Lawsuit: Pending Maxib02 v. Omegabiebel [2026] DCR 8

[Jimmyboy2009915]

Case Filing

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

Maxib02
Plaintiff

v.

Omegabiebel
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

On January 3rd and 5th the Defendant made slanderous accusations regarding the Plaintiff's business practices. Accusing the Plaintiff of doing “Pretty extensive accounting fraud” in the National Exchange of Redmont’s Discord Server. These statements were made with malicious intent in order to deter the public from using the business’s services.

I. PARTIES
1. Maxib02
2. Omegabiebel

II. FACTS
1. Omegabiebel made two slanderous statements about Maxib02’s business practices on January 3rd, 2026 and January 5th, 2026
2. These claims were based on a document with false accusations created by a former board member of the Plaintiff’s Company.
3. The Department of Commerce found no wrongdoing by the Plaintiff in their own investigation on the allegations.
4. These statements were made by the defendant to further damage the credibility and reputation of the Plaintiff.
5. Due to the Defendant’s statements the Plaintiff suffered reputational and financial damages.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Slander is defined in the No More Defamation Act as a false statement, usually made through either discord or ingame messages, which defames another person’s reputation, business, profession, or organization. Omegabiebel on two separate occasions falsely accused Maxib02 of wrongdoing. These statements, supported by speculative evidence, harmed Maxib02’s reputation and business proceedings.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. $30,000 in Punitive Damages for the slanderous statements made by the Defendant.
2. $20,000 in consequential damages for the reputational and financial damages caused by the allegations.
3. $15,000 in legal fees, equal to 30 percent of the total value of the case.

Spoiler: P-001

Spoiler: P-002

Spoiler: PROOF OF REPRESENTATION

Witnesses
1. DiehardDave
2. .MgChamp2339
3. .bleeper3058

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 22nd day of January, 2026

 

[dearev]

Writ of Summons

@Omegabiebel , is required to appear before the District Court in the case of Maxib02 v. Omegabiebel [2026] DCR 8

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.

 

[Omegabiebel]

present

 

[dearev]

present

Please present an answer within 48 hours.

 

[ToadKing]

Answer to Complaint

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

Maxib02
Plaintiff

v.

Omegabiebel
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT​

1. AFFIRM that the Defendant made statements between 3 January 2026 and 5 January 2026. DENY that the statements were slanderous.
2. AFFIRM that the statements were based on a document titled "Allegations against RTG and Maxib02," created by a former board member of the Plaintiff’s Company. (D-001) NEITHER AFFIRM NOR DENY that the document contains false accusations. NOTING that the Plaintiff has provided no evidence demonstrating that the allegations contained within the document are false.
3. DENY The Plaintiff has provided no evidence of any Department of Commerce investigation or its findings.
4. DENY that the statements made by the defendant were to "further damage the credibility and reputation of the Plaintiff".
5. DENY The Plaintiff has provided no evidence of reputational or financial damages.

II. DEFENCES​

1. FAILURE TO PROVE FALSITY​

Under the No More Defamation Act and prior case precedent - the likes of which are highlighted in this recent amicus brief - defamation requires proof that the statement was false. In Anthony_org v. Culls [2025] DCR 67, the District Court adopted a three-part test for defamation:

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

The Plaintiff has not proven that the Defendant's statements were false.

The statements were based on "Allegations against RTG and Maxib02" (D-001), a document publicly posted to the National Exchange of Redmont Discord server on 31 October 2025 (D-002). This document was authored by BrownBerry, an accountant and attorney who served as the Plaintiff's Chief Financial Officer and Board Member. The document contains detailed allegations supported by screenshots, financial records, and direct quotations.

The Plaintiff claims the Department of Commerce "found no wrongdoing," but has provided no evidence of this finding - no report, no statement, no official determination. Without proof that the underlying allegations are false, the Plaintiff cannot establish that the Defendant's statements constitute defamation.

​

2. FAILURE TO PROVE REPUTATIONAL HARM​

The Plaintiff has failed to provide sufficient evidence of reputational harm as required under [2025] DCR 67 and xEndeavour v. AlexanderLove [2025] DCR 1.

In [2025] DCR 1, the District Court dismissed a defamation claim sua sponte for insufficient evidence of damages, stating: "While the plaintiff claims that the damages are 'unmeasurable'[...] they still need to provide evidence that at least some damages occurred." The Court further held that showing "a player being told an alleged defamatory comment" was insufficient where the person's perception did not demonstrably change.

The Plaintiff has provided no evidence of reputational harm whatsoever. The Plaintiff alleges to have "suffered reputational and financial damages", but the Plaintiff calls no witnesses to provide testimony; no evidence of lost business opportunities; no documentation of a measurable impact

The Plaintiff's evidence (P-001 and P-002) consists solely of screenshots of the Defendant's statements. Under the precedent in this Court, established in [2025] DCR 67 and [2025] DCR 1, this is insufficient.

​

3. REASONABLE RELIANCE ON CREDIBLE SOURCE​

The Defendant's statements were made in good faith based on reasonable reliance on a document from a credible source. The "Allegations against RTG and Maxib02" document (D-001) was:

1. Authored by the Plaintiff's former CFO and Board Member - an individual with direct, firsthand knowledge of the company's accounting practices

2. Made publicly available on the National Exchange of Redmont Discord server (D-002)

3. Detailed and documented - the document contains specific allegations supported by evidence, including financial statements, Discord screenshots, and an analysis of RTG's accounting standards

When the Defendant stated that the Plaintiff had committed "pretty extensive accounting fraud" (P-001, P-002), the Defendant was reasonably relying on allegations made by a knowledgeable insider in this publicly available document.

​

4. NO PROOF OF MALICIOUS INTENT​

The Plaintiff alleges the statements were made "with malicious intent in order to deter the public from using the business's services." The Plaintiff has provided no evidence of malicious intent. The Defendant's statements were responses in conversation, referencing publicly available allegations. There is no evidence that the Defendant harboured ill will toward the Plaintiff or sought to harm the Plaintiff's business for improper purposes.

​

5. FAILURE TO PROVE CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES​

The Plaintiff seeks $20,000 in "consequential damages for the reputational and financial damages." However, the Legal Damages Act, Section 7(1)(a), provides that:

(a) “Consequential Damages” An award that a party can collect against an opposing party for damages that are otherwise incalculable. Below is a non-exhaustive list of Consequential Damages:
(I) Humiliation - Situations in which a person has been disgraced, belittled or made to look foolish. Humiliation damages may be proven by witness testimony and reasonable person tests, or any other mechanism the presiding judicial officer considers persuasive.
(II) The Worsening of any Existing Conditions - Situations in which a damage is caused by a party that caused harm to another party that were unforeseen or unrelated to the original harm.
(III) The Loss of Enjoyment in Redmont - Situations in which an injured party loses, or has diminished, their ability to engage in certain activities in the way that the injured party did before the harm. Loss of enjoyment in Redmont damages may be proven by witness testimony and reasonable person tests, or any other mechanism the presiding judicial officer considers persuasive.

The Plaintiff has failed to establish any basis for consequential damages. The Plaintiff has not specified which category of consequential damage is being claimed. The complaint vaguely references "reputational and financial damages" without identifying whether this constitutes humiliation, loss of enjoyment, or some other form of consequential harm.

The Plaintiff has also provided no evidence whatsoever to support consequential damages. Section 7(1)(a) explicitly states that for damages such as humiliation and loss of enjoyment: "damages may be proven by witness testimony and reasonable person tests, or any other mechanism the presiding judicial officer considers persuasive." The Plaintiff has provided no such evidence or basis on which to prove this.

Section 7(3)(a) requires:

(3) Diminution of award:
(a) In assessing a consequential damage award, the judicial officer must review the available evidence and deny awards that do not have sufficient proof according to the standard of a balance of probabilities.

With zero evidence of consequential harm, the Plaintiff cannot meet even the most minimal evidentiary standard.

Precedent established in [2025] DCR 1 applies equally to consequential damages. That Court held that claims of "unmeasurable" damages do not excuse the requirement to "provide evidence that at least some damages occurred." The Plaintiff's bare assertion of "reputational and financial damages" without supporting evidence is insufficient in this instance.

​

6. IMPROPER CLAIM FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES​

The Plaintiff seeks $30,000 in punitive damages, but has failed to establish the foundational requirements for such an award. In RealImza v. Plura72 [2025] DCR 74, the Court held:

To claim that an incident was “outrageous,” one must first plead that some lesser, non-outrageous wrong occurred; the Plaintiff skipped this step and leapt straight to outrage without establishing a foundational cause of action.

The Court further stated:

For something to be outrageous, the Court must accept that the underlying action is to be so obvious that a reasonable person can view the harm and immediately accept the controversy as a harm; That does not exist in a defamation case.

The Plaintiff has not reasonably established, through fact or evidence, any foundational harm, let alone "outrageous" conduct warranting punitive damages. The Defendant made statements based on a publicly available document from a credible source. This does not constitute outrageous conduct under any reasonable standard.

​

EVIDENCE​

Spoiler: D-001

See Allegations against RTG and Maxib02 (1).pdf

Spoiler: D-002

WITNESSES​

1. ElysiaCrynn

By making this submission, I agree that 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 24th day of January 2026.

Case Filing

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
COUNTERCLAIM

Omegabiebel
Counterplaintiff (CPlaintiff)

v.

Maxib02
Counterdefendant (CDefendant)

COMPLAINT
The CPlaintiff complains against the CDefendant as follows:

The CPlaintiff is countersuing due to the frivolous nature of this case. The CDefendant has filed a defamation lawsuit seeking $65,000 in damages while providing no evidence of the essential elements required to succeed on such a claim. The CDefendant has failed to prove any evidence the statements were false, failed to provide any evidence of reputational harm, and failed to demonstrate any pecuniary loss whatsoever. This lawsuit has no serious purpose or value and has been filed in clear violation of established legal precedent requiring proof of damages in defamation cases.

I. PARTIES​

1. Omegabiebel
2. Maxib02

II. FACTS​

1. The CDefendant sued the CPlaintiff for slander, seeking $30,000 in punitive damages, $20,000 in consequential damages, and $15,000 in legal fees.
2. The CDefendant's entire evidence submission consists of two screenshots showing the CPlaintiff's statements (P-001, P-002). The CDefendant provided no evidence proving the statements were false, no evidence of reputational harm, and no evidence of financial damages.
3. In Fact 4 of the original complaint, the CDefendant alleges: "These statements were made by the defendant to further damage the credibility and reputation of the Plaintiff." The CDefendant provided no evidence supporting this allegation.
4. In Fact 5 of the original complaint, the CDefendant alleges: "Due to the Defendant's statements the Plaintiff suffered reputational and financial damages." The CDefendant provided no evidence of any reputational harm or financial damages.
5. The CDefendant claims the Department of Commerce "found no wrongdoing" but has provided no evidence of any such finding.
6. Under Anthony_org v. Culls [2025] DCR 67, defamation requires proof of three elements: (1) publication, (2) falsity, and (3) reputational harm. The CDefendant has only shown publication.
7. Under xEndeavour v. AlexanderLove [2025] DCR 1, a defamation case was dismissed sua sponte for failure to provide evidence of damages, with the Court holding that plaintiffs "still need to provide evidence that at least some damages occurred."
8. Under RealImza v. Plura72 [2025] DCR 74, punitive damages in defamation cases require establishing foundational damages first, and the Court held that "For something to be outrageous, the Court must accept that the underlying action is to be so obvious that a reasonable person can view the harm and immediately accept the controversy as a harm; That does not exist in a defamation case."
9. The CDefendant's case violates all three of these precedents by seeking substantial damages without providing any evidence of harm.
10. Frivolous Court Case is defined as "lodges a legal case that has no serious purpose or value" (Criminal Code Act, Part III, Section 4).
11. According to the Legal Damages Act, Section 5(1)(a), Punitive damages can be awarded "as a counter claim if a party believes the case to be frivolous and outrageous."

​

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF​

1. FILING WITHOUT EVIDENCE OF ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS​

The CDefendant launched a frivolous lawsuit by filing a defamation claim without providing evidence of falsity or reputational harm - two of the three required elements under established precedent. A case that fails to meet basic evidentiary standards has no serious purpose or value and constitutes a frivolous court case.

2. UNSUPPORTED FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS​

The CDefendant made specific factual allegations in Facts 4 and 5 of the complaint, but provided no supporting evidence. Making specific allegations of fact in a court filing without any supporting evidence constitutes filing a frivolous lawsuit.

3. ATTEMPTING TO SILENCE LEGITIMATE DISCOURSE​

The CDefendant has filed this lawsuit to silence legitimate public discourse about serious allegations of accounting fraud made by the CDefendant's former Chief Financial Officer. Filing a defamation suit to suppress discussion of credible allegations from knowledgeable insiders constitutes outrageous conduct.

​

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF​

The CPlaintiff seeks the following from the CDefendant:

1. $25,000 in Punitive Damages for filing a defamation lawsuit without evidence of falsity or reputational harm, in violation of established precedent requiring proof of all three elements of defamation.

2. $25,000 in Punitive Damages for making two separate unsupported factual allegations (Facts 4 and 5) without providing any evidence, constituting frivolous pleading.

3. $25,000 in Punitive Damages for outrageous conduct in attempting to silence legitimate public discourse about credible allegations made public in October 2025.

4. Alternatively, $7,500 in Nominal Damages if the Court finds punitive damages are not warranted, pursuant to the Legal Damages Act, Section 6.

5. 30% legal fees pursuant to the Legal Damages Act, Section 9.


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 24th day of January, 2026.

Spoiler: Proof of Representation

 

[ElysiaCrynn]

Your Honour, as Secretary of the Department of Commerce, I would like to file an amicus brief to address the accuracy of Fact 3 alleged by the Plaintiff concerning the Department's investigation.

 

[ToadKing]

Your Honour, as Secretary of the Department of Commerce, I would like to file an amicus brief to address the accuracy of Fact 3 alleged by the Plaintiff concerning the Department's investigation.

Objection

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

Your Honour,

Consistent with Judge Ameslap's ruling in GER v. DCT [2025] FCR 78, where an amicus brief was denied because the requester was a named witness.

Additionally, an Amicus Brief would be irrelevant as End has been called as a witness and so any such brief could be made during testimony if either party wishes to hear it.

End, your request for an Amicus Brief is hereby denied.

And Your Honour's ruling on an objection covering the same point, in 12700k v. .Savannah212467 [2026] DCR 1.

Defendant requests that this Court deny the amicus brief request as ElysiaCrynn is a named witness in this case.

WITNESSES​

1. ElysiaCrynn

 

[ElysiaCrynn]

My apologies, I missed being included in the Defendant's witnesses list, I retract my request to submit an amicus brief.

 

[ToadKing]

My apologies, I missed being included in the Defendant's witnesses list, I retract my request to submit an amicus brief.

Objection

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

Your Honour,

Consistent with Judge Ameslap's ruling in GER v. DCT [2025] FCR 78, where an amicus brief was denied because the requester was a named witness.

And Your Honour's ruling on an objection covering the same point, in 12700k v. .Savannah212467 [2026] DCR 1.

Defendant requests that this Court deny the amicus brief request as ElysiaCrynn is a named witness in this case.

Objection is moot and can be disregarded.

 

[Jimmyboy2009915]

Motion

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

I am requesting that the court allows me make amends to include a witness list that includes witnesses not included by the defense. I take full responsibility for this mistake on my part as I am inexperienced.

 

[dearev]

Answer to Complaint

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

Maxib02
Plaintiff

v.

Omegabiebel
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT​

1. AFFIRM that the Defendant made statements between 3 January 2026 and 5 January 2026. DENY that the statements were slanderous.
2. AFFIRM that the statements were based on a document titled "Allegations against RTG and Maxib02," created by a former board member of the Plaintiff’s Company. (D-001) NEITHER AFFIRM NOR DENY that the document contains false accusations. NOTING that the Plaintiff has provided no evidence demonstrating that the allegations contained within the document are false.
3. DENY The Plaintiff has provided no evidence of any Department of Commerce investigation or its findings.
4. DENY that the statements made by the defendant were to "further damage the credibility and reputation of the Plaintiff".
5. DENY The Plaintiff has provided no evidence of reputational or financial damages.

II. DEFENCES​

1. FAILURE TO PROVE FALSITY​

Under the No More Defamation Act and prior case precedent - the likes of which are highlighted in this recent amicus brief - defamation requires proof that the statement was false. In Anthony_org v. Culls [2025] DCR 67, the District Court adopted a three-part test for defamation:

The Plaintiff has not proven that the Defendant's statements were false.

The statements were based on "Allegations against RTG and Maxib02" (D-001), a document publicly posted to the National Exchange of Redmont Discord server on 31 October 2025 (D-002). This document was authored by BrownBerry, an accountant and attorney who served as the Plaintiff's Chief Financial Officer and Board Member. The document contains detailed allegations supported by screenshots, financial records, and direct quotations.

The Plaintiff claims the Department of Commerce "found no wrongdoing," but has provided no evidence of this finding - no report, no statement, no official determination. Without proof that the underlying allegations are false, the Plaintiff cannot establish that the Defendant's statements constitute defamation.

​

2. FAILURE TO PROVE REPUTATIONAL HARM​

The Plaintiff has failed to provide sufficient evidence of reputational harm as required under [2025] DCR 67 and xEndeavour v. AlexanderLove [2025] DCR 1.

In [2025] DCR 1, the District Court dismissed a defamation claim sua sponte for insufficient evidence of damages, stating: "While the plaintiff claims that the damages are 'unmeasurable'[...] they still need to provide evidence that at least some damages occurred." The Court further held that showing "a player being told an alleged defamatory comment" was insufficient where the person's perception did not demonstrably change.

The Plaintiff has provided no evidence of reputational harm whatsoever. The Plaintiff alleges to have "suffered reputational and financial damages", but the Plaintiff calls no witnesses to provide testimony; no evidence of lost business opportunities; no documentation of a measurable impact

The Plaintiff's evidence (P-001 and P-002) consists solely of screenshots of the Defendant's statements. Under the precedent in this Court, established in [2025] DCR 67 and [2025] DCR 1, this is insufficient.

​

3. REASONABLE RELIANCE ON CREDIBLE SOURCE​

The Defendant's statements were made in good faith based on reasonable reliance on a document from a credible source. The "Allegations against RTG and Maxib02" document (D-001) was:

1. Authored by the Plaintiff's former CFO and Board Member - an individual with direct, firsthand knowledge of the company's accounting practices

2. Made publicly available on the National Exchange of Redmont Discord server (D-002)

3. Detailed and documented - the document contains specific allegations supported by evidence, including financial statements, Discord screenshots, and an analysis of RTG's accounting standards

When the Defendant stated that the Plaintiff had committed "pretty extensive accounting fraud" (P-001, P-002), the Defendant was reasonably relying on allegations made by a knowledgeable insider in this publicly available document.

​

4. NO PROOF OF MALICIOUS INTENT​

The Plaintiff alleges the statements were made "with malicious intent in order to deter the public from using the business's services." The Plaintiff has provided no evidence of malicious intent. The Defendant's statements were responses in conversation, referencing publicly available allegations. There is no evidence that the Defendant harboured ill will toward the Plaintiff or sought to harm the Plaintiff's business for improper purposes.

​

5. FAILURE TO PROVE CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES​

The Plaintiff seeks $20,000 in "consequential damages for the reputational and financial damages." However, the Legal Damages Act, Section 7(1)(a), provides that:

The Plaintiff has failed to establish any basis for consequential damages. The Plaintiff has not specified which category of consequential damage is being claimed. The complaint vaguely references "reputational and financial damages" without identifying whether this constitutes humiliation, loss of enjoyment, or some other form of consequential harm.

The Plaintiff has also provided no evidence whatsoever to support consequential damages. Section 7(1)(a) explicitly states that for damages such as humiliation and loss of enjoyment: "damages may be proven by witness testimony and reasonable person tests, or any other mechanism the presiding judicial officer considers persuasive." The Plaintiff has provided no such evidence or basis on which to prove this.

Section 7(3)(a) requires:

With zero evidence of consequential harm, the Plaintiff cannot meet even the most minimal evidentiary standard.

Precedent established in [2025] DCR 1 applies equally to consequential damages. That Court held that claims of "unmeasurable" damages do not excuse the requirement to "provide evidence that at least some damages occurred." The Plaintiff's bare assertion of "reputational and financial damages" without supporting evidence is insufficient in this instance.

​

6. IMPROPER CLAIM FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES​

The Plaintiff seeks $30,000 in punitive damages, but has failed to establish the foundational requirements for such an award. In RealImza v. Plura72 [2025] DCR 74, the Court held:

The Court further stated:

The Plaintiff has not reasonably established, through fact or evidence, any foundational harm, let alone "outrageous" conduct warranting punitive damages. The Defendant made statements based on a publicly available document from a credible source. This does not constitute outrageous conduct under any reasonable standard.

​

EVIDENCE​

Spoiler: D-001

See Allegations against RTG and Maxib02 (1).pdf

Spoiler: D-002

View attachment 73186

WITNESSES​

1. ElysiaCrynn

By making this submission, I agree that 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 24th day of January 2026.

Case Filing

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
COUNTERCLAIM

Omegabiebel
Counterplaintiff (CPlaintiff)

v.

Maxib02
Counterdefendant (CDefendant)

COMPLAINT
The CPlaintiff complains against the CDefendant as follows:

I. PARTIES​

1. Omegabiebel
2. Maxib02

II. FACTS​

1. The CDefendant sued the CPlaintiff for slander, seeking $30,000 in punitive damages, $20,000 in consequential damages, and $15,000 in legal fees.
2. The CDefendant's entire evidence submission consists of two screenshots showing the CPlaintiff's statements (P-001, P-002). The CDefendant provided no evidence proving the statements were false, no evidence of reputational harm, and no evidence of financial damages.
3. In Fact 4 of the original complaint, the CDefendant alleges: "These statements were made by the defendant to further damage the credibility and reputation of the Plaintiff." The CDefendant provided no evidence supporting this allegation.
4. In Fact 5 of the original complaint, the CDefendant alleges: "Due to the Defendant's statements the Plaintiff suffered reputational and financial damages." The CDefendant provided no evidence of any reputational harm or financial damages.
5. The CDefendant claims the Department of Commerce "found no wrongdoing" but has provided no evidence of any such finding.
6. Under Anthony_org v. Culls [2025] DCR 67, defamation requires proof of three elements: (1) publication, (2) falsity, and (3) reputational harm. The CDefendant has only shown publication.
7. Under xEndeavour v. AlexanderLove [2025] DCR 1, a defamation case was dismissed sua sponte for failure to provide evidence of damages, with the Court holding that plaintiffs "still need to provide evidence that at least some damages occurred."
8. Under RealImza v. Plura72 [2025] DCR 74, punitive damages in defamation cases require establishing foundational damages first, and the Court held that "For something to be outrageous, the Court must accept that the underlying action is to be so obvious that a reasonable person can view the harm and immediately accept the controversy as a harm; That does not exist in a defamation case."
9. The CDefendant's case violates all three of these precedents by seeking substantial damages without providing any evidence of harm.
10. Frivolous Court Case is defined as "lodges a legal case that has no serious purpose or value" (Criminal Code Act, Part III, Section 4).
11. According to the Legal Damages Act, Section 5(1)(a), Punitive damages can be awarded "as a counter claim if a party believes the case to be frivolous and outrageous."

​

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF​

1. FILING WITHOUT EVIDENCE OF ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS​

The CDefendant launched a frivolous lawsuit by filing a defamation claim without providing evidence of falsity or reputational harm - two of the three required elements under established precedent. A case that fails to meet basic evidentiary standards has no serious purpose or value and constitutes a frivolous court case.

2. UNSUPPORTED FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS​

The CDefendant made specific factual allegations in Facts 4 and 5 of the complaint, but provided no supporting evidence. Making specific allegations of fact in a court filing without any supporting evidence constitutes filing a frivolous lawsuit.

3. ATTEMPTING TO SILENCE LEGITIMATE DISCOURSE​

The CDefendant has filed this lawsuit to silence legitimate public discourse about serious allegations of accounting fraud made by the CDefendant's former Chief Financial Officer. Filing a defamation suit to suppress discussion of credible allegations from knowledgeable insiders constitutes outrageous conduct.

​

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF​

The CPlaintiff seeks the following from the CDefendant:

1. $25,000 in Punitive Damages for filing a defamation lawsuit without evidence of falsity or reputational harm, in violation of established precedent requiring proof of all three elements of defamation.

2. $25,000 in Punitive Damages for making two separate unsupported factual allegations (Facts 4 and 5) without providing any evidence, constituting frivolous pleading.

3. $25,000 in Punitive Damages for outrageous conduct in attempting to silence legitimate public discourse about credible allegations made public in October 2025.

4. Alternatively, $7,500 in Nominal Damages if the Court finds punitive damages are not warranted, pursuant to the Legal Damages Act, Section 6.

5. 30% legal fees pursuant to the Legal Damages Act, Section 9.


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 24th day of January, 2026.

Spoiler: Proof of Representation

View attachment 73184

The Counterclaims are recognized, and we will now be entering discovery. Discovery will last 72 hours from this message.

Motion

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

I am requesting that the court allows me make amends to include a witness list that includes witnesses not included by the defense. I take full responsibility for this mistake on my part as I am inexperienced.

Granted. Please inform this court when an amendment has been made.

Objection is moot and can be disregarded.

acknowledged.

 

[Jimmyboy2009915]

The amendments have been made.

 

[ToadKing]

Pursuant to Rule 4.7 (Request for Discovery, Opposing Party Movement), the Defendant requests the Plaintiff to produce the following materials relevant to the case:

1. All communications between the Plaintiff and the Department of Commerce regarding any investigation into the allegations contained in the document "Allegations against RTG and Maxib02".

2. Any official statement, report, or determination issued by the Department of Commerce regarding the allegations against the Plaintiff or RTG, including any finding of "no wrongdoing" as alleged in Fact 3 of the Complaint.


Pursuant to Rule 4.8 (Interrogatories), the Defendant submits the following interrogatories which the Plaintiff must answer truthfully and to the best of their ability:

1. When did the Department of Commerce conduct its investigation into the allegations against you, who conducted the investigation, and in what form was the finding of "no wrongdoing" communicated to you?

 

[Jimmyboy2009915]

The Plaintiff’s legal council requests 24 more hours of discovery time due to the Plaintiff being unable to provide answers to questions raised by the defense for 24-48 hours due to real life circumstances.

 

[dearev]

The Plaintiff’s legal council requests 24 more hours of discovery time due to the Plaintiff being unable to provide answers to questions raised by the defense for 24-48 hours due to real life circumstances.

granted

 

[Jimmyboy2009915]

Brief

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
SUBMISSION OF DISCOVERY MATERIALS

1. The official communication can not be revealed by the Plaintiff due to privacy restrictions of Executive Order 40/25 and the Privacy Act

2. The Plaintiff was not provided, nor aware of any official statement issued by the Department of Commerce finding wrongdoing by the Plaintiff or RTG. A limited investigation was started that related to claims provided by a former Chief Financial Officer. That investigation was closed without any notice to the Plaintiff. No final determination of criminality was ever communicated to the Plaintiff.

Interrogatories

1. The Department of Commerce started an investigation on October 31, 2025. The Plaintiff is unaware of the date in which the investigation ended, though had good reason to be under the impression it had, as he was informed within the National Exchange of Redmont that RTG shares would be frozen until an investigation had been concluded. The shares were unfrozen, thus communicating to the Plaintiff that the investigation had ended. The investigation did not result in any charges or convictions against the Plaintiff. The statement of “wrongdoing” in the initial filing was a result of an error by the legal council, for which the legal council accepts responsibility. The intended and accurate statement is that no charges or convictions were ever brought against the Plaintiff. While the Department of Commerce reviewed certain issues, no findings of “accounting fraud” or "extensive accounting fraud" were made against the Plaintiff.

 

[ToadKing]

Motion

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

Your Honour,

The Defendant moves this Court to compel the Plaintiff to produce all communications from the Department of Commerce regarding any investigation into the allegations against the Plaintiff, as requested in Document Requests 1 and 2.

Both EO-40/25 and the Privacy Act explicitly authorise disclosure when required by court order:
EO-40/25, Section (2)(a):

This clause is notwithstanding a court order, Congressional subpoena, or other lawful requirement.

Privacy Act, Section 9(2)(b):

The disclosure is required or permitted by law or court order

The privacy protections cited by the Plaintiff do not apply when a court orders production of documents.

The Plaintiff specifically alleged in Fact 3 of the Complaint that "The Department of Commerce found no wrongdoing by the Plaintiff in their own investigation on the allegations." This puts the DOC investigation squarely at issue. By citing the DOC investigation, the Plaintiff has waived any privacy protections regarding that investigation.

II. FACTS
3. The Department of Commerce found no wrongdoing by the Plaintiff in their own investigation on the allegations.

Objection

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

Your Honour,

In Fact 3 of the Complaint, the Plaintiff made an affirmative factual claim that the DOC conducted an investigation and reached a conclusion exonerating the Plaintiff. However, in response to Interrogatory 1, the Plaintiff admitted:

The statement of “wrongdoing” in the initial filing was a result of an error by the legal council, for which the legal council accepts responsibility. The intended and accurate statement is that no charges or convictions were ever brought against the Plaintiff. While the Department of Commerce reviewed certain issues, no findings of “accounting fraud” or "extensive accounting fraud" were made against the Plaintiff.

These two statements are in direct contradiction. The original statement claims the DOC "found no wrongdoing" - a positive finding of innocence. The interrogatory response admits the DOC made no findings at all - neither positive nor negative. The Plaintiff has essentially admitted that Fact 3 was false.

The Plaintiff's attempt to shield this falsehood by blaming "an error by the legal counsel" is not a legitimate defence to perjury. Under the Criminal Code Act, perjury is defined as "knowingly provides false testimony in a court of law." The Plaintiff signed this Complaint, swearing: "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." This was not an immaterial misstatement. Fact 3 constitutes one-fifth of the Plaintiff's entire factual basis for this lawsuit, out of a total of 5 facts. The false claim that the DOC exonerated the Plaintiff was material to establishing that the Defendant's statements were false and defamatory. The Plaintiff has now admitted that this critical fact was fabricated.

The Defendant respectfully requests this Court:

1. Strike Fact 3 from the Plaintiff's Complaint as a false statement; and
2. Refer this matter to the DOJ.

 

[dearev]

Motion

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

Your Honour,

The Defendant moves this Court to compel the Plaintiff to produce all communications from the Department of Commerce regarding any investigation into the allegations against the Plaintiff, as requested in Document Requests 1 and 2.

Both EO-40/25 and the Privacy Act explicitly authorise disclosure when required by court order:
EO-40/25, Section (2)(a):

Privacy Act, Section 9(2)(b):

The privacy protections cited by the Plaintiff do not apply when a court orders production of documents.

The Plaintiff specifically alleged in Fact 3 of the Complaint that "The Department of Commerce found no wrongdoing by the Plaintiff in their own investigation on the allegations." This puts the DOC investigation squarely at issue. By citing the DOC investigation, the Plaintiff has waived any privacy protections regarding that investigation.

Objection

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

Your Honour,

In Fact 3 of the Complaint, the Plaintiff made an affirmative factual claim that the DOC conducted an investigation and reached a conclusion exonerating the Plaintiff. However, in response to Interrogatory 1, the Plaintiff admitted:

These two statements are in direct contradiction. The original statement claims the DOC "found no wrongdoing" - a positive finding of innocence. The interrogatory response admits the DOC made no findings at all - neither positive nor negative. The Plaintiff has essentially admitted that Fact 3 was false.

The Plaintiff's attempt to shield this falsehood by blaming "an error by the legal counsel" is not a legitimate defence to perjury. Under the Criminal Code Act, perjury is defined as "knowingly provides false testimony in a court of law." The Plaintiff signed this Complaint, swearing: "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." This was not an immaterial misstatement. Fact 3 constitutes one-fifth of the Plaintiff's entire factual basis for this lawsuit, out of a total of 5 facts. The false claim that the DOC exonerated the Plaintiff was material to establishing that the Defendant's statements were false and defamatory. The Plaintiff has now admitted that this critical fact was fabricated.

The Defendant respectfully requests this Court:

1. Strike Fact 3 from the Plaintiff's Complaint as a false statement; and
2. Refer this matter to the DOJ.

defendant may respond within 24 hours.