Lawsuit: Adjourned RylandW v. v__d [2025] FCR 37

Writ of Summons

@v__d is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of RylandW v. v__d [2025] FCR 37.

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.

Answer to Complaint

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

v__d
Plaintiff

v.

RylandW
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. AFFIRM that “RylandW was a candidate for re-election in the mayoral race of Aventura which took place between March 30, 2025, and April 1, 2025.”
2. DENY that “v__d made multiple false and defamatory statements about RylandW between March 19th, 2025, and April 1, 2025.”
3. AFFIRM that “v__d claimed …:
RylandW had changed political parties and ideology solely to gain votes;
RylandW became a “fake commie”, or communist;
RylandW, if elected, would end free and fair elections in Aventura;
RylandW, if elected, would become Aventura’s permanent mayor;
RylandW was solely motivated by a desire to gain political power and “career points”
RylandW was responsible for hyperinflation;
RylandW did not care about political change.” but DENY these were all necessarily false and without factual basis.
4. AFFIRM that any statements made by v__d were made in publicly available forums.
5. DENY that “The statements were only made during the election period, and represented a clear, calculated, and targeted effort to damage RylandW’s reputation and influence the outcome of the election.”
6. AFFIRM that “RylandW lost the mayoral election by a vote of 17 to 22” however NEITHER AFFIRM NOR DENY his supporters’ and neutral observers’ optimism.
7. DENY that “v__d’s slanderous statements materially contributed to RylandW’s loss,” NOTING that the statements shown in evidence are not slanderous, or if they are, are still protected speech.
8. DENY that “v__d’s statements were false, malicious, and not protected under the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Redmont, as they were false statements of fact intended to harm RylandW’s reputation.”
9. DENY that “As a result of v__d’s statements, RylandW suffered reputational, emotional, and political damages.”

II. DEFENSES

ON POLITICAL COMMUNICATION
1. The Federal Court ruled in [2023] FCR 62 that Political Communication is only illegal defamation when statements “are specific, false claims about specific actions and results...”

An example of a claim which would not fall under this definition was given by the court: “Krix betrayed our country.”

ON THE CLAIMS MADE BY V__D
2. “[RylandW] has no ideology. He just picks whatever will get him more votes.” is not about specific actions and results, and is political by nature, and thus is considered protected political communication.

3. Calling RylandW “Crooked RylandW” is uncouth, but certainly not defamatory, as it is simply v__d’s opinion that RylandW is crooked. It also echoes the comments of a famous American politician, implying this is political communication as well.

4. “Ryland will probably get rid of elections” is not provably false, as the operative word “probably” implies it isn’t necessarily going to happen.

5. “Vote for Anime/Katto to stop Ryland from being Aventura’s permanent mayor” is not a statement of fact, rather it is a command. Furthermore, it lacks the claim of specific action which is necessary for political defamation.

6. “Hyperinflation is happening due to Ryland’s corruption” is not provably false.

7. “[RylandW] doesn’t care about change” is not provably false.

8. “[RylandW] is a fake commie” is almost certainly true, as we don’t see evidence that RylandW “supports class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs,” and it’s on the Plaintiff to prove he does and always has.

ON POLLING
9. A single pre-poll is not necessarily indicative of the voting bloc as a whole (there could have been polling biases, intentionally or unintentionally).

10. Even if a single pre-poll was indicative of the voting bloc as a whole, RNN’s advanced statistical analysis program (GitHub - Dartanboy/DCElectionPredictor: Scuffed election predictor for DemocracyCraft), which correctly predicted the order in which candidates would drop out and ultimately the results of the election of President 1950minecrafter (Exhibit D-001), would only give RylandW a 78% chance of winning based on that poll’s results (Exhibit D-002). While this is a significant advantage, it’s far from a guaranteed victory, and does not establish that v__d’s statements affected the election in any way.

ON DAMAGES
11. Given that none of these statements are defamatory by nature, Punitive Damages must not be awarded.

12. Humiliation is when an individual has been “disgraced, belittled or made to look foolish” per the Legal Damages Act. This did not happen, and as such the Consequential Damages for Humiliation must not be awarded.

EVIDENCE

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 26th day of April 2025.

Opening Statement

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

Good evening, your honor, and may it please the court,
Defamation has always been difficult to prove. The introduction of the No More Defamation Act sought to ease the burden of evidence held by the plaintiff by removing the clause which required the plaintiff to prove the defendant's intent to defame. It also no longer necessitated that damages caused by defamation be proven in court, but rather stipulated that the charge of defamation adhere to the standards applied to all other civil cases by requiring proof of likely damages as outlined by the Legal Damages Act. In Vernicia v. RylandW [2025] FCR 5, which was held following the ratification of this act, the plaintiff lacked the necessary evidence to prove that the alleged defamatory statements were actually made against the plaintiff or that any reputational damage occurred. This is not a problem shared by this case. Due to the repeated nature of the defendant’s slander, the plaintiff in this case has multitudinous examples of false and defamatory statements directed at the plaintiff. As outlined in Vernicia v. RylandW [2025] FCR 5 and bigpappa140 v. .BelatedDragon35 [2023] FCR 63, there are four necessary conditions for a statement to be considered slanderous.

1. That the statement is in reference to the plaintiff;
2. That the statements are public;
3. That the statements are false;
4. That the statements harmed the plaintiffs reputation.

On the Subject and Forum of the Statements
In regards to the first two requirements, they are not at issue. It has not been disputed that the claims made by v__d were directed at RylandW, nor has it been disputed that the claims were made in public forums such as the DemocracyCraft in-game chat and the DemocracyCraft discord server.

On the Truth of the Statements
What is in dispute is the veracity of these statements; though, upon inspection, the statements are clearly false. First, there are the statements that are primarily emotive, like the repeated claims that political ideals held by the plaintiff are somehow disingenuous (P-001, P-003, P-004, P-005). Though beyond these there are specific claims made by the defendant, such as that the plaintiff would end elections in Aventura and become its “permanent mayor” (P-002, P-003), and claims that the plaintiff is the cause of hyperinflation (P-004), which are completely fictitious and lack any supporting evidence whatsoever.

The best defense against defamation is the truth. If the statements made by the defendant were true, then none of their statements would be defamatory. Although it isn’t evidence to the contrary, it is telling that the defense submitted no evidence to support any of v__d’s statements. Through the testimony of the named witnesses in this trial, and taking into account the lack of any evidence to the contrary, we will prove that, more likely than not, these statements are false.


On Reputational Damage
Put yourself in the shoes of a civilian logging into Democracy Craft to do their civic duty and vote. Imagine, if you will, seeing the messages sent by v__d claiming that the plaintiff was going to end elections in Aventura if elected and become its permanent mayor. Maybe you’ve bought something from v__d’s shop, or have seen his name in the discord, or maybe you don’t know anything about him and just see a concerned citizen talking about a mayoral candidate. Imagine the impact it would have on your vote, believing that a political candidate for your town will end elections if he comes to power. RylandW was a popular candidate in Aventura. He had already briefly been the mayor in the election preceding this one, and pre-polls done by the Reveille Times placed him in the lead, with 78% of readers intending to vote for him (P-010). RylandW was popular, active in campaigning, and had already won the previous election a month prior. This by no means guaranteed a victory, but if the plaintiff had taken a reputational hit, we could expect it to be reflected in this election. Considering that Ryland then lost this election by five votes (P-011), it is more likely than not that v__d’s statements had an impact on the plaintiff’s poor election performance.

On Witness Testimony
In the witness testimony for this case, we will prove that the plaintiff had no intention of ending elections in Aventura and becoming its permanent mayor. We will do this by asking the plaintiff himself, along with other members of his political organization who actively helped in his campaign and platform. Further, we will showcase that the defendant’s claim that RylandW was the cause of hyperinflation in Redmont had no merit. Then, with the testimony of those in chat when v__d’s statements were made, we will prove that these statements were made during an active time in the server, and were likely seen by many citizens and potential voters. Finally, the plaintiff will testify as to the emotional toll this whole ordeal took, and how it felt to be the subject of such a relentless smear campaign.

On Damages
As shown in the precedent set by Vernicia v. RylandW [2025] FCR 5 relying on the No More Defamation Act §5.1, "Damages caused by defamation, if proven in a civil court of law, shall be paid out as determined by the presiding Judicial Officer", using the standards set in the Legal Damages Act. The Legal Damages Act §5.1.a defines punitive damages as “damages awarded against a person to punish them for their outrageous conduct and to deter them and others like them from similar conduct in the future”. We argue that the conduct of v__d is clearly outrageous, as his statements were not only slanderous, but were repeated both in-game and in the Democracy Craft discord over the course of multiple days. Such a pattern of behavior is clearly outrageous conduct on the part of the defendant, and these damages must be awarded in order to dissuade both the defendant and others from this type of conduct. Consequential damages are also deffined in the LDA §7.1.a as “An award that a party can collect against an opposing party for damages that are otherwise incalculable”. Specifically, the plaintiff is seeking consequential damages related to humiliation, which further is defined in LDA §7.1.a.I as “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.” Any reasonable person subject to this level of slander in an attempt to disgrace them would feel humiliated. Not only were v__d’s words slanderous, but they also gave rise to environments that empowered others to pile on, making other comments negative towards RylandW. This can be seen both in the DemocracyCraft server when the defendant’s statements were made, as well as in the DemocracyCraft Discord server (P-004-P-009).

On The Defense
The defense will claim that v__d’s statements were protected by the Redmont Condistution’s freedom of political communication clause, even alluding to the possibility of constitutionally protected slander. Though at risk of stating the obvious, there is no such thing as protected slander. Constitutional protections are not unlimited, and are subject to reasonable limits as prescribed by the law. Slander is, by definition, speech which is illegal, and cannot be protected under the freedom of political communication. Just because a statement is political does not mean that the speaker has a license to break the law. If that were the case, then it would be impossible to argue for any speech to be considered defamation, as in some way or another, all speech is political.

This case is not about silencing v__d. It's not about RylandW “getting revenge” after having lost an election. It's not about party politics. This is a case about justice, and about setting right the wrongs that were brought against the plaintiff.

Writ of Summons

@RylandW, @HomelessBum, and @JunoAndrist are required to appear before the Supreme Court in the case of [2025] FCR 37 RylandW v. v__d.

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.

Motion

MOTION TO RECONSIDER

I missed the filing because my cousin was hospitalized after having a seizure. Minecraft law wasn't exactly at the top of my priority list. Regardless, I'm not going to make a big stink about the contempt charge, I  did miss the deadline.

That said, I will fight for my client's rights, including his right to a fair trial. It isn't his fault (it's legally mine, even though I feel it wasn't  really my fault) that I missed the deadline, and refusing to allow Opening Statements made on his behalf creates an unfair trial.

I won't ask for the contempt to be removed, but I do ask for my v__d to have an Opening Statement.

Motion

MOTION TO RECONSIDER

Your honor, the witness is literally trstifying about other people's beliefs.

One cannot simply say "I believe that other people believe X" as that is simply testifying about other people's beliefs under the guise of being one's own.

In a more extreme case, one could testify "I believe Johnny believes the Government is out to get him, and that he believes Treason is the only way to fix the country."

Allowing the objected to statement would set the precedent that a testimony such as this example would be permitted.

Closing Statement

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT

Good evening your honour, and may it please the court,

In the history of Redmontian law there have been very few successful defamation cases, and since the institution of the No More Defamation Act, there have been very few defamation cases in general. The No More Defamation Act expanded the protections of citizens against defamation by removing the requirement for the plaintiff to prove intent to defame, in addition to changing the requirement to prove damages caused by defamation, lowering the burden of proof to that of likely damages as outlined in the Legal Damages Act. As set by the precedent of prior cases (bigpappa140 v. .BelatedDragon35 [2023] FCR 63) there are four necessary conditions for a statement to be considered defamatory, and specifically slanderous: the statement must be in reference to the plaintiff, the statement must be made in a public setting, the statement must be false, and the statement must have harmed the plaintiff’s reputation. The first two standards are not in contention in this case, leaving only the final two: the falsehood of the statements and the damages suffered by RylandW.

In determining the falsehood of the statements made by v__d, the testimony from our witnesses has been immensely insightful. JunoAndrist was an informal advisor to RylandW’s mayoral run, in addition to being in the leadership structure of RylandW’s current political party. If anyone knew what Ryland was planning to do when in office, it would be her. According to Juno’s testimony, Ryland had no ambition to change the election structure in Aventura, and had no ambition to become, as v__d claimed, Aventura’s permanent mayor. Furthermore, Juno alleges that v__d sent other taunting messages about Ryland and Sleepii_Sloth, in addition to herself, making claims that they were “communists," despite this being untrue of the plaintiff’s ideological leanings, and that Ryland was a corrupt politician.

This account of false and harmful messages being spread regarding the plaintiff is further corroborated by the testimony of HomelessBum. Homeless testified that there were people in the in-game global chat claiming that Ryland had no plan, but also, contradictorily, was planning on “destroying things,” and recalls the overall tone being negative. Homeless has no clear relation to RylandW and was a neutral third-party observer, further demonstrating that these claims made by v__d and others were seen by average players who were in-game on March 31.

One of the claims made by the defendant was that RylandW is the cause of hyperinflation. When asked if, in his time in the House of Representatives, he had voted to pass any bills relating to the economy, RylandW testified that he had not. How else could the plaintiff have possibly had an impact on hyperinflation? Defendant further claimed the Ryland would become Aventura’s “permanent mayor” if elected. Again, Ryland’s testimony confirms Juno’s claim that he had no intention of altering Aventura’s electoral system and denies seeking to become Aventura’s permanent mayor.

The plaintiff testified that it was “humiliating” to have false and slanderous statements made against him. And who wouldn't be humiliated? Any reasonable person witnessing lies being spread about them by a well known member of the community would feel humiliated – even further so if they were formerly close to that person.

All of these statements were made during RylandW’s bid for Mayor of Aventura and were made in public forums where potential voters were able to see them. Therefore, the question we must now ask is: if a reasonable civilian saw these messages, would they be persuaded by them? Would a potential RylandW voter be persuaded by claims of corruption, a desire to become the permanent mayor, and being the cause of hyperinflation? Especially if the atmosphere, as described by Homeless, in the in-game global chat was negative and unfair toward the plaintiff? The mayoral race ended up being a very close call, with the difference between the two candidates being only five votes. While it is impossible to say with certainty that v__d caused the plaintiff’s loss in this election, it is far more likely than not that his words had an effect on some voters. With those voters as a result of v__d’s claims choosing to vote differently than they might have otherwise.

In conclusion, your honour, v__d lied – the defense has provided no evidence to the contrary, and through his lies, he has managed to meaningfully harm RylandW’s reputation. This reputational harm caused the plaintiff both emotional distress due to the severity of the claims being levied, and likely political harm from the inevitable loss in votes as potential voters saw the defendant’s claims and the environment they created. Political speech is important, and if the claims made by the defendant were only criticisms of his platform or expressions of the defendant’s own political positions, then there would be no case to be made here. However, that is not the case. Instead, the defendant has attempted to weaponize our freedom of political communication in order to slander the plaintiff for political gain and bring demonstrably false and damaging statements into Redmont’s political discourse, which is both alien to our system of communication and unjust in a free and fair democratic society.

It is for these reasons that we implore you to rule in favour of the Plaintiff and grant full damages. Thank you for your time.

Closing Statement

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT

Your honor,

This case is nothing but a cash-grab... an attempt to take money from my client for using his constitutional right to political communication. If the Plaintiff does not like the Defendant's speech, they do not have to listen to it, but suing over it is unacceptable.

ON THE WITNESSES' TESTIMONY
RylandW's Testimony
When asked "What actual, provable damages have you suffered as a result of v__d's alleged defamation?" the Plaintiff himself informed the court "I feel belittled, although this is not practically provable."

When pressed further, he stated "Can I really prove my feelings to a Minecraft server? Probably not. But I can testify my feelings to my best ability."

Your honor, we ask the court to note that the Plaintiff stated the only damages they suffered was "feeling belittled." This shows that the Plaintiff believes v__d's statements did not affect the outcome of the election nor his reputation.

HomelessBum's Testimony
When asked about statements made in public about the Plaintiff, the Witness stated "Yes. I remember conflicting messages—some said Ryland had no plan, while others claimed his plan was to destroy things. I also remember someone mentioning that he lived in a gated community. The tone of the discussion seemed unfair and overly negative."

Notably, this shows that there was some public discussion about RylandW's plan or lack thereof, however, fails to trace back to v__d as the cause of this discussion. Alternative possibilities arise from this testimony:

• Perhaps there was truth to the claims, and v__d was not lying.
• Perhaps someone else started spreading lies, and v__d simply believed them.

On JunoAndrist's Testimony
As JunoAndrist was an advisor to the Plaintiff, they are not considered an unbiased party. They have a conflict of interest, in that it would be beneficial to their career for RylandW to win this case. As such, their testimony should not be considered.

Regardless, even if the Witness is considered trustworthy, simply because RylandW has never "expressed" or "mentioned" specific actions does not mean he did not take steps in pursuit of those actions, nor does it mean he did not want to do them.

CLOSING ARGUMENTS
Learned and Honorable Judge Ameslap,

The Plaintiff has done an excellent job of showing that the Defendant made several statements about the Plaintiff... and that's all they've done. They have failed to show that any damages occurred, and in fact, the Plaintiff himself even said the (alleged) damages were strictly emotional.

Furthermore, the Plaintiff's counsel attempted to shift the burden of proof to the Defense, stating "v__d lied – the defense has provided no evidence to the contrary, and through his lies, he has managed to meaningfully harm RylandW’s reputation."

However, this is not a valid argument. It is true that the Defense has not provided evidence to show that v__d was not lying, but we don't have to -- the Plaintiff has to provide evidence that he did lie, which they have failed to do.

IN CONCLUSION
The Plaintiff has failed to show that the Defendant's statements were false. The Plaintiff has failed to show that the Defendant's statements caused damage, and in-fact testified that they did not cause damages.

My client has a constitutional right to political communication, and since the claims made by v__d are generic in nature, according to the Federal Court ruling in [2023] FCR 62 that Political Communication is only illegal defamation when statements “are specific, false claims about specific actions and results...” these statements cannot be defamation.

We would also like to remind you, your honor, that according to the Legal Damages Act, "Legal fees do not necessitate inclusion in a prayer for relief or a countersuit to be awarded," and as such, if this case is ruled in favor of my client, we do desire the full amount of legal fees to be awarded to JusticeCompass in-game.