) The evidence shows that Dolev was present, as indicated in the screenshot. This corroborates my consistent statement that I was there solely to communicate with and assist Dolev, not to protect Urbsn.

5.) My statement to “stop lying” was made because jsrkiwi’s account was being edited in real time as I provided my explanation. This is why I again request an audit of the message-edit history.

6.) Yes.

7.) No. I was present exclusively to help Dolev get started on the server. I could not have intentionally protected Urbsn, nor was I aware of his presence, as my interactions were solely with Dolev and I remained in that room with him except when accompanying him through the university.

8.) I do not know, as I did not see that.

9.) Yes; yes. I was blinded and could not see what was occurring. From my perspective, whoever attacked me could have been preparing to kill me once my vision returned. The dropped head was humorous.

Thank you for answering direct questions. I have a few cross-examination questions for ya.

Brief

Cross-Examination Questions for Trentrick_Lamar

1. I would like to read from the Plaintiff’s logs as shown in Exhibit P-004 at the time 19:12:31. For sake of convenience, I’ve included it in a quote below:

[19:12:31] [Render thread/INFO]: [System] [CHAT] You have shot a projectile towards Trentrick_Lamar and started a fight! Trentrick_Lamar can choose to kill you for self defence if they so wish.

A) Did you do anything to provoke the above logged action from the Plaintiff?
B) What was your wanted status at the time that the above logged action was performed?
C) When the Plaintiff shot a projectile at you, as indicated in the above log, how did it make you feel?

2. Moving down the Plaintiff’s logs shown in Exhibit P-004, we see the following:

[19:12:31] [Render thread/INFO]: [System] [CHAT] You have tasered Trentrick_Lamar!

A) Did you do anything to provoke the above logged action from the Plaintiff?
B) When the Plaintiff stunned you, how did it make you feel?

3. Again, moving down the Plaintiff’s logs in Exhibit P-004, we see the following:

[19:12:32] [Render thread/INFO]: [System] [CHAT] You're now cuffing Trentrick_Lamar

A) Did you do anything to provoke the above logged action from the Plaintiff?
B) When the Plaintiff cuffed you shortly after shooting a projectile at you and tasering you, how did it make you feel?

 

[Trentrick_Lamar]

Thank you for answering direct questions. I have a few cross-examination questions for ya.

Brief

Cross-Examination Questions for Trentrick_Lamar

1. I would like to read from the Plaintiff’s logs as shown in Exhibit P-004 at the time 19:12:31. For sake of convenience, I’ve included it in a quote below:



A) Did you do anything to provoke the above logged action from the Plaintiff?
B) What was your wanted status at the time that the above logged action was performed?
C) When the Plaintiff shot a projectile at you, as indicated in the above log, how did it make you feel?

2. Moving down the Plaintiff’s logs shown in Exhibit P-004, we see the following:



A) Did you do anything to provoke the above logged action from the Plaintiff?
B) When the Plaintiff stunned you, how did it make you feel?

3. Again, moving down the Plaintiff’s logs in Exhibit P-004, we see the following:



A) Did you do anything to provoke the above logged action from the Plaintiff?
B) When the Plaintiff cuffed you shortly after shooting a projectile at you and tasering you, how did it make you feel?

1.) No, as my sole purpose there was to assist Dolev in obtaining a job at the university. I had no wanted status at the time, so the incident was both unexpected and confusing. However, I was not entirely surprised, and my thought was that someone might have illegally acquired police equipment and used it on me. The Department of Justice has a history of inconsistent oversight that has, on multiple occasions, allowed police officers to accumulate tools in quantities they should not possess, resulting in ex-police or criminal players gaining access to such equipment they should not have access to.

2.) See answer to question 1.

3.) See answer to question 1.

 

[dearev]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

Your Honor,

The question in this motion is whether or not the Plaintiff has sufficient standing to pursue the first and second claims for relief. The Defense moves to dismiss the first and second claims for relief under Rule 5.12 (Standing Application) and in support thereof respectfully alleges:

1. Standing Requires that the Court can grant Remedy​

Under Rule 5.12, a case may be dismiseed "if the plaintiff fails to have sufficient standing in order to pursue the case". Standing itself is defined under Rule 2.1:



Now that the rule is established, the Defense will analyze whether or not the Plaintiff's remedies sought are "applicable under relevant law that can be granted by a favorable decision".

2. The complaint presently contains no prayers for relief regarding the first or second claims for relief​

The first and second claims for relief are as follows:



In the complaint, the Plaintiff has provided several prayers for relief:


Examining the case record, Your Honor has already stricken the first prayer for relief, noting that declaratory judgements of this sort cannot be granted. The Plaintiff has also since withdrawn the second prayer for relief. As such, the remaining remedy sought by the Plaintiff here seems entirely unrelated to these prayers.

3. Absent applicable prayers for relief, the Court should dismiss related claims​

The defense struggles to see how the first two claims could themselves or together sustain any prayer for relief listed here that can be granted by a favorable decision, and therefore seeks dismissal for lack of standing demonstrated.

This court will be Denying this motion on the basis of untimeliness under rule 5.2 seeing that at the time of posting of this motion, opening statemets had already begun.

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS

Your Honor,

Under Rule 5.5 (Lack of Claim), dismissal may occur "for failure to state a claim for relief, or against an claim for relief that has insufficient evidence to support the civil or criminal charge".

The central issue in this motion is whether or not the Plaintiff plausibly stated a claim for defamation in its complaint's third and fourth claims for relief. The Defense alleges that they do not, and move to dismiss the third and fourth claims under Rule 5.5, alleging:

1. The third and fourth claims are essentially defamation claims and require a showing of actual damages​

1a. The same standards for defamation are applied to cases of slander​

The Plaintiff's third and fourth claims for relief are as follows:


Under No More Defamation Act 4(1)(a), "The tort of defamation includes both libel and slander." The tort is defamation, and it can occur in two ways - libel or slander, the latter of which the Plaintiff claims here.

The No More Defamation Act 4(3)(a) defines Slander as: "A false statement, usually made through either discord or in-game messages, which defames another person’s reputation, business, profession, or organization."

Some may say "defames" in the definition of "slander" is a bit circular. I would tend to agree that the law could have been drafted better. But examining the structure of the law and how Courts have read it, there is no slander separately from defamation - the same standards for defamation are applied in cases of slander. As the District Court in Anthony_org v. Culls [2025] DCR 67 noted:

1b. Defamation requires actual damages to reputation​

Under No More Defamation Act 4(1)(a), "Defamation is a false statement and/or communication that injures a third party's reputation" (emphasis mine). The Plaintiff must prove, or at least attempt to prove, that the Plaintiff's reputation was actually injured for defamation to occur.

This is a standard that has been upheld by the Courts on numerous occasions. Perhaps the clearest articulation in the Federal Court (which binds the District Court) is in Vernicia v. RylandW [2025] FCR 5.

As noted above in 1a, slander and defamation are subject to a three-part test:



Merely making false statements is not slander; rather, slander occurs only when a false statement "defames another person's reputation, business, profession, or organization"; as defamation itself requires reputational harm to a third party, reputational harm is required in all instances for slander.

Now that it is established that actual reputational damages must occur for defamation/slander to have occurred, the Defense turns to whether or not the Plaintiff's factual allegations, taken prima facie, would be able to support this burden.

2. Plaintiff's complaint does not plausibly allege actual reputational damages​

The issue becomes whether or not the Plaintiff's factual allegations, even if accepted arguendo, would lead to the legal conclusion that defamation occurred. The defense alleges that they do not.

2.1. The Plaintiff's complaint applies the incorrect rule when alleging that falsity alone constitutes slander​

While the Plaintiff provides much factual background, the Plaintiff's defamation/slander claims, in essence, boil down to the following:

1. that the statement made in the 17th factual allegation was false,
2. that "false statements constitute slander" in some per se sense (19th factual allegation; c.f. 3rd Claim for Relief)
3. that each "act of unawful defamation" entitles the Plaintiff to injuries (21st factual allegation; c.f. 4th claim for relief)

But this is a mistake under the law; it is not merely the case that making a false statement about another constitutes defamation. The Court in RylandW v. v__d - [2025] FCR 37 was quite clear on this: "Just because false statements are made does not mean they automatically harm the reputation of another".

2.2 If we apply the correct rule, the Plaintiff's complaint did not make sufficient allegations to support the conclusion of actual damages to reputation​

Reading through the factual allegations, the Plaintiff did not actually allege there that any individual's opinion of the Plaintiff had changed.

The only thing that could possibly save the case is the allegation that third parties saw the statement (18th factual allegation). But this was also the case in RylandW v. v__d - [2025] FCR 37; the Court record (for instance, the Answer to Complaint's affirmation on the 4th fact) reveals that third parties did presumably see the statements publicly made in that case.

But for the Court to conclude that actual damages to reputation occurred, merely that a false statement was seen by a third party is not enough. Evidence needed to be shown off actual reputational damage; while the Plaintiff in [2025] FCR 37 attempted to do that with opinion polling information and election results, the Court then found that such information was insufficient. Here, the Plaintiff in this case has even less - this case's Plaintiff does not even appear to have set about making sufficient factual allegations regarding reputational damage, nor have brought forward plausible evidence in support thereof.

3. The Third and Fourth Claims should be dismissed​

The central question in this motion is whether or not the Plaintiff plausibly stated a claim for defamation in its complaint's third and fourth claims for relief.

In short, we ask this Court to affirm that while legal conclusions can provide the framework of a complaint, they must be supported by factual allegations and/or evidence. When there are well-pleaded factual allegations or evidence, we ask that this court should assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief at the stage of a Motion to Dismiss.

In this case, as shown above, the Complaint misstates the rule regarding slander in the factual allegations. When we apply the actual rule, we conclude that the Plaintiff has failed to provide evidence or factual allegations that could serve as support of the requirements for the claim, and thus fails to plausibly state a claim for relief.

Granted.
The Third and Fourth Claims are hereby dismissed
This court has taken note that even IF a false statement has been spoken in public, that does not mean it constitutes slander/defamation. Lets take a look at the standard test for defamation.

1. The Statement has to be Published
2. The statement has to be False
3. The statement has to cause reputational harm

This court hereby takes note that other people hearing this false statement does NOT fulfill the 3rd test "The statement has to cause reputational harm"
This court does not belive that only because the statement was heard the individual which heard said statement belived in its factuallity and as so, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to prove that the person in which heard the statement belived it as true.