Lawsuit: In Session Maxib02 v. NovaKerbal [2026] DCR 11

Maxib02 said:

Case Filing

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


Maxib02
Plaintiff

v.

NovaKerbal
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF



I. PARTIES
1. Maxib02 (Plaintiff)
2. NovaKerbal (Defendant)

II. FACTS
1. Maxib02 made an advertisement using /ad showcasing his new party's ideals and asked others to support making a platform (see p-001).
2. Shortly after making his advertisement, NovaKerbal stated in global that he (Maxib02) had previously rigged a vote, sarcastically adding that the new party would love democracy (see p-001).
3. There is no evidence of Maxib02's involvement in rigging a vote during his time on the Democracycraft Server, nor has Maxib02 been charged, convicted, or punished by staff forhaving 'rigged a vote', the implication is both dishonest and untrue, as rigging is defined by its illegality, and Maxib02 strongly rejects any accusation of unlawful interference or manipulation of voting processes. He maintains that no actions were taken in violation of applicable rules, laws, or established procedures, and that any conduct undertaken was lawful and permissible.
4. After Maxib02 responded to the false accusation, claiming it was defamation, NovaKerbal backed it up by asking, "how is it defamation if its true" (see p-001).
5. NovaKerbal tried to shift the blame to a someone named Anthony by claiming, "Anthony said so" (see p-001).
6. Reputational damage as a result of these statements has occured (p-002, p-003).


III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Per the No More Defamation Act, Slander is defined as "A false statement, usually made through either discord or in-game messages, which defames another person’s reputation, business, profession, or organization." It is reasonable to assume NovaKerbal's intent with their message was to defame both Maxib02, and Maxib02's political party, which is yet to be a registered organization. Proof of reputational damage will be attached.
2. Using the definition upheld by the Honorable Maistrate AmityBlamity in pricelessAgrari v. MysticPhunky 48[2025] DCR, the false statement from NovaKerbal accusing Maxib02 of rigging a vote is slanderous and a violation of the No More Defamation Act, as I believe it is an objective fact that Maxib02 has never ever engaged in acts that would have illegally perverted or otherwise illegally manipulated elections on the DemocracyCraft Server, and proof of reputational damage, as a result of NovaKerbal's statements, has been attached (p-002, p-003).
6. If the statements made by NovaKerbal are proven to have been made, and it is proven that Maxib02 has not 'rigged a vote' with rigging of course defined by its criminality, & the evidence of the resulting reputational damage is permitted (see p-002, p-003), by definition Slander has occured.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. $20,000 in punitive damages for slander.
2. $5,000 in legal fees, 25% of the case value.
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.

V. WITNESSES
1. jsrkiwi

2. NotCom_Was_taken
3. IamJeb_

DATED: This 25th day of January 2026

Click to expand...

Novakerbal said:

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION- Improper Evidence, Perjury

The Plaintiff clearly misrepresents the evidence of P-002 and P-003, claiming reputational harm that never occurred.

The evidence shown in P-002 and P-003 depicts the Plaintiff deliberately conveying a quote to two individuals, multiple days after the incident had occurred, and asking them whether it hurts their reputation. This is not evidence depicting the original effect of the incident, but rather the plaintiff themself injuring their own reputation. The Plaintiff has no proof that the two witnesses ever saw the original statement, and therefore any reputational harm suffered was solely the fault of the Plaintiff, not the fault of the defendant. Furthermore these images were clearly influenced, the Plaintiff asked a leading question to multiple people, and selected any witnesses who affirmed his conclusion that defamation occurred.

Maxib02 perjures themself by stating that "proof of reputational damage, as a result of NovaKerbal's statements". No such proof exists, a leading question to two individuals who never witnessed the original statement, and furthermore were asked a hypothetical, should not stand in Court.

The Defendant is not responsible for the publishing of her statement, the Plaintiff has fallen on their own sword, and this is no fault of any individual except the Plaintiff themself. Even if the original statement were defamatory, any reputational damage alleged would be self inflicted.

Maxib02 has deliberately influenced these individuals to provide improper evidence to support his absurd lack of standing. This evidence should absolutely be struck as improper.

Click to expand...

Superwoops said:

Your honour,
As a trial attorney in Redmont, may I file an amicus curiae brief regarding the necessary proof for award of damages for slander and the nature of political speech and its relation to defamation?

Click to expand...

Superwoops said:

Brief

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF

Your honour,
There are two items that must be considered in this case.
Firstly, political communication is Constitutionally protected, as per Lawsuit: Dismissed - Nacholebraa v. Milkcrack [2024] FCR 10. The Plaintiff in this case had been a candidate in elections less than two weeks prior to the statements made by the Defendant. Furthermore, the Defendant's statements were, at minimum, political-adjacent in nature as they spoke to the Plaintiff's actions within a political party and were in response to a campaign advertisement. It is up to the Court to determine whether these facts point towards NovaKerbal's statements being political communication in nature and therefore being protected under the law and immune from claims of defamation.

Secondly, the statements must be proven false, but also, it must be proven that reputational damage happened. This means that the burden is on the Plaintiff to prove that they (in a balance of probabilities) did not rig a vote. They then must prove that, due to others relying on those false statements, the Plaintiff's reputation was damaged. Here, I find the evidence provided by the Plaintiff questionable. The Plaintiff went around asking certain people whether the statements would negatively affect their image of him. I believe this falls under self-inflicted damage, which shouldn't be counted to ascertain reputational damage if the Court sides with Maxib02 because of the Plaintiff's duty to mitigate damages. In other words, the Plaintiff is "fanning the flames", which could be in hopes of being awarded higher damages.​

Click to expand...

Maxib02 said:

Case Filing

Objection​

I see this brief as fundamentally dishonest.

It is significantly more productive relevant and useful to ascertain reputational damage by questioning certain people who would find the claims meaningful, or wouldve otherwise witnessed the original statements, or to whom Maxib02's reputation matters more, rather then random people. In the case of Jsrkiwi, they wouldve saw the defendants claims in chat meaning that I merely followed up, to find their reaction to the comments. It is dishonest, and especially unbecoming of any legal professional to follow such a 'method of attack', especially when combined with the "self-inflicted damage" claims.

Secondly, while not relevant, is it not equally the burden of the defendant, to fight their case, and prove that there statements where in fact objectively true - and would be proper and decent conduct to do when making such claims about a fellow player

Finally, blatant and cowardly defamation, be it libel or slander cannot be misrepresented as political communication, and allowed to shield itself as such.

Click to expand...

Novakerbal said:

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - Breach of Procedure

Your Honor,

The Plaintiff has filed a nameless objection, and has not specified under which rule or procedure they are actually objecting under. An objection should not be filed simply because the Plaintiffs feelings were hurt, if an objection does not list an actual procedural objection type, then it is simply hot air.

I request for this remark to be stricken unless resubmitted under a proper format for objecting.

Click to expand...

Superwoops said:

Brief

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF

Your honour,
There are two items that must be considered in this case.
Firstly, political communication is Constitutionally protected, as per Lawsuit: Dismissed - Nacholebraa v. Milkcrack [2024] FCR 10. The Plaintiff in this case had been a candidate in elections less than two weeks prior to the statements made by the Defendant. Furthermore, the Defendant's statements were, at minimum, political-adjacent in nature as they spoke to the Plaintiff's actions within a political party and were in response to a campaign advertisement. It is up to the Court to determine whether these facts point towards NovaKerbal's statements being political communication in nature and therefore being protected under the law and immune from claims of defamation.

Secondly, the statements must be proven false, but also, it must be proven that reputational damage happened. This means that the burden is on the Plaintiff to prove that they (in a balance of probabilities) did not rig a vote. They then must prove that, due to others relying on those false statements, the Plaintiff's reputation was damaged. Here, I find the evidence provided by the Plaintiff questionable. The Plaintiff went around asking certain people whether the statements would negatively affect their image of him. I believe this falls under self-inflicted damage, which shouldn't be counted to ascertain reputational damage if the Court sides with Maxib02 because of the Plaintiff's duty to mitigate damages. In other words, the Plaintiff is "fanning the flames", which could be in hopes of being awarded higher damages.​

Click to expand...

Anthony_Org said:

Your honor, I wish to file an Amicus Curiae Brief on the alleged vote rigging, as I was the leader of The Freedom Coalition at the time this took place.

Click to expand...

Maxib02 said:

Case Filing

Objection​

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION- Perjury, Evidence is proper/relevant

I object to the objection - I believe the evidence is relevant, and not improper

The witnesses where carefully chosen, with witness jsrkiwi, also known as Jayessar Kiwi being ingame at the time of the comments, and seeing the comments, hence why they where questioned. The plaintiff will as such provide proof supporting this (p-004, p-005). Assuch, the quote was not conveyed, merely re-conveyed, to Jsrkiwi (also known as Jaeyssar Kiwi), with proof regarding the witness Jsrkiwi presence having been supplied,(see p-004, p-005) showing that they where ingame at the time of the comments, and were aware of the related conversation between the plaintiff and the defendant.

Furthermore I believe the defendant has perjuried in there objection, by making incorrect claims: "two individuals who never witnessed the original statement" is not true. Furthermore they have perjuried by denying that jsrkiwi saw the original statement, and the by denying the existence of proof regarding that, (merely because it was not attached in the original filing) in an attempt to remove a valid witness from this case.

Finally, the plaintiff objects to the absurd claim that he had deliberately influenced these individuals to provide improper evidence to support my claim, with the plaintiff denouncing the cunning actions of the defendant.

Click to expand...

Novakerbal said:

Your Honor,

The Defendant is present

Click to expand...

dearev said:

Sustained.


Thank you.

Denied.

Overruled.

"Evidence is proper/relevant" is not a recognized objection. see

On Perjury the court does not see it fit, as no evidence of KNOWINGLY making a false statement has been provided.

Please present an answer within 48 hours.

Click to expand...

Novakerbal said:

Your Honor,

Will the Defendants objection to P-002 and P-003 be ruled on prior to this deadline?

Click to expand...

Novakerbal said:

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION- Improper Evidence, Perjury

The Plaintiff clearly misrepresents the evidence of P-002 and P-003, claiming reputational harm that never occurred.

The evidence shown in P-002 and P-003 depicts the Plaintiff deliberately conveying a quote to two individuals, multiple days after the incident had occurred, and asking them whether it hurts their reputation. This is not evidence depicting the original effect of the incident, but rather the plaintiff themself injuring their own reputation. The Plaintiff has no proof that the two witnesses ever saw the original statement, and therefore any reputational harm suffered was solely the fault of the Plaintiff, not the fault of the defendant. Furthermore these images were clearly influenced, the Plaintiff asked a leading question to multiple people, and selected any witnesses who affirmed his conclusion that defamation occurred.

Maxib02 perjures themself by stating that "proof of reputational damage, as a result of NovaKerbal's statements". No such proof exists, a leading question to two individuals who never witnessed the original statement, and furthermore were asked a hypothetical, should not stand in Court.

The Defendant is not responsible for the publishing of her statement, the Plaintiff has fallen on their own sword, and this is no fault of any individual except the Plaintiff themself. Even if the original statement were defamatory, any reputational damage alleged would be self inflicted.

Maxib02 has deliberately influenced these individuals to provide improper evidence to support his absurd lack of standing. This evidence should absolutely be struck as improper.

Click to expand...

dearev said:

i forgot to paste the ruling on the main message. Thank you for letting me know.


perjury is Overruled.

on improper evidence

I will be Sustaining the improper evidence objection, the court finds it unlikely that the reactions given by the quote were reliable. by directly going to a possible witness and asking them weather their perception was damaged the court cannot determine wether the damage to perception was caused by directly asking them or by the statement itself. P-002 and P-003 are stricken from record.

Click to expand...

dearev said:

Sustained.


Thank you.

Denied.

Overruled.

"Evidence is proper/relevant" is not a recognized objection. see

On Perjury the court does not see it fit, as no evidence of KNOWINGLY making a false statement has been provided.

Please present an answer within 48 hours.

Click to expand...

​

Superwoops said:

Brief

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF

Your honour,
There are two items that must be considered in this case.
Firstly, political communication is Constitutionally protected, as per Lawsuit: Dismissed - Nacholebraa v. Milkcrack [2024] FCR 10. The Plaintiff in this case had been a candidate in elections less than two weeks prior to the statements made by the Defendant. Furthermore, the Defendant's statements were, at minimum, political-adjacent in nature as they spoke to the Plaintiff's actions within a political party and were in response to a campaign advertisement. It is up to the Court to determine whether these facts point towards NovaKerbal's statements being political communication in nature and therefore being protected under the law and immune from claims of defamation.

Secondly, the statements must be proven false, but also, it must be proven that reputational damage happened. This means that the burden is on the Plaintiff to prove that they (in a balance of probabilities) did not rig a vote. They then must prove that, due to others relying on those false statements, the Plaintiff's reputation was damaged. Here, I find the evidence provided by the Plaintiff questionable. The Plaintiff went around asking certain people whether the statements would negatively affect their image of him. I believe this falls under self-inflicted damage, which shouldn't be counted to ascertain reputational damage if the Court sides with Maxib02 because of the Plaintiff's duty to mitigate damages. In other words, the Plaintiff is "fanning the flames", which could be in hopes of being awarded higher damages.​

Click to expand...

Superwoops said:

Brief

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF

Your honour,
There are two items that must be considered in this case.
Firstly, political communication is Constitutionally protected, as per Lawsuit: Dismissed - Nacholebraa v. Milkcrack [2024] FCR 10. The Plaintiff in this case had been a candidate in elections less than two weeks prior to the statements made by the Defendant. Furthermore, the Defendant's statements were, at minimum, political-adjacent in nature as they spoke to the Plaintiff's actions within a political party and were in response to a campaign advertisement. It is up to the Court to determine whether these facts point towards NovaKerbal's statements being political communication in nature and therefore being protected under the law and immune from claims of defamation.

Secondly, the statements must be proven false, but also, it must be proven that reputational damage happened. This means that the burden is on the Plaintiff to prove that they (in a balance of probabilities) did not rig a vote. They then must prove that, due to others relying on those false statements, the Plaintiff's reputation was damaged. Here, I find the evidence provided by the Plaintiff questionable. The Plaintiff went around asking certain people whether the statements would negatively affect their image of him. I believe this falls under self-inflicted damage, which shouldn't be counted to ascertain reputational damage if the Court sides with Maxib02 because of the Plaintiff's duty to mitigate damages. In other words, the Plaintiff is "fanning the flames", which could be in hopes of being awarded higher damages.​

Click to expand...

Maxib02 said:

Case Filing

Objection​

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION- Perjury, Evidence is proper/relevant

I object to the objection - I believe the evidence is relevant, and not improper

The witnesses where carefully chosen, with witness jsrkiwi, also known as Jayessar Kiwi being ingame at the time of the comments, and seeing the comments, hence why they where questioned. The plaintiff will as such provide proof supporting this (p-004, p-005). Assuch, the quote was not conveyed, merely re-conveyed, to Jsrkiwi (also known as Jaeyssar Kiwi), with proof regarding the witness Jsrkiwi presence having been supplied,(see p-004, p-005) showing that they where ingame at the time of the comments, and were aware of the related conversation between the plaintiff and the defendant.

Furthermore I believe the defendant has perjuried in there objection, by making incorrect claims: "two individuals who never witnessed the original statement" is not true. Furthermore they have perjuried by denying that jsrkiwi saw the original statement, and the by denying the existence of proof regarding that, (merely because it was not attached in the original filing) in an attempt to remove a valid witness from this case.

Finally, the plaintiff objects to the absurd claim that he had deliberately influenced these individuals to provide improper evidence to support my claim, with the plaintiff denouncing the cunning actions of the defendant.

Click to expand...

Maxib02 said:

Case Filing

MOTION

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


Your honour,

I request the court compel witness jsrkiwi, who was ingame at the time of the comments, to confirm the validity of their reaction to the quote, to confirm the reliability of that reaction, and by asking them if the damage of their perception was from the initial statement, as well as to make them avaliable for any other relevant questions the honourable judge may have

And secondly, if necessary witness NotCom_Was_taken to confirm the validity of their statement

Click to expand...

Maxib02 said:

Case Filing

Objection​

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION- Speculation, Narrative, Inflammatory, Relevance

I see this brief as exceptionally dishonest, and of bringing the court into disrepute.

It is significantly more productive relevant and useful to ascertain reputational damage by questioning certain people who would find the claims meaningful, or wouldve otherwise witnessed the original statements, or to whom Maxib02's reputation matters more, rather then random people. In the case of Jsrkiwi, they wouldve saw the defendants claims in chat meaning that I merely followed up, to find their reaction to the comments. It is dishonest, and especially unbecoming of any legal professional to follow such a 'method of attack', especially when combined with the "self-inflicted damage" claims.

Secondly, while not relevant, is it not equally the burden of the defendant, to fight their case, and prove that there statements where in fact objectively true - and would be proper and decent conduct to do when making such claims about a fellow player

Finally, blatant and cowardly defamation, be it libel or slander cannot be misrepresented as political communication, and allowed to shield itself as such.

Click to expand...

Novakerbal said:

Answer to Complaint

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

Maxib02
Plaintiff

v.

NovaKerbal
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. AFFIRM.
2. AFFIRM.
3. DENY. There is credible evidence to suggest that the Plaintiff has in fact attempted to rig an intra-party vote in their favour. The alleged defamatory statement never alleged criminal or rule-violating vote rigging, the statement simply alleged that Maxib02 had rigged “a vote”. The statement never alleged the rigging of any congressional, presidential, or referendum vote. (D-001), (D-002), (D-003), (D-004), (D-005), (D-006), (D-007), (D-008).
4. AFFIRM.
5. DENY. There was no shifting of the blame, it is true that Anthony_Org made the allegations public prior to the alleged defamatory statements by the Defendant. (See D-001)
6. DENY. Any reputational damage suffered is solely self inflicted by the Plaintiff. Additionally, the filing currently lacks any evidence to prove reputational damage.

II. DEFENCES
1. The Statements are not False: D-001, D-002, and D-003 all showcase these allegations being made public prior to the alleged defamatory statements. Indeed the Defense will seek to obtain testimony from witness Anthony_Org that will prove these allegations as true. Additionally, D-004, D-005, D-006 all depict the relevant evidence that we will use to prove that the alleged defamatory statement was true. The Plaintiff has failed to sue Anthony_Org or Rageman for publishing the original statements. The Plaintiff cannot selectively decide that the statements were not defamatory when originally published, but suddenly became defamatory when reiterated by the Defendant.

2. No Reputational Harm has been Proven or Alleged: Anthony_org v. Culls [2025] DCR 67 establishes the precedent to prove defamation as requiring the Plaintiff to provide “sufficient evidence to show that reputational harm occurred”. Indeed, as further examined in xEndeavour v. AlexanderLove [2025] DCR 1 Plaintiffs “need to provide evidence that at least some damages occurred”. The evidence provided by the Plaintiff alleging reputational damage has already been struck, and therefore its glaring absence already strengthens our case. However the Defense would like to examine the nature of the supposed reputational damage. The Plaintiff selectively sought out individuals who would support his version of events, and selectively chose to include only individuals who had affirmed their version of events, discarding anyone who disagreed with their point of view (P-009). In this we can clearly see a retroactive and artificial attempt to create standing, no reputational damage ever occurred originally, Maxib02 has injured their own reputation by willingly sharing the original statement. The Defendant should not be liable for this self inflicted damage. It is a gross misapplication of the law to allow a Plaintiff to artificially construct standing in order to sue an innocent party. (Credit to @ToadKing for providing relevant precedent).

Evidence List:

Spoiler: D-001

View attachment 73672

Spoiler: D-002

View attachment 73673

Spoiler: D-003

View attachment 73674

Spoiler: D-004

View attachment 73675

Spoiler: D-005

View attachment 73676

Spoiler: D-006

View attachment 73677

Spoiler: D-007

View attachment 73678

Spoiler: D-008

View attachment 73679

Spoiler: D-009

View attachment 73680

Witness List:

1. Anthony_Org
2. IgnitedTnT

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 31st day of January 2026

Click to expand...

Novakerbal said:

Answer to Complaint

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

Maxib02
Plaintiff

v.

NovaKerbal
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. AFFIRM.
2. AFFIRM.
3. DENY. There is credible evidence to suggest that the Plaintiff has in fact attempted to rig an intra-party vote in their favour. The alleged defamatory statement never alleged criminal or rule-violating vote rigging, the statement simply alleged that Maxib02 had rigged “a vote”. The statement never alleged the rigging of any congressional, presidential, or referendum vote. (D-001), (D-002), (D-003), (D-004), (D-005), (D-006), (D-007), (D-008).
4. AFFIRM.
5. DENY. There was no shifting of the blame, it is true that Anthony_Org made the allegations public prior to the alleged defamatory statements by the Defendant. (See D-001)
6. DENY. Any reputational damage suffered is solely self inflicted by the Plaintiff. Additionally, the filing currently lacks any evidence to prove reputational damage.

II. DEFENCES
1. The Statements are not False: D-001, D-002, and D-003 all showcase these allegations being made public prior to the alleged defamatory statements. Indeed the Defense will seek to obtain testimony from witness Anthony_Org that will prove these allegations as true. Additionally, D-004, D-005, D-006 all depict the relevant evidence that we will use to prove that the alleged defamatory statement was true. The Plaintiff has failed to sue Anthony_Org or Rageman for publishing the original statements. The Plaintiff cannot selectively decide that the statements were not defamatory when originally published, but suddenly became defamatory when reiterated by the Defendant.

2. No Reputational Harm has been Proven or Alleged: Anthony_org v. Culls [2025] DCR 67 establishes the precedent to prove defamation as requiring the Plaintiff to provide “sufficient evidence to show that reputational harm occurred”. Indeed, as further examined in xEndeavour v. AlexanderLove [2025] DCR 1 Plaintiffs “need to provide evidence that at least some damages occurred”. The evidence provided by the Plaintiff alleging reputational damage has already been struck, and therefore its glaring absence already strengthens our case. However the Defense would like to examine the nature of the supposed reputational damage. The Plaintiff selectively sought out individuals who would support his version of events, and selectively chose to include only individuals who had affirmed their version of events, discarding anyone who disagreed with their point of view (P-009). In this we can clearly see a retroactive and artificial attempt to create standing, no reputational damage ever occurred originally, Maxib02 has injured their own reputation by willingly sharing the original statement. The Defendant should not be liable for this self inflicted damage. It is a gross misapplication of the law to allow a Plaintiff to artificially construct standing in order to sue an innocent party. (Credit to @ToadKing for providing relevant precedent).

Evidence List:

Spoiler: D-001

View attachment 73672

Spoiler: D-002

View attachment 73673

Spoiler: D-003

View attachment 73674

Spoiler: D-004

View attachment 73675

Spoiler: D-005

View attachment 73676

Spoiler: D-006

View attachment 73677

Spoiler: D-007

View attachment 73678

Spoiler: D-008

View attachment 73679

Spoiler: D-009

View attachment 73680

Witness List:

1. Anthony_Org
2. IgnitedTnT

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 31st day of January 2026

Click to expand...

Maxib02 said:

Case Filing

Objection​

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION- Perjury, Narrative, Hearsay, Improper Evidence

I ask the judge, the honourable judge, as a beacon of impartiality to rule on only the facts, and evidence relevant to the case.

A large portion of this 'improper evidence' is not evidence, but hearsay, and D-001 to D-004 is exclusively hearsay and i request NovaKerbal's dishonest attempt to produce an irrelevant narrative to distract from the facts of the case be dealt with.
3. Rigging is defined by its illegality, as such any actions presented in the improper evidence provided can not count as 'Rigging'. As such any actions would be required to be both or either criminal or rule-violating to be considered as rigging.
3b. The defendant admits here that they didnt classify what was alledgly 'rigged' Their slanderous statement never claimed that it was in fact a inter party 'vote' that the plaintiff 'rigged', and secondly it was not a vote which was held within the party, it was a poll, and the poll couldn't have been rigged by the plaintiff - as it didnt conclude - and the poll was intefered with, by Anthony_Org
3c. As rigging is defined as illegal inteference, any alledged actions by the plaintiff would have to be both proved as illegal inteference in the process of an election. Illegal is defined by criminal nature, and as such i ask the honourable judge to reflect objectively on that, and that alone
5. DENY: /OBJECTION Perjury, This is serious and blatant perjury. Anthony_Org made the allegations privately, within a private chat within the TFC server, nothing in the apparent evidence (See D-001) shows that these allegations where made publicly. So claiming that D-001, D-002, and D-003 all showcase these allegations being made public prior to the alleged defamatory statements, is both perjury in that sense, and perjury in that they alledged rather then claimed that Maxib02 had rigged a vote, in regards to D-002 and D-003.
6. DENY: /OBJECTION Perjury, subjective opinions are not facts. And to claim any and all reputational damage was exclusively self-inflicted is a blatant lie, as evidence clearly proves that multiple people would've seen the initial message, as well as one of the witnesses that i consulted with.

There was nothing improper about my actions, or my evidence, and this is a shameless attempt to muddle the facts, and disturb what should be an Objective decision.

Furthermore, D-001 was made privately, or without Maxib02's knowledge - he was not informed about the statement, from a vile player who he has long since blocked
D-002 and D-003 mentioned 'allegations' rather then making claims o
D-004 was made internally, and was not saw by Maxib02 as he didnt have access to that server - so they do not show what the defendant claims. and are fundamentally dishonest.

II. DEFENCES
1. The Statements are not False: How can the Plaintiff have to sued Anthony_Org or Rageman for publishing the original statements, when he either wasn't aware of them or able to see the statements in regards to Anthony_Org. and how could the Plaintiff have sued Rageman as they didn't pass judgement on the valididty of the statements in there claim, or making any claims that would be appropriate to pursue as defamation.

Click to expand...

Maxib02 said:

Case Filing

Motion​

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

Your Honour,

The Defendant moves this Court to compel the Anthony_Org to produce testiomy

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


Motion to compel Anthony_ORG to both tell the truth regarding allegations, and provide the relevant timestamps

The Plaintiff specifically alleged in D-001 of the that "Maxib02 was sacked and removed from TFC." Such claim is both dishonest, and untrue, as such the witness has provided false information to the court.

Compell Anthony_Org showing to provide evidence regarding, & testify that i was removed from TFC before i resigned (& possibly that i was 'sacked' before my resignation of membership)

Secondly, Compell the unscrupulous Anthony_Org to testify on whether the 'VONC' the poll (not vote) in question was allowed to run to its full duration, or if its validity with invalidated as it was closed, and Maxib02 was removed from caucus leadership whilst it was still running, with voters yet to vote, as such its outcome was moot, pre-determined and irrelevant. The VONC did not remove Maxib02 from the party, as it was cancelled.

Click to expand...

Maxib02 said:

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION- Relevance, 'improper evidence'

Firstly, the definition for improper evidence is as follows: 'Refers to evidence that is improperly collected, possibly altered, or presented inappropriately (e.g., new evidence introduced during closing statements)'. It is a sham if such an objection is allowed to stand in a court of law.

Furthermore, how dare you denounce the validity of my witnesses, and the credibility of there responses. It is unconscionable that such an objection is allowed to stand, and that the honourable judge has managed to make that ruling based on the definition of improper evidence.

How can you possibly sustain the improper evidence ruling, I request that you summon the witnesses to ascertain reputational damage - & secondly, ultimately how can reputational damage be ascertained if the relevant questions are not asked - in fact i denounce this ruling as counterproductive, and denigrating the existence of the DemocracyCraft judicial system.

Click to expand...

Maxib02 said:

​

Case Filing

MOTION

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


Your honour,

i oppose, and perhaps even denounce this ruling. How could one objectively prove any false statement as 100% KNOWINGLY without being able to access the mind of whomever made the statement.

[Case/]

Click to expand...

Maxib02 said:

Case Filing

Objection​

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION- Speculation, Narrative, Inflammatory, Relevance

I see this brief as exceptionally dishonest, and of bringing the court into disrepute.

It is significantly more productive relevant and useful to ascertain reputational damage by questioning certain people who would find the claims meaningful, or wouldve otherwise witnessed the original statements, or to whom Maxib02's reputation matters more, rather then random people. In the case of Jsrkiwi, they wouldve saw the defendants claims in chat meaning that I merely followed up, to find their reaction to the comments. It is dishonest, and especially unbecoming of any legal professional to follow such a 'method of attack', especially when combined with the "self-inflicted damage" claims.

Secondly, while not relevant, is it not equally the burden of the defendant, to fight their case, and prove that there statements where in fact objectively true - and would be proper and decent conduct to do when making such claims about a fellow player

Finally, blatant and cowardly defamation, be it libel or slander cannot be misrepresented as political communication, and allowed to shield itself as such.

Click to expand...

Maxib02 said:

Case Filing

MOTION

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


Your honour,

I request the court compel witness jsrkiwi, who was ingame at the time of the comments, to confirm the validity of their reaction to the quote, to confirm the reliability of that reaction, and by asking them if the damage of their perception was from the initial statement, as well as to make them avaliable for any other relevant questions the honourable judge may have

And secondly, if necessary witness NotCom_Was_taken to confirm the validity of their statement

Click to expand...

Novakerbal said:

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - Breach of Procedure

Your Honor,

It seems that the Plaintiff is jumping the gun here, this trial has not even moved into discovery and yet the Plaintiff is already attempting to force testimony from a witness. Both parties should adhere to the nominal trial process, we will have our chance to ask the witnesses to confirm the validity of a quote during Witness Testimony, however it is improper to force ahead of time.

Click to expand...

Novakerbal said:

Objection

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION - Breach of Procedure

Your Honor,

Let us address each of these objections in order

Speculation: "Arises when a witness testifies about something they have not directly observed. Witnesses should only provide testimony about their own direct experiences and thoughts."

Amicus Curiae briefs are not witness testimony, therefore it cannot be objected to under speculation.

Narrative: "When a witness provides a lengthy or detailed story in response to a question that does not require one."

Again, Amicus Curiae briefs are not witness testimony, and further the Defendant fails to see any lengthy or detailed story. This objection should not apply.

Inflammatory: "When a question is intended to provoke prejudice or emotional response rather than seek factual information"

The Amicus Curiae brief contains no questions. Therefore this objection cannot apply.

Relevance: "Occurs when evidence presented is not relevant to the case, or a witness is asked an irrelevant question"

While an Amicus Curiae brief should not be classified as evidence, the Defendant fails to see how this is not relevant to the case. It addresses real arguments that must be considered. Of course, Superwoops is neither a witness nor was asking a question of a witness. This objection is also unapplicable.

We will simply leave the Court with a quote from an earlier filing

"An objection should not be filed simply because the Plaintiffs feelings were hurt, if an objection does not list an actual procedural objection type, then it is simply hot air."

The objections types listed are not applicable, and this objection should be struck as well.

Click to expand...

Maxib02 said:

Case Filing

Objection​

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION- Perjury, Narrative, Hearsay, Improper Evidence

I ask the judge, the honourable judge, as a beacon of impartiality to rule on only the facts, and evidence relevant to the case.

A large portion of this 'improper evidence' is not evidence, but hearsay, and D-001 to D-004 is exclusively hearsay and i request NovaKerbal's dishonest attempt to produce an irrelevant narrative to distract from the facts of the case be dealt with.
3. Rigging is defined by its illegality, as such any actions presented in the improper evidence provided can not count as 'Rigging'. As such any actions would be required to be both or either criminal or rule-violating to be considered as rigging.
3b. The defendant admits here that they didnt classify what was alledgly 'rigged' Their slanderous statement never claimed that it was in fact a inter party 'vote' that the plaintiff 'rigged', and secondly it was not a vote which was held within the party, it was a poll, and the poll couldn't have been rigged by the plaintiff - as it didnt conclude - and the poll was intefered with, by Anthony_Org
3c. As rigging is defined as illegal inteference, any alledged actions by the plaintiff would have to be both proved as illegal inteference in the process of an election. Illegal is defined by criminal nature, and as such i ask the honourable judge to reflect objectively on that, and that alone
5. DENY: /OBJECTION Perjury, This is serious and blatant perjury. Anthony_Org made the allegations privately, within a private chat within the TFC server, nothing in the apparent evidence (See D-001) shows that these allegations where made publicly. So claiming that D-001, D-002, and D-003 all showcase these allegations being made public prior to the alleged defamatory statements, is both perjury in that sense, and perjury in that they alledged rather then claimed that Maxib02 had rigged a vote, in regards to D-002 and D-003.
6. DENY: /OBJECTION Perjury, subjective opinions are not facts. And to claim any and all reputational damage was exclusively self-inflicted is a blatant lie, as evidence clearly proves that multiple people would've seen the initial message, as well as one of the witnesses that i consulted with.

There was nothing improper about my actions, or my evidence, and this is a shameless attempt to muddle the facts, and disturb what should be an Objective decision.

Additionally, i struggle to see the validity of some of this 'evidence', or what it is meant to show - it merely assists in the spinning of a narrative, detracting from the original facts regarding the case, and what the case is about. It strikes me a shameless attempt to sidetrack, and disrupt the case.

Furthermore, D-001 was made privately, or without Maxib02's knowledge - he was not informed about the statement, from a vile player who he has long since blocked
D-002 and D-003 mentioned 'allegations' rather then making claims o
D-004 was made internally, and was not saw by Maxib02 as he didnt have access to that server - so they do not show what the defendant claims. and are fundamentally dishonest.

II. DEFENCES
1. The Statements are not False: How can the Plaintiff have to sued Anthony_Org or Rageman for publishing the original statements, when he either wasn't aware of them or able to see the statements in regards to Anthony_Org (long time blocked). and how could the Plaintiff have sued Rageman as they didn't pass judgement on the valididty of the statements in there claim, or making any claims that would be appropriate to pursue as defamation.

Click to expand...

Maxib02 said:

Case Filing

Motion​

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

Your Honour,

The Defendant moves this Court to compel the Anthony_Org to produce testiomy

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


Motion to compel Anthony_ORG to both tell the truth regarding allegations, and provide the relevant timestamps

The Plaintiff specifically alleged in D-001 of the that "Maxib02 was sacked and removed from TFC." Such claim is both dishonest, and untrue, as such the witness has provided false information to the court.

Compell Anthony_Org showing to provide evidence regarding, & testify that i was removed from TFC before i resigned (& possibly that i was 'sacked' before my resignation of membership)

Secondly, Compell the unscrupulous Anthony_Org to testify on whether the 'VONC' the poll (not vote) in question was allowed to run to its full duration, or if its validity with invalidated as it was closed, and Maxib02 was removed from caucus leadership whilst it was still running, with voters yet to vote, as such its outcome was moot, pre-determined and irrelevant. The VONC did not remove Maxib02 from the party, as it was cancelled.

Click to expand...

Maxib02 said:

Case Filing

Motion​

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

D-001
D-002
D-003
D-004
D-005
D-006
D-007

All relevant arguments have been made in the previous motions, regarding the validity, relevance, and other facts concerning this 'evidence'. I look forward to the judges decision.

Click to expand...

TheSnowGuardian said:

Your Honour,

May I file an amicus brief on the matter of the plaintiff representing themself and why the court should advise or require their legal representation?

Click to expand...

Maxib02 said:

Case Filing

Motion​

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

D-001
D-002
D-003
D-004
D-005
D-006
D-007

All relevant arguments have been made in the previous motions, regarding the validity, relevance, and other facts concerning this 'evidence'. I look forward to the judges decision.

Click to expand...

​

​

Maxib02 said:

Case Filing

Objection​

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OBJECTION- Perjury, Narrative, Hearsay, Improper Evidence

I ask the judge, the honourable judge, as a beacon of impartiality to rule on only the facts, and evidence relevant to the case.

A large portion of this 'improper evidence' is not evidence, but hearsay, and D-001 to D-004 is exclusively hearsay and i request NovaKerbal's dishonest attempt to produce an irrelevant narrative to distract from the facts of the case be dealt with.
3. Rigging is defined by its illegality, as such any actions presented in the improper evidence provided can not count as 'Rigging'. As such any actions would be required to be both or either criminal or rule-violating to be considered as rigging.
3b. The defendant admits here that they didnt classify what was alledgly 'rigged' Their slanderous statement never claimed that it was in fact a inter party 'vote' that the plaintiff 'rigged', and secondly it was not a vote which was held within the party, it was a poll, and the poll couldn't have been rigged by the plaintiff - as it didnt conclude - and the poll was intefered with, by Anthony_Org
3c. As rigging is defined as illegal inteference, any alledged actions by the plaintiff would have to be both proved as illegal inteference in the process of an election. Illegal is defined by criminal nature, and as such i ask the honourable judge to reflect objectively on that, and that alone
5. DENY: /OBJECTION Perjury, This is serious and blatant perjury. Anthony_Org made the allegations privately, within a private chat within the TFC server, nothing in the apparent evidence (See D-001) shows that these allegations where made publicly. So claiming that D-001, D-002, and D-003 all showcase these allegations being made public prior to the alleged defamatory statements, is both perjury in that sense, and perjury in that they alledged rather then claimed that Maxib02 had rigged a vote, in regards to D-002 and D-003.
6. DENY: /OBJECTION Perjury, subjective opinions are not facts. And to claim any and all reputational damage was exclusively self-inflicted is a blatant lie, as evidence clearly proves that multiple people would've seen the initial message, as well as one of the witnesses that i consulted with.

There was nothing improper about my actions, or my evidence, and this is a shameless attempt to muddle the facts, and disturb what should be an Objective decision.

Additionally, i struggle to see the validity of some of this 'evidence', or what it is meant to show - it merely assists in the spinning of a narrative, detracting from the original facts regarding the case, and what the case is about. It strikes me a shameless attempt to sidetrack, and disrupt the case.

Furthermore, D-001 was made privately, or without Maxib02's knowledge - he was not informed about the statement, from a vile player who he has long since blocked
D-002 and D-003 mentioned 'allegations' rather then making claims o
D-004 was made internally, and was not saw by Maxib02 as he didnt have access to that server - so they do not show what the defendant claims. and are fundamentally dishonest.

II. DEFENCES
1. The Statements are not False: How can the Plaintiff have to sued Anthony_Org or Rageman for publishing the original statements, when he either wasn't aware of them or able to see the statements in regards to Anthony_Org (long time blocked). and how could the Plaintiff have sued Rageman as they didn't pass judgement on the valididty of the statements in there claim, or making any claims that would be appropriate to pursue as defamation.

Click to expand...

Case Filing​

Maxib02 said:

Case Filing

Your honour,
i struggle to find the objective sense in some of your decisions,

How can i prove my case if you do nothing but throw out my evidence, and strike down every legtimate attempt I engage in to make a case. How can the facts decide the case if you and the defendant seem to be as opposed as one can be to them

HOW CAN THE PLAINTIFF PROVE THERE CASE IF YOU DO NOTHING BUT STRIKE OUT AT THEM AT EVERY POSSIBLE OPPORTUNITY TO RAISE A LEGITIMATE CASE.

You will not strike evidence at this time, unless it is my evidence. Futhermore it is unconciosable that you will allow completely disgraceful attempts from the defendant to waste your, and my time to stand, without even evaluating it. I can see no reason why you 'will not strike evidence at this', or atleast consider doing so.

This court has been defaced, and it is undoubtly ruled by the defendants perjury and hearsay.

Click to expand...

Maxib02 said:

​

Case Filing

​

Case Filing​

​

Click to expand...

Maxib02 said:

Case Filing

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

D-001
D-002
D-003
D-004
D-005
D-006
D-007

All relevant arguments have been made in the previous motions, regarding the validity, relevance, and other facts concerning this 'evidence'. To consider this evidence, rather then hearsay, narrative and the manipulation of information is a travesty, and a continual defacement of this court.

Click to expand...

Maxib02 said:

Case Filing

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

If this case is to be decided by facts, it must be reconsidered. It is imperitive for the credibility of this court, and the facts themselve. I cannot see how any objective decision could be reached with such disregard to this objection.

Click to expand...

A request to reconsider a previous ruling based on a point of law or new evidence. Only one motion to reconsider can be made per decision, with all arguments included in a single submission.

Click to expand...

dearev said:

striken, this is not a valid objection/motion.


striken, this is not a valid objection/motion.


The court has already ruled on this.


a motion to reconsider is

this motion to reconsider lacks new evidence or a point of law. thus its denied.

Click to expand...

dearev said:

striken, this is not a valid objection/motion.


striken, this is not a valid objection/motion.


The court has already ruled on this.


a motion to reconsider is

this motion to reconsider lacks new evidence or a point of law. thus its denied.

Click to expand...

​

Case Filing

Motion​

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

If this case is to be decided by facts, it must be reconsidered. It is imperitive for the credibility of this court, and the facts themselve. I cannot see how any objective decision could be reached with such disregard to this objection.
I ask the judge, the honourable judge, as a beacon of impartiality to rule on only the facts, and evidence relevant to the case.

A large portion of this 'improper evidence' is not evidence, but hearsay, and D-001 to D-004 is exclusively hearsay and i request NovaKerbal's dishonest attempt to produce an irrelevant narrative to distract from the facts of the case be dealt with.
3. Rigging is defined by its illegality, as such any actions presented in the improper evidence provided can not count as 'Rigging'. As such any actions would be required to be both or either criminal or rule-violating to be considered as rigging.
3b. The defendant admits here that they didnt classify what was alledgly 'rigged' Their slanderous statement never claimed that it was in fact a inter party 'vote' that the plaintiff 'rigged', and secondly it was not a vote which was held within the party, it was a poll, and the poll couldn't have been rigged by the plaintiff - as it didnt conclude - and the poll was intefered with, by Anthony_Org
3c. As rigging is defined as illegal inteference, any alledged actions by the plaintiff would have to be both proved as illegal inteference in the process of an election. Illegal is defined by criminal nature, and as such i ask the honourable judge to reflect objectively on that, and that alone
5. DENY: /OBJECTION Perjury, This is serious and blatant perjury. Anthony_Org made the allegations privately, within a private chat within the TFC server, nothing in the apparent evidence (See D-001) shows that these allegations where made publicly. So claiming that D-001, D-002, and D-003 all showcase these allegations being made public prior to the alleged defamatory statements, is both perjury in that sense, and perjury in that they alledged rather then claimed that Maxib02 had rigged a vote, in regards to D-002 and D-003.
6. DENY: /OBJECTION Perjury, subjective opinions are not facts. And to claim any and all reputational damage was exclusively self-inflicted is a blatant lie, as evidence clearly proves that multiple people would've seen the initial message, as well as one of the witnesses that i consulted with.

There was nothing improper about my actions, or my evidence, and this is a shameless attempt to muddle the facts, and disturb what should be an Objective decision.

Additionally, i struggle to see the validity of some of this 'evidence', or what it is meant to show - it merely assists in the spinning of a narrative, detracting from the original facts regarding the case, and what the case is about. It strikes me a shameless attempt to sidetrack, and disrupt the case.

Furthermore, D-001 was made privately, or without Maxib02's knowledge - he was not informed about the statement, from a vile player who he has long since blocked
D-002 and D-003 mentioned 'allegations' rather then making claims o
D-004 was made internally, and was not saw by Maxib02 as he didnt have access to that server - so they do not show what the defendant claims. and are fundamentally dishonest.

II. DEFENCES
1. The Statements are not False: How can the Plaintiff have to sued Anthony_Org or Rageman for publishing the original statements, when he either wasn't aware of them or able to see the statements in regards to Anthony_Org (long time blocked). and how could the Plaintiff have sued Rageman as they didn't pass judgement on the valididty of the statements in there claim, or making any claims that would be appropriate to pursue as defamation.

Maxib02 said:

Case Filing

MOTION

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


Your honour,

I request the court compel witness jsrkiwi, who was ingame at the time of the comments, to confirm the validity of their reaction to the quote, to confirm the reliability of that reaction, and by asking them if the damage of their perception was from the initial statement, as well as to make them avaliable for any other relevant questions the honourable judge may have

And secondly, if necessary witness NotCom_Was_taken to confirm the validity of their statement

Click to expand...

Maxib02 said:

Case Filing

Motion​

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

Your Honour,

The Defendant moves this Court to compel the Anthony_Org to produce testiomy

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


Motion to compel Anthony_ORG to both tell the truth regarding allegations, and provide the relevant timestamps

The Plaintiff specifically alleged in D-001 of the that "Maxib02 was sacked and removed from TFC." Such claim is both dishonest, and untrue, as such the witness has provided false information to the court.

Compell Anthony_Org showing to provide evidence regarding, & testify that i was removed from TFC before i resigned (& possibly that i was 'sacked' before my resignation of membership)

Secondly, Compell the unscrupulous Anthony_Org to testify on whether the 'VONC' the poll (not vote) in question was allowed to run to its full duration, or if its validity with invalidated as it was closed, and Maxib02 was removed from caucus leadership whilst it was still running, with voters yet to vote, as such its outcome was moot, pre-determined and irrelevant. The VONC did not remove Maxib02 from the party, as it was cancelled.

Click to expand...

Maxib02 said:

Your honour,
i struggle to find the objective sense in some of your decisions,

How can i prove my case if you do nothing but throw out my evidence, and strike down every legtimate attempt I engage in to make a case. How can the facts decide the case if you and the defendant seem to be as opposed as one can be to them

HOW CAN THE PLAINTIFF PROVE THERE CASE IF YOU DO NOTHING BUT STRIKE OUT AT THEM AT EVERY POSSIBLE OPPORTUNITY TO RAISE A LEGITIMATE CASE.

You will not strike evidence at this time, unless it is my evidence. Futhermore it is unconciosable that you will allow completely disgraceful attempts from the defendant to waste your, and my time to stand, without even evaluating it. I can see no reason why you 'will not strike evidence at this', or atleast consider doing so.

The legtimacy of this court has continually been defaced, and it is undoubtly ruled by the defendants perjury and hearsay, and the inaction of those in power to properly allow such nonsense to be combatted

Click to expand...

Maxib02 said:

​

Case Filing

Motion​

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

If this case is to be decided by facts, it must be reconsidered. It is imperitive for the credibility of this court, and the facts themselve. I cannot see how any objective decision could be reached with such disregard to this objection.
I ask the judge, the honourable judge, as a beacon of impartiality to rule on only the facts, and evidence relevant to the case.

A large portion of this 'improper evidence' is not evidence, but hearsay, and D-001 to D-004 is exclusively hearsay and i request NovaKerbal's dishonest attempt to produce an irrelevant narrative to distract from the facts of the case be dealt with.
3. Rigging is defined by its illegality, as such any actions presented in the improper evidence provided can not count as 'Rigging'. As such any actions would be required to be both or either criminal or rule-violating to be considered as rigging.
3b. The defendant admits here that they didnt classify what was alledgly 'rigged' Their slanderous statement never claimed that it was in fact a inter party 'vote' that the plaintiff 'rigged', and secondly it was not a vote which was held within the party, it was a poll, and the poll couldn't have been rigged by the plaintiff - as it didnt conclude - and the poll was intefered with, by Anthony_Org
3c. As rigging is defined as illegal inteference, any alledged actions by the plaintiff would have to be both proved as illegal inteference in the process of an election. Illegal is defined by criminal nature, and as such i ask the honourable judge to reflect objectively on that, and that alone
5. DENY: /OBJECTION Perjury, This is serious and blatant perjury. Anthony_Org made the allegations privately, within a private chat within the TFC server, nothing in the apparent evidence (See D-001) shows that these allegations where made publicly. So claiming that D-001, D-002, and D-003 all showcase these allegations being made public prior to the alleged defamatory statements, is both perjury in that sense, and perjury in that they alledged rather then claimed that Maxib02 had rigged a vote, in regards to D-002 and D-003.
6. DENY: /OBJECTION Perjury, subjective opinions are not facts. And to claim any and all reputational damage was exclusively self-inflicted is a blatant lie, as evidence clearly proves that multiple people would've seen the initial message, as well as one of the witnesses that i consulted with.

There was nothing improper about my actions, or my evidence, and this is a shameless attempt to muddle the facts, and disturb what should be an Objective decision.

Additionally, i struggle to see the validity of some of this 'evidence', or what it is meant to show - it merely assists in the spinning of a narrative, detracting from the original facts regarding the case, and what the case is about. It strikes me a shameless attempt to sidetrack, and disrupt the case.

Furthermore, D-001 was made privately, or without Maxib02's knowledge - he was not informed about the statement, from a vile player who he has long since blocked
D-002 and D-003 mentioned 'allegations' rather then making claims o
D-004 was made internally, and was not saw by Maxib02 as he didnt have access to that server - so they do not show what the defendant claims. and are fundamentally dishonest.

II. DEFENCES
1. The Statements are not False: How can the Plaintiff have to sued Anthony_Org or Rageman for publishing the original statements, when he either wasn't aware of them or able to see the statements in regards to Anthony_Org (long time blocked). and how could the Plaintiff have sued Rageman as they didn't pass judgement on the valididty of the statements in there claim, or making any claims that would be appropriate to pursue as defamation.View attachment 74049View attachment 74050

Click to expand...

Superwoops said:

Your honour,
The Office of Public Defence would like to offer legal assistance to the Plaintiff.

Click to expand...

Novakerbal said:

Your Honor,

I am writing to inform you that @AmityBlamity shall be joining this case as Second Chair, and I have given them consent to assist in representing me in this Case.

Click to expand...

dearev said:

If you wish to offer legal assistance please do so in private with the Plaintiff, not in the record

Click to expand...

Superwoops said:

In order for the office to be called, the Presiding Officer must give the order (or the Defendant must request one on the record and have the PO sign off).
We believe the Plaintiff could benefit from being assigned a PD.
However the final say is up to you

Click to expand...

Maxib02 said:

Your Honour,

Furthermore, why do you pick and chose when to strike messages because they 'do not represent a valid discovery motion, objection or evidence submition'. Multiple messages have been sent in this thread, that do not fall into the categories of motion, objection or evidence, yet they have not been struck, nor where they struck with a message of warning accompanying them. It strikes me as unfair when you pick and choose to enforice whichever rule you are enforcing.

Secondly, i object to any such warning the accompanies 'you are warned to follow court procedure'.

Click to expand...

Maxib02 said:

Your Honour, the Plaintiff humbly requests an extension of opening statements by 24 hours.

Click to expand...

Maxib02 said:

Your Honour, due to irl, the Plaintiff very humbly requests a (final) extension for opening statements by 24 hours.

Click to expand...

Case Filing

Opening Statement

​

Maxib02 said:

​

Case Filing

​

Opening Statement​

​

Case Filing

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

Your honour,
in trying times like these, it is imperitive that the facts, and only the facts decide a case. The defendant did slander and defame the good name of the plaintiff. To start, rigging is a word and an act which is defined by its illegality, both on the server, and in general. Rigging is defined by its illegality, as such any actions presented as 'evidence' to prove such claims, would have to prove actions that where both criminal, and potentially in violation of the servers rules, to be considered rigging. There is no evidence of Maxib02's involvement in rigging a vote during his time on the Democracycraft Server, nor has Maxib02 been charged, convicted, or punished by staff forhaving 'rigged a vote', as such the accusation is both dishonest and untrue. Maxib02 strongly rejects any accusation of unlawful interference or manipulation of voting processes. He maintains that no actions were taken in violation of applicable rules, laws, or established procedures, and that any conduct undertaken was lawful and permissible.

The defendant admits that they didnt classify what was alledgly 'rigged', though it would be reasonably understood as accusation as some kind of inteference with the voting system. Their statement never claimed that it was in fact a inter party 'vote' that the plaintiff 'rigged', but even in that case it was not a vote which was held within the party, it was a poll. In addition the poll couldn't have been rigged by the plaintiff, as it didnt naturally conclude, and the poll was significantly and extensively intefered with by Anthony_Org. And, as rigging is defined as illegal inteference, any alledged actions by the plaintiff would have to be proved as illegal inteference in the process of an election, with illegal defined by criminal nature. Rigged is futhermore defined as to 'manage or conduct (something) fraudulently so as to gain an advantage'

A claim that a process was “rigged” carries a specific meaning, that being that the outcome of something was fixed, manipulated, or predetermined. Courts have long recognized that language matters. To say something was rigged must importantly concern a completed act, not a effort, or a hypothetical. For something to be rigged, it has to be rigged — not just the subject of suspicion, accusation, or unsuccessful conduct.

The distinction is crucial, words have meaning - one thing cannot mean another. Liability and judgment must be concerned with what was actually accomplished, not on what may have been attempted. An unfulfilled effort, abandoned plan, or ineffective conduct don't turn a lawful result into a corrupt(ed) one. Legal systems differentiate between a completed act and an incomplete or unrealized one because outcomes, not hypotheticals, and as such outcomes have to define whether a process was actually compromised.

To end this part of my argument, labeling a proceeding as “rigged” requires proof that the result itself was altered or predetermined. Without evidence that the outcome was in fact manipulated, the labeling objectively fails as a matter of both logic and law. A process is not rigged because someone claims it was, it is rigged only if it was actually rigged.

Moving on, slander, or defamation are both criminal offences, and at some point the judge chooses to allow for the summoning of a witness, a player whom saw the messages when they where sent, or any regular citizen, it would be difficult for such a witness to reject that such an accusation, no matter how baseless would negatively impact there perception of the plaintiff.

There is evidence, and there is narrative, and in this instituion, this honourable court of law, to stray from the facts, to stray from the case, and to enterain narrative, the narrative largely irrelevant to the case, which the defendant is trying to spin is both dangerous and dishonest, it denigrates this most hallowed institution.

That is all, for my opening statement. I appreciate the honourable conduct of the judge to grant extensions.

Click to expand...

dearev said:

thank you. the defendant may now present their opening statement.

Click to expand...

Novakerbal said:

What is the deadline for the defendant?

Click to expand...

dearev said:

forgot to add, apologies, 72 hours.

Click to expand...