Lawsuit: In Session PlayerData vs NorthernCrypiot [2026] FCR 69

[Geomanandme]

Case Filing​

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


PlayerData
Plaintiff

v.

NorthernCrypiot, aka Earthquake (Geogeek)
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

Earthquake in the petition about the bank tax started accusing Poy Bank of committing fraud and scamming. He stated I banned him from my bank because he wouldn’t buy my property which is a blatant lie. He then went and posted in the advertising channel stating that Poy bank are fraudulent and joined the bank discord stating the same thing. Concerning depositors and causing a potential lost loan deal.

I. PARTIES
1. PlayerData
2. NorthernCrypiot

II. FACTS
1. The Defendant repeatedly defamed the Plantiff in public discord servers, making false claims about the Plantiffs business practices. [Exhibits P-001, P-006]
2. While the plantiff admits to denying the defendant of a loan, this is not illegal and is not grounds for the defamation commited.
3. The repeated statements by the defendant have caused a loss of buisness and potential profits for the plantiff. [Exhibit P-005]


III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The Redmont Civil Code includes definitions of Defamation, Libel, and Slander. The defendant violated all three of these as shown in the evidence attached below.
2.. The plantiff seeks a minimum in $200,000 across all three categories in exchange for the amount of buisness lost because of the defendants harmful and false comments.
3. The plantiff seeks coverage of the attorney fee of 25,000.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. Punitive Damages under all three charges of Defamation, Libel, and Slander.

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 3rd day of August, 2026
Witness List:
.Mailiwoail
SUPREME SA
Hoogvlieger007
Domss_
Hat Man
rae rawr
SplashyAlpaca77

 

[ko531]

Writ of Summons

@NorthernCypriot is hereby commanded to draw hither to the Federal Court for the case PlayerDate v. NorthrnCypriot [2026] FCR 69

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.

 

[Geomanandme]

Motion​

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO PROCEED INTO AN INQUEST

The Plaintiff moves that the court proceeds into an inquest (according to Rule 3.6.1) for the following reason:
1. Where a Defendant in a civil matter fails to file a reply or does not file a responsive pleading, the action shall proceed to an inquest (Rule 3.6.2) either on motion or sua sponte by the Court.

 

[ko531]

Motion​

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO PROCEED INTO AN INQUEST

The Plaintiff moves that the court proceeds into an inquest (according to Rule 3.6.1) for the following reason:
1. Where a Defendant in a civil matter fails to file a reply or does not file a responsive pleading, the action shall proceed to an inquest (Rule 3.6.2) either on motion or sua sponte by the Court.

Motion to Proceed into an Inquest denied.

A Public defender will be appointed for the defendant. The case is in recess until this time.

 

[DaanBanaan5673]

Your Honour,

I respectfully apologize to the Court on behalf of my client. The Defendant was under the impression that this matter had been dismissed and therefore did not arrange legal representation.

To my knowledge, the Public Defenders Office is currently understaffed, and no Public Defender has been assigned to this case as of now. I have obtained authorization from Defendant NortherCrypiot in this matter and respectfully request that the Court permit me to appear as counsel on the Defendant’s behalf.

Allowing me to represent the Defendant would avoid placing additional pressure on the Public Defence Office and would save the Commonwealth the cost of assigning a Public Defender where private counsel is already willing and able to undertake the representation.

Should the Court permit my appearance, I would further request a brief extension of 24 hours to familiarize myself with this case before filing the Answer to the Complaint.

I thank the Court for its consideration.

Spoiler: Proof of Representation

 

[Geomanandme]

Your Honour,

The Plantiff pleads the court to deny the request for an additional 24 hour extention. 8 days have now passed since the defandant was summoned, 5 over the legal limit. Therefore, the plantiff believes that this extention is uncalled for and undeserved.

The plantiff has suffered enough harm as is, and the unessesary prolongment of the case by the defense is adding emotional strain to my client, and furthering their buisnesses losses because of the fact that these false acts of defamation are still circulating. A 24 hour extention is uncalled for, and undeserved and the Plantiff pleads the court to deny.

I thank the court for its time and consideration.

 

[ko531]

Your Honour,

I respectfully apologize to the Court on behalf of my client. The Defendant was under the impression that this matter had been dismissed and therefore did not arrange legal representation.

To my knowledge, the Public Defenders Office is currently understaffed, and no Public Defender has been assigned to this case as of now. I have obtained authorization from Defendant NortherCrypiot in this matter and respectfully request that the Court permit me to appear as counsel on the Defendant’s behalf.

Allowing me to represent the Defendant would avoid placing additional pressure on the Public Defence Office and would save the Commonwealth the cost of assigning a Public Defender where private counsel is already willing and able to undertake the representation.

Should the Court permit my appearance, I would further request a brief extension of 24 hours to familiarize myself with this case before filing the Answer to the Complaint.

I thank the Court for its consideration.

Spoiler: Proof of Representation

View attachment 95580

24 Hour extension is granted. You have 24 hours from my message to provide an answer to the complaint. Otherwise, this case will go to default judgment.

 

[DaanBanaan5673]

Answer to Complaint

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

PlayerData
Plaintiff

v.

NorthernCrypiot
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. The Defendant DENIES the Defendant defamed the Plaintiff and made false claims about their business practices, NOTING that the Plaintiff has not proven any elements of defamation nor falsity of any alleged statements.
2. The Defendant DENIES that denial of a loan is not grounds for the defamation “committed”, NOTING that the Plaintiff has not proven any elements of defamation.
3. The Defendant NEITHER AFFIRMS NOR DENIES the Defendant’s alleged statements resulted in loss of business and potential profits for the Plaintiff, NOTING that the Plaintiff has not proven that the alleged statements resulted in loss of business and potential profits and that the Plaintiff carries the burden of proof.

II. DEFENCES
1. In the first claim made by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff alleges the Defendant committed Defamation. However, the Plaintiff has not established any elements of Defamation as defined in the Redmont Civil Code Act.
2. In the first claim made by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff alleges the Defendant committed Slander. However, the Plaintiff has not established any elements of Slander as defined in the Redmont Civil Code Act.
3. In the first claim made by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff alleges the Defendant committed Libel. However, the Plaintiff has not established any elements of Libel as defined in the Redmont Civil Code Act.
4. In the second claim made by the Plaintiff, it is alleged the Defendant made “harmful and false” comments. However, the Plaintiff has not proven any statements to be harmful nor false and if so, to what extent.
5. In the second claim made by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff requests compensation for the “amount of business lost”, which implies the Plaintiff wants compensatory damages. The Redmont Civil Code Act requires evidence of pecuniary losses to grant compensatory damages. The Plaintiff has not proven any pecuniary loss arising from the alleged statements.
6. All evidence submitted by the Plaintiff are Discord messages. According to the Redmont Civil Code Act, Libel is committed if a person:
a. commits Defamation; and
b. the defamatory statement is expressed by documents, signs, published media, or any communication method embodied in physical form; and
c. the statement is injurious to a person’s reputation, exposes a person to public hatred, contempt or ridicule, or injures a person in their business, profession or organisation.
All evidence submitted by the Plaintiff consists of Discord messages. The Redmont Civil Code Act expressly identifies defamatory Discord messages as an example of Slander. Therefore, even if the alleged statements are found to be defamatory, the applicable classification is Slander, not Libel. Libel is not applicable to the alleged statements and the Plaintiff has not demonstrated why it would be.
7. The Defendant, without admitting to any wrongdoing or liability, is of the opinion that the only relevant messages that are alleged to be defamatory (P-001 and P-006) are, if classified as defamation, more likely to be interpreted as defamatory towards “Poy Bank” instead of the Plaintiff. Part I §2(3) of the Legal Entity Act states “Legal entities shall be a legal person with separate rights and liabilities, strictly distinct from their shareholders, members, and agents.” The Plaintiff seems to primarily request compensation based on the message “lol ig if poy bank is a scammer then i wont be applying for a loan” [sic] sent by SplashyAlpaca77 in what appears to be the Poy Bank Discord server (P-003). As such, the Plaintiff has not demonstrated why they, as a natural person, have suffered damages, even if the alleged statements are found to be defamatory. Poy Bank's alleged business losses are not automatically PlayerData's losses. D-001 and D-002 establish that Poy Enterprises (the entity that Poy Bank was incorporated under) is, and has been on and before the date this case was filed, a registered Corporation with the Department of Commerce.
8. The Plaintiff requests Punitive Damages for the alleged Defamation, Libel, and Slander. However, Part III §3 of the Redmont Civil Code Act states that Punitive Damages require conduct that is sufficiently outrageous to warrant such an award. The Plaintiff has not alleged or demonstrated that the Defendant's conduct meets this standard, nor has the Plaintiff provided evidence establishing conduct sufficiently outrageous to justify Punitive Damages. Accordingly, even if the Court were to find the Defendant liable for any of the alleged offenses, Punitive Damages are not warranted based on the allegations and evidence submitted.
9. Finally, the sum of $200,000.00 requested by the Plaintiff is unsupported by the evidence submitted. The Plaintiff has provided no calculation, documentation or any other evidence establishing how the alleged damages amount to $200,000.00. The Plaintiff has therefore failed to substantiate the amount of damages requested.

Spoiler: Exhibit D-001

Spoiler: Exhibit D-002

Witnesses:
None.

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 18th day of August 2026.

 

[DaanBanaan5673]

Objection

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

Rule 1.10 of the Court Rules and Procedures states: “Per filing, any cited sources (including statutes, lawsuits, the Constitution, executive orders, etc.) must be hyperlinked to the correct forum post the first time they are mentioned.” The Case Filing does not contain hyperlinks to the statutes mentioned.

The Defendant asks that the Court require the Plaintiff to amend their Case Filing so that it is compliant with the Court Rules and Procedures.

The Defendant thanks the Court for its consideration.

 

[DaanBanaan5673]

Motion

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

The Defence moves that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

Part I §2(3) of the Legal Entity Act states: “Legal entities shall be a legal person with separate rights and liabilities, strictly distinct from their shareholders, members, and agents.”

The Plaintiff’s claims appear to rely substantially upon alleged harm to “Poy Bank” and its business. However, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff does not establish that the alleged statements were directed toward the Plaintiff personally, nor does it establish that any alleged losses suffered by Poy Bank constitute losses suffered by the Plaintiff.

D-001 establishes that Poy Bank operated under the registration of Poy Enterprises and D-002 establishes that Poy Enterprises was a registered Corporation with the Department of Commerce on and before the date this case was filed by the Plaintiff. Poy Enterprises therefore constitutes a separate legal entity from its shareholders, members, and agents under the Legal Entity Act.

Accordingly, any alleged harm suffered by Poy Bank or Poy Enterprises cannot automatically be attributed to the Plaintiff as a natural person. The Plaintiff has not demonstrated a personal injury sufficient to establish standing to seek damages for alleged losses belonging to a separate legal entity.

As such, the Defendant respectfully requests the Court dismiss the Plaintiff’s case for lack of standing.

The Defendant thanks the Court for its consideration.

 

[Geomanandme]

Objection

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

Rule 1.10 of the Court Rules and Procedures states: “Per filing, any cited sources (including statutes, lawsuits, the Constitution, executive orders, etc.) must be hyperlinked to the correct forum post the first time they are mentioned.” The Case Filing does not contain hyperlinks to the statutes mentioned.

The Defendant asks that the Court require the Plaintiff to amend their Case Filing so that it is compliant with the Court Rules and Procedures.

The Defendant thanks the Court for its consideration.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
RESPONSE TO OBJECTION


The Plaintiff does not oppose the Objection and will submit an amended Case Filing with the required hyperlinks to cited statutes in compliance with Rule 1.10 within 48 hours.


The Plaintiff thanks the Court for its consideration.

 

[Geomanandme]

MOTION TO AMEND CASE FILING


The Plaintiff respectfully moves the Court for leave to amend the Case Filing in this matter, and in support thereof states as follows:


I. GROUNDS FOR AMENDMENT

1. Procedural compliance. Following the Defendant's Objection dated the 18th of August, 2026 , the Plaintiff acknowledges that the original Case Filing did not include hyperlinks to cited statutes as required by Rule 1.10 of the Court Rules and Procedures. The Plaintiff seeks leave to amend the filing to hyperlink all cited sources to their correct forum posts.
2. Clarification of damages. The Plaintiff further seeks leave to amend Section III.2 of the Case Filing to align the damages requested with the evidence submitted, rather than the originally stated minimum of $200,000. Exhibit P-005 documents a specific, quantifiable loss of a 45,000-currency loan that a third party declined to pursue as a direct result of the Defendant's statements. The Plaintiff amends the damages request accordingly to avoid any suggestion that the requested sum is unsupported by the record, consistent with the Plaintiff's Reply to the Defendant's Answer.

II. NO PREJUDICE TO THE DEFENDANT

1. The proposed amendments are limited to (a) formatting compliance and (b) narrowing, rather than expanding, the relief sought. Neither amendment introduces new claims, new parties, or new theories of liability, and neither will require the Defendant to prepare a materially different defense than the one already filed in the Answer.

III. PRAYER FOR RELIEF


The Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court:

1. Grant leave to amend the Case Filing as described above; and
2. Permit the Plaintiff 48 hours to submit the amended filing.

The Plaintiff thanks the Court for its consideration.


DATED: This 18th day of August, 2026.

 

[ko531]

Objection

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

Rule 1.10 of the Court Rules and Procedures states: “Per filing, any cited sources (including statutes, lawsuits, the Constitution, executive orders, etc.) must be hyperlinked to the correct forum post the first time they are mentioned.” The Case Filing does not contain hyperlinks to the statutes mentioned.

The Defendant asks that the Court require the Plaintiff to amend their Case Filing so that it is compliant with the Court Rules and Procedures.

The Defendant thanks the Court for its consideration.

Objection Sustained

MOTION TO AMEND CASE FILING


The Plaintiff respectfully moves the Court for leave to amend the Case Filing in this matter, and in support thereof states as follows:


I. GROUNDS FOR AMENDMENT

1. Procedural compliance. Following the Defendant's Objection dated the 18th of August, 2026 , the Plaintiff acknowledges that the original Case Filing did not include hyperlinks to cited statutes as required by Rule 1.10 of the Court Rules and Procedures. The Plaintiff seeks leave to amend the filing to hyperlink all cited sources to their correct forum posts.
2. Clarification of damages. The Plaintiff further seeks leave to amend Section III.2 of the Case Filing to align the damages requested with the evidence submitted, rather than the originally stated minimum of $200,000. Exhibit P-005 documents a specific, quantifiable loss of a 45,000-currency loan that a third party declined to pursue as a direct result of the Defendant's statements. The Plaintiff amends the damages request accordingly to avoid any suggestion that the requested sum is unsupported by the record, consistent with the Plaintiff's Reply to the Defendant's Answer.

II. NO PREJUDICE TO THE DEFENDANT

1. The proposed amendments are limited to (a) formatting compliance and (b) narrowing, rather than expanding, the relief sought. Neither amendment introduces new claims, new parties, or new theories of liability, and neither will require the Defendant to prepare a materially different defense than the one already filed in the Answer.

III. PRAYER FOR RELIEF


The Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court:

1. Grant leave to amend the Case Filing as described above; and
2. Permit the Plaintiff 48 hours to submit the amended filing.

The Plaintiff thanks the Court for its consideration.


DATED: This 18th day of August, 2026.

Motion to Amend Complaint Granted

 

[DaanBanaan5673]

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - Objection to Witnesses

Your Honour,

In Ameslap v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 126, the Court excluded witnesses on the basis of their lack of relevance to the case. The Honourable Justice Muggy21 stated the following: “the Court has a constitutional duty to exercise judicial power prudently, and not needlessly involve the citizenry to its qualms” [sic].

The Defendant objects to the witnesses below on the basis that the Plaintiff has not demonstrated that these witnesses possess relevant personal knowledge concerning the allegations or damages at issue. The statements below demonstrate the limited or nonexistent relevance the witnesses have to this case.

1. .Mailiwoail (The only statements made by this witness can be found in P-002, P-004, P-008, P-009. The statements are: “Do we know if they broke laws?” [sic], “I doubt that they would apologize, especially since it can be interpreted as an admission of guilt. Plus, we still have seen no proof” [sic], “That just sounds like you always get in trouble” [sic], “Ppl are saying they broke a bunch of laws or smth” [sic] and “Although they don’t have proof as far as I can tell” [sic])
2. SUPREME SA (The only statements made by this witness can be found in P-007. The statements are: “Bruh” [sic], “I think you may need a lawyer” [sic] and “Good for you DDDD” [sic])
3. Hoogvlieger007 (The only statement made by this witness can be found in P-007. The statement is: “dw, i’m sure he will sue you already” [sic])
4. Domss_ (This witness does not appear to have made any statements in the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff.)
5. HatManMC also known as Hat Man (P-001 only identifies this individual by username. No substantive statement from this witness is visible in the submitted evidence.)
6. rae rawr (The only statement made by this witness can be found in P-001 “. The statements are: “sort of already does” [sic] and “im pretty sure that the government taxes profits made from loans” [sic]. These statements were made as part of a separate conversation that happened to take place in the same channel at the same time as the alleged conduct at issue.)

As such, the Defence requests the Plaintiff to remove these witnesses from their witness list.

The Defence thanks the Court for their consideration.

 

[DaanBanaan5673]

Your Honour,

Please disregard the smiley rendered in the quotation in paragraph 2. The original statement contained a text-based smiley face with a colon followed by a closing parentheses, which the forum website automatically converted into an emoji.

The quotation is otherwise unchanged.

The Defence thanks the Court for its understanding.

 

[Geomanandme]

Motion

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

The Defence moves that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

Part I §2(3) of the Legal Entity Act states: “Legal entities shall be a legal person with separate rights and liabilities, strictly distinct from their shareholders, members, and agents.”

The Plaintiff’s claims appear to rely substantially upon alleged harm to “Poy Bank” and its business. However, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff does not establish that the alleged statements were directed toward the Plaintiff personally, nor does it establish that any alleged losses suffered by Poy Bank constitute losses suffered by the Plaintiff.

D-001 establishes that Poy Bank operated under the registration of Poy Enterprises and D-002 establishes that Poy Enterprises was a registered Corporation with the Department of Commerce on and before the date this case was filed by the Plaintiff. Poy Enterprises therefore constitutes a separate legal entity from its shareholders, members, and agents under the Legal Entity Act.

Accordingly, any alleged harm suffered by Poy Bank or Poy Enterprises cannot automatically be attributed to the Plaintiff as a natural person. The Plaintiff has not demonstrated a personal injury sufficient to establish standing to seek damages for alleged losses belonging to a separate legal entity.

As such, the Defendant respectfully requests the Court dismiss the Plaintiff’s case for lack of standing.

The Defendant thanks the Court for its consideration.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS

The Plaintiff respectfully submits an opposition to the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss.

The statements were addressed personally to the plaintiff.

The Defendant's Motion is entirely based on the assumption that the alleged statements were intended for "Poy Bank" as a company, rather than for the Plaintiff as an individual. However, this assumption is factually wrong and goes against the evidence given by the Plaintiff.

The statement in Exhibit P-001 is one made by the Defendant and addresses the Plaintiff directly by username, stating that "@Player Data hes corrupt and kicks people out of the bank for not buying his properties." The statement does not mention Poy Bank or Poy Enterprises as organisations; rather, it accuses the Plaintiff personally of corrupt behaviour and of misusing his position. This therefore constitutes a direct personal attack on the Plaintiff's character and integrity, not a comment on the business practices of a corporation.

In support of its motion, the Defendant merely refers to the message from SplashyAlpaca77 in Exhibit P-003 ("if poy bank is a scammer...") in order to claim that the case is all about corporate harm; it completely omits Exhibit P-001, which is the statement that directly names and accuses the Plaintiff.Since one of the defamatory statements in question refers to the Plaintiff personally and charges him individually with corrupt conduct, he has the right to bring this claim as a natural person, without needing any separate legal standing that Poy Enterprises might have as a corporate body. The Legal Entity Act does not protect an individual from personal liability or deprive that individual of standing merely because he also runs a registered business—nor does it mean that every defamatory statement made by a defendant must be regarded as being aimed solely at the corporation when a business is mentioned in the same conversation.

The fact that the Plaintiff's Complaint and Reply is based not only on damage to Poy Bank's business reputation but also on the Defendant's frequent public allegations that the Plaintiff is "corrupt", a "scammer", and dishonest, which have been made in various Discord channels (Exhibits P-001, P-003, and P-006), shows that this is so.

CONCLUSION

The Motion to Dismiss presented by the Defendant is a misrepresentation of the record; it is clear from Exhibit P-001 alone that the Plaintiff, as an individual, was specifically named and accused, thus refuting the standing objection advanced. The Plaintiff therefore respectfully asks that the Court reject the Motion to Dismiss and permit the case to go forward to trial.

The Plaintiff is grateful for the Court's consideration.

 

[ko531]

Motion

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

The Defence moves that the complaint in this case be dismissed, and in support thereof, respectfully alleges:

Part I §2(3) of the Legal Entity Act states: “Legal entities shall be a legal person with separate rights and liabilities, strictly distinct from their shareholders, members, and agents.”

The Plaintiff’s claims appear to rely substantially upon alleged harm to “Poy Bank” and its business. However, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff does not establish that the alleged statements were directed toward the Plaintiff personally, nor does it establish that any alleged losses suffered by Poy Bank constitute losses suffered by the Plaintiff.

D-001 establishes that Poy Bank operated under the registration of Poy Enterprises and D-002 establishes that Poy Enterprises was a registered Corporation with the Department of Commerce on and before the date this case was filed by the Plaintiff. Poy Enterprises therefore constitutes a separate legal entity from its shareholders, members, and agents under the Legal Entity Act.

Accordingly, any alleged harm suffered by Poy Bank or Poy Enterprises cannot automatically be attributed to the Plaintiff as a natural person. The Plaintiff has not demonstrated a personal injury sufficient to establish standing to seek damages for alleged losses belonging to a separate legal entity.

As such, the Defendant respectfully requests the Court dismiss the Plaintiff’s case for lack of standing.

The Defendant thanks the Court for its consideration.

Motion to dismiss denied for failure to specify a discovery rule in line with Court Rule 5.1

Objection

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - Objection to Witnesses

Your Honour,

In Ameslap v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 126, the Court excluded witnesses on the basis of their lack of relevance to the case. The Honourable Justice Muggy21 stated the following: “the Court has a constitutional duty to exercise judicial power prudently, and not needlessly involve the citizenry to its qualms” [sic].

The Defendant objects to the witnesses below on the basis that the Plaintiff has not demonstrated that these witnesses possess relevant personal knowledge concerning the allegations or damages at issue. The statements below demonstrate the limited or nonexistent relevance the witnesses have to this case.

1. .Mailiwoail (The only statements made by this witness can be found in P-002, P-004, P-008, P-009. The statements are: “Do we know if they broke laws?” [sic], “I doubt that they would apologize, especially since it can be interpreted as an admission of guilt. Plus, we still have seen no proof” [sic], “That just sounds like you always get in trouble” [sic], “Ppl are saying they broke a bunch of laws or smth” [sic] and “Although they don’t have proof as far as I can tell” [sic])
2. SUPREME SA (The only statements made by this witness can be found in P-007. The statements are: “Bruh” [sic], “I think you may need a lawyer” [sic] and “Good for you DDDD” [sic])
3. Hoogvlieger007 (The only statement made by this witness can be found in P-007. The statement is: “dw, i’m sure he will sue you already” [sic])
4. Domss_ (This witness does not appear to have made any statements in the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff.)
5. HatManMC also known as Hat Man (P-001 only identifies this individual by username. No substantive statement from this witness is visible in the submitted evidence.)
6. rae rawr (The only statement made by this witness can be found in P-001 “. The statements are: “sort of already does” [sic] and “im pretty sure that the government taxes profits made from loans” [sic]. These statements were made as part of a separate conversation that happened to take place in the same channel at the same time as the alleged conduct at issue.)

As such, the Defence requests the Plaintiff to remove these witnesses from their witness list.

The Defence thanks the Court for their consideration.

Objection Sustained.

The Plaintiff is required to provide a shorter witness list with a description as to the relevance of each witness. Please do so in the next 24 hours.

 

[Geomanandme]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT


AMENDED WITNESS LIST


Your Honour,


Pursuant to the Court's ruling sustaining the Defence's objection to witnesses, the Plaintiff hereby submits an amended witness list.


Amended Witness List:

1. SplashyAlpaca77

The Plaintiff respectfully notes that SplashyAlpaca77 was not among the witnesses objected to by the Defence, and possesses direct personal knowledge relevant to the damages at issue in this case. As shown in the evidence submitted (P-003, P-005), SplashyAlpaca77 stated a specific intention to take out a $45,000 loan, and directly attributed their decision not to proceed with that loan, and to take their business elsewhere, to the conduct alleged against the Defendant. This is firsthand testimony going directly to the reputational and financial harm claimed by the Plaintiff, distinguishing this witness from those excluded by the Court.





The Plaintiff would also like to ask your honor for clarification on whether all witnesses that the defense objected to are off limits for the remainder of the case, or whether the plaintiff simply must submit reasoning behind the inclusion of the witnesses it wishes to keep.


The Plaintiff sincerely apologizes for the delayed response, and thanks the Court for their consideration

 

[ko531]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT


AMENDED WITNESS LIST


Your Honour,


Pursuant to the Court's ruling sustaining the Defence's objection to witnesses, the Plaintiff hereby submits an amended witness list.


Amended Witness List:

1. SplashyAlpaca77

The Plaintiff respectfully notes that SplashyAlpaca77 was not among the witnesses objected to by the Defence, and possesses direct personal knowledge relevant to the damages at issue in this case. As shown in the evidence submitted (P-003, P-005), SplashyAlpaca77 stated a specific intention to take out a $45,000 loan, and directly attributed their decision not to proceed with that loan, and to take their business elsewhere, to the conduct alleged against the Defendant. This is firsthand testimony going directly to the reputational and financial harm claimed by the Plaintiff, distinguishing this witness from those excluded by the Court.





The Plaintiff would also like to ask your honor for clarification on whether all witnesses that the defense objected to are off limits for the remainder of the case, or whether the plaintiff simply must submit reasoning behind the inclusion of the witnesses it wishes to keep.


The Plaintiff sincerely apologizes for the delayed response, and thanks the Court for their consideration

To answer your question, the court is just seeking you to provide reasoning as to the witness's relevance so it is easier for the court to address each witness if objected to. 7 Witnesses is a lot for any case.

 

[Geomanandme]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

SECOND AMENDED WITNESS LIST

Your Honour,

Pursuant to Rule 4.9 (Witness Protocol) of the Court Rules and Procedures, and in response to the Court's directive that the Plaintiff provide a shorter witness list together with a statement of relevance for each witness retained, the Plaintiff submits this Second Amended Witness List.

Consistent with the Court's observation that seven witnesses is excessive for a case of this scope, and mindful of the Relevance standard under which the Defence's prior Objection was sustained, the Plaintiff withdraws five of the previously-listed witnesses (Part II, below) and retains only the two set out below, each of whom has direct personal knowledge going to a distinct, disputed element of the Plaintiff's claim.

I. WITNESSES RETAINED

1. SplashyAlpaca77

As previously noted in the Plaintiff's Amended Witness List and unopposed by the Defence, SplashyAlpaca77 has direct personal knowledge of the pecuniary loss underlying the Plaintiff's damages claim. Exhibits P-003 and P-005 show SplashyAlpaca77 stating an intention to take out a 45,000-currency loan from Poy Bank, and then, in direct response to the Defendant's public statements, declining to do so and taking their business elsewhere. Under the Redmont Civil Code Act, Part III §2(2)(a), compensatory damages cannot be awarded at all without proof of pecuniary loss. SplashyAlpaca77 is the only witness who can supply that proof firsthand.

2. .Mailliwoail

The Defence's Objection characterized .Mailliwoail's statements as commentary that does not reflect personal knowledge of "the allegations or damages at issue." The Plaintiff respectfully submits that this framing addresses only one possible basis for relevance. .Mailliwoail has separate, independent personal knowledge going directly to two elements that Defamation, as defined in Part V §1 of the Redmont Civil Code Act, requires as a threshold matter for both the Libel and Slander counts:

(a) Publication. Section 1(b) requires that the statement be communicated to a third party, not solely to the Plaintiff. .Mailliwoail's contemporaneous statement that "Ppl are saying they broke a bunch of laws or smth" (Exhibit P-009) is firsthand testimony, from someone present in the channel as it happened, that the Defendant's accusations were already circulating among third parties rather than remaining a private exchange between the Plaintiff and Defendant.

(b) Falsity. Section 1(a) requires the underlying statement to be false. .Mailliwoail's contemporaneous statement that no one had yet produced proof to support the accusations (Exhibit P-004) is firsthand testimony of a third party's real-time assessment that the accusations then circulating lacked any evidentiary basis.

Both statements describe what .Mailliwoail personally witnessed and personally said in the channel, not speculation about matters outside their knowledge, and the Plaintiff submits this clears the relevance threshold the Court has set.

II. WITNESSES WITHDRAWN

Without prejudice to the underlying facts already in the evidentiary record, and to narrow this case as the Court has requested, the Plaintiff withdraws the following witnesses and will not call them:

• SUPREME SA
• Hoogvlieger007
• Domss_
• Hat Man
• rae rawr

III. CONCLUSION

The Plaintiff respectfully submits a Second Amended Witness List of two witnesses, SplashyAlpaca77 and .Mailliwoail, each offering testimony directed at a distinct and disputed element of the Plaintiff's claim.

The Plaintiff thanks the Court for its consideration.

 

[ko531]

We will now be entering discovery. Discovery will last 5 days until Aug 31 at 10 pm EST.

 

[Talion77]

Due to the Hon. Judge ko531's resignation, I will be taking over this case. Discovery concluded as of 2 September 2026 at 2:09 AM. Plaintiff (@Geomanandme) is ordered to file their opening statement within 48 hours of this post. Both parties shall additionally notify me of any items currently awaiting a ruling.

 

[Geomanandme]

Opening Statement​

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT​

OPENING STATEMENT​

I. Introduction​

The case concerns the events that took place after the Plaintiff took one normal business decision — that is, refusing to extend a loan to the Defendant via Poy Bank. It will be shown that the Defendant did not accept this decision and instead acted on it. During a single afternoon he communicated to a public petition channel, an advertising channel designed for wide server coverage, and also to Poy Bank's own Discord server the claim that the Plaintiff is personally corrupt and that Poy Bank steals from its customers, even though he had no evidence to support this, and kept making these statements after his own witnesses, in real time, had told him that in fact no such evidence existed. The evidence will demonstrate that these statements were false, that they were disseminated precisely as intended, and that they resulted in the Plaintiff losing a particular, named customer and a particular, quantifiable loan.

II. The Facts​

In Exhibit P-001 the Defendant sent a message to a public channel stating: "yeah nobody trust @Player Data because he's corrupt and expels people from the bank if they don't buy his properties - he kicked me out for exposing him" [sic], and then immediately added "nobody use poybank". The statement does not constitute a criticism of Poy Bank as a business in general; it refers to the Plaintiff by username and accuses him personally of being corrupt.

The Defendant then took the same complaint to the server's advertising channel— a channel designed for maximum visibility — by posting in Exhibit P-006: "POYBANK IS CORRUPT - NOBODY USE IT - THEY STEAL YOUR MONEY". He even went a step further by joining Poy Bank's own Discord server in order to make the accusation directly to its members and potential customers, as shown in Exhibit P-005.

The plaintiff will say that all of this is false; he did not have the Defendant removed from the bank because she had refused to buy property, and even if that point is ignored, being removed from Poy Bank merely means that a member's own funds are returned — it is not, as the defendant described, a theft.

The witness, .Mailliwoail, was there in the channels as the events were happening and can verify two points which the Plaintiff is required to prove. The first of these is publication: as can be seen in Exhibit P-009, .Mailliwoail saw in real time that "[ppl are saying they broke a bunch of laws or smth]" [sic] — this constitutes a contemporaneous statement by a third party that the allegations were already being circulated and were not limited to a private disagreement between two individuals. The second point is regarding the falsity of the accusations: in Exhibit P-004, .Mailliwoail remarked "[a]lthough they don't have proof as far as I can tell" [sic]. This is a disinterested witness who was observing the situation as it unfolded and who clearly stated that the allegations lacked any evidential basis. The record will also show that when the Defendant was asked how he could be so certain, his own response was that the Plaintiff was simply "guilty" — with no evidence being given at that time or since.

The witness SplashyAlpaca77 will now give evidence about the actual cost of this campaign. As can be seen in Exhibits P-003 and P-005, SplashyAlpaca77 initially stated clearly that he intended to obtain a loan of 45,000 currencies from Poy Bank, but after having read the Defendant's allegations he wrote: "bro poy i was finna take out a 45k loan, but ig im just gunna take my business somewhere else" [sic]. This is not an example of abstract reputational damage; it is the case of one particular customer, one specific loan, and a direct statement linking the Defendant's remarks to the Plaintiff's loss.

III. The Law​

According to Part V §1 of the Redmont Civil Code Act, defamation consists of a false statement, as stated in §1(a), which is communicated to a third party, as stated in §1(b). The evidence satisfies both of these requirements: with regard to falsity, it is established by the Plaintiff's own account and by .Mailliwoail's immediate observation that there was no proof to support the claims; and concerning publication, it is shown by .Mailliwoail's testimony that the allegations were already being circulated, as well as by the Defendant's own decision to post them in three different channels rather than bringing up the matter privately or through this Court. Since the conduct in question consisted of messages sent on Discord, the evidence justifies classifying it as slander under the Act and defamation as the Plaintiff's main claim.

This was not a single comment made out of frustration. The Defendant made the same accusation through three different channels, kept making it even after having been informed that there was no proof, and was still saying to other people days later that the Plaintiff was 'lying'. Section III §3 of the Act provides for punitive damages where the conduct in question is sufficiently outrageous. A persistent, repeated, and widespread campaign of public accusations without proof, which continued despite acknowledgement of the lack of evidence, satisfies that standard.

With regard to damages, Section 2(2)(a) of Part III of the Act provides that proof of pecuniary loss is a prerequisite to the award of compensatory damages. The testimony given by SplashyAlpaca77 exactly fulfills this requirement by referring to a particular loan of 45,000 democracy craft dollars which was lost for a specific and clearly stated reason.

IV. Conclusion​

At the end of the evidence the Plaintiff will ask this Court to say the Defendant is responsible to award the Plaintiff compensation in order to cover the losses shown in Exhibit P-005 because of the Defendants repeated poor actions, and the effects that they had on the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff says thank you to the Court for their time.

 

[Talion77]

Defendant shall file their opening statement within 48 hours of this post (@DaanBanaan5673).

 

[DaanBanaan5673]

Due to IRL circumstances I have not been able to attend to this case or any DC-related activities for that matter. With two minutes to spare, I cannot possibly file a statement in time. As such I request that the Court grant me a 24 hour extension.

Yours sincerely,
DaanBanaan5673
Counsel for the Defendant.

 

[Talion77]

Due to IRL circumstances I have not been able to attend to this case or any DC-related activities for that matter. With two minutes to spare, I cannot possibly file a statement in time. As such I request that the Court grant me a 24 hour extension.

Yours sincerely,
DaanBanaan5673
Counsel for the Defendant.

Granted.

 

[DaanBanaan5673]

Your honour, I apologise, but unfortunately the timeframe given to file ended at 5 PM and I was relying on the fact I would be able to file it within the last hour or so after I would get home. However, since I only just got home I will unfortunately need another 12 hours to file.

 

[Talion77]

Your honour, I apologise, but unfortunately the timeframe given to file ended at 5 PM and I was relying on the fact I would be able to file it within the last hour or so after I would get home. However, since I only just got home I will unfortunately need another 12 hours to file.

Granted post-hoc. Please be more timely and request extensions prior to the deadline expiring.

 

[DaanBanaan5673]

Opening Statement

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

1. Failure to establish the required elements

This case is about whether the Plaintiff has proven the legal elements necessary to hold the Defendant liable for defamation, and whether the evidence establishes that the Defendant’s statements caused the damages claimed. The Defendant does not dispute that statements were made concerning Poy Bank. What is disputed however, is the Plaintiff’s characterization of those statements, and most importantly, whether the Plaintiff has established the necessary elements of each claim by sufficient evidence.

The Plaintiff bears the burden of proving that the statements complained of were defamatory and led to losses. It is not enough to establish that certain statements were made or that the Plaintiff disagreed with them. The Court should consider the context of the statements, whether they were false, whether they concerned the Plaintiff personally, and most importantly whether the evidence establishes a causal connection between the alleged statements and the damages claimed.

1. Standing

The evidence submitted earlier by the Defendant also raises an important distinction between the Plaintiff personally and Poy Bank as a separate legal entity. The Plaintiff’s original complaint relied substantially upon alleged losses to the bank and its business, however, the Defendant believes it has submitted enough proof to confirm that Poy Bank is a separate legal entity. The Defendant therefore submits that the Court should distinguish between damages allegedly suffered by the bank and damages allegedly suffered by the Plaintiff personally.

1. Damages

Furthermore, the Plaintiff seeks $200,000 in damages, despite providing no calculation capable of establishing that amount. In section 3 (“The Law”) of the Plaintiff’s opening statement, the Plaintiff relies on a $45,000 loan as its alleged pecuniary loss. However, such alleged loan would have been issued by Poy Bank, not PlayerData (the Plaintiff). The opening statement provides no legal basis for treating a pecuniary loss allegedly suffered by Poy Bank as pecuniary loss suffered personally by PlayerData. The Defendant notes that the Plaintiff repeatedly relies upon Poy Bank, statements allegedly made against the bank, and losses allegedly suffered by the bank. However, Poy Bank is not the Plaintiff in this case, and Counsel for the Plaintiff does not represent Poy Bank. Accordingly, losses allegedly suffered by Poy Bank cannot simply be attributed to the Plaintiff personally without legal basis for this.

Furthermore, the Plaintiff claims that Poy Bank denied the Defendant’s loan application. This demonstrates that loans are not automatically approved by the bank. There is therefore no evidence establishing that Poy Bank would have approved the alleged 45,000 loan to witness SplashyAlpaca. Treating the full value of that loan as a loss of opportunity would therefore rely on speculation rather than established evidence.

Finally, the Defendant would like to point out that the Plaintiff stated the following in their opening statement: “The testimony given by SplashyAlpaca77 exactly fulfills this requirement by referring to a particular loan of 45,000 democracy craft dollars which was lost for a specific and clearly stated reason.” [sic.], as well as “it is shown by .Mailliwoail's testimony that the allegations were already being circulated” [sic.]. However, a message posted in a Discord channel does not constitute a testimony.

1. Trial

During the trial, the Defendant will establish that the Plaintiff has failed to provide sufficient evidence to support their claims, especially regarding the alleged pecuniary loss and the causal connection between the Defendant’s alleged statements and the damages that are being claimed by the Plaintiff.

 

[DaanBanaan5673]

Your Honour,

I respectfully request permission from the Court to correct a formatting error in my opening statement as the section numbering was formatted incorrectly. In the text preview, the numbering appeared correct, but after posting, it unexpectedly changed. No other changes would be made to the opening statement.

The Defence thanks the Court for their consideration.

 

[Talion77]

Your Honour,

I respectfully request permission from the Court to correct a formatting error in my opening statement as the section numbering was formatted incorrectly. In the text preview, the numbering appeared correct, but after posting, it unexpectedly changed. No other changes would be made to the opening statement.

The Defence thanks the Court for their consideration.

Granted.