Lawsuit: Adjourned Boykisse v. Musclebound [2026] DCR 19

[Boykisser]

​

Case Filing

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

Boykisse
Plaintiff

v.

Musclebound
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

On 15/02/2026, the Defendant publicly made repeated statements in chat claiming that I was receiving government payments, bribed, and paid off. These statements were false, damaging to my reputation, and caused other players to question my integrity and trustworthiness.

I. PARTIES
1. Boykisse (Plaintiff)
2. Musclebound (Defendant)

II. FACTS
1. On 15/02/2026, the Defendant, Musclebound, made repeated statements in public chat alleging that I was receiving government payments (UBI), was bribed, and was “paid off,” which were presented as factual claims to other players.
2. These statements were made in the presence of multiple other players in chat, including Superwoops and MrNeighbor, and were repeated despite my clear and public denials of their truth.
3. The Defendant continued to assert that I was receiving more money than other players and suggested that I was corrupt or untrustworthy.
4. These statements were false, and the Defendant had no evidence to support them.
5. As a result of the Defendant’s statements, other players questioned my integrity and trustworthiness within the server community.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Under Part V (Defamation and Reputation) of the *Redmont Civil Code Act*, a person commits defamation when they make a false statement or communication injurious to another’s reputation, the statement is communicated to at least one person other than the plaintiff, and the statement is presented as fact rather than opinion.
2. Under the same Part V of the *Redmont Civil Code Act*, a person commits **slander** when they commit defamation as defined above, and the defamatory statement is made verbally, through Discord messages, or in‑game messages, and harms another person’s reputation, business, profession, or organization.
3. The Defendant’s repeated false statements satisfy the statutory elements of slander under the *Redmont Civil Code Act* because:
a. the statements were published to other players,
b. the statements were false, and
c. the statements were presented as factual accusations of bribery and corruption.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
1. $2,000 in damages for reputational harm caused by the Defendant’s false statements.
2. A public retraction and apology from the Defendant correcting the record in the same medium the statements were made.
3. An **order restraining the Defendant** from repeating or publishing the defamatory allegations in the future.
4. Consequential damages for humiliation and reputational injury as permitted under the Redmont Civil Code Act.
5. Any other relief the Court deems just and appropriate under the circumstances.

Spoiler: P-001

Spoiler: P-002

Spoiler: P-003

Spoiler: P-004

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 15h day of February 2026.

 

[dearev]

Writ of Summons

@Musclebound , is required to appear before the District Court in the case of Boykisse v. Musclebound [2026] DCR 19

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.

 

[Johnes]

Present, Your Honor.

Spoiler: Proof of Representation

 

[dearev]

Present, Your Honor.

Spoiler: Proof of Representation

View attachment 74506

Please present an answer within 48 hours.

 

[ToadKing]

Your Honour,
I wish to provide an amicus brief regarding the applicability of the No More Defamation Act to this case.

 

[dearev]

Your Honour,
I wish to provide an amicus brief regarding the applicability of the No More Defamation Act to this case.

Granted. please do so within 24 hours.

 

[Johnes]

Answer to Complaint

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

Boykisse
Plaintiff

v.

Musclebound
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. AFFIRM that the Defendant, Musclebound, made repeated statements in public chat alleging that I was receiving government payments (UBI), was bribed, and was “paid off,” DENY that they were presented as factual claims.
2. AFFIRM that these statements were made in the presence of multiple other players in chat, including Superwoops and MrNeighbor, and were repeated despite my clear denials.
3. AFFIRM the Defendant continued to assert that I was receiving more money than other players and suggested I was corrupt or untrustworthy, NOTING that they were made in a jovial and light-hearted atmosphere, which the Plaintiff took apart in, and that no reasonable person would construe them as fact. (D-001 to D-004)
4. AFFIRM that these statements were false, and the Defendant had no evidence to support them.
5. DENY that as a result, other players questioned my integrity and trustworthiness within the server community.

II. DEFENCES
1. The Defendant's statements were made in a conversation that was jovial and light-hearted in nature, and that no reasonable person could mistake the statements made therein as facts. The Plaintiff himself engaged in this conversation and made jokes and statements that cannot be taken seriously. (D-001 to D-004)
2. The case Anthony_org v. Culls [2025] DCR 67 confirms the precedent set by the case Vernicia v. RylandW [2025] FCR 5, which defines the standards for defamation (and thus slander) as such:

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

All three criteria must be fulfilled in order for it to be considered defamation. The Plaintiff fails to prove that the statement has caused any reputational harm.
3. It can be seen that the other participants of the conversation (mainly EATB and Superwoops) played along with the joke set by the Defendant and thus it can be deduced that there was no reasonable reputational damage done.

Spoiler: D-001

Spoiler: D-002

Spoiler: D-003

Spoiler: D-004

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 15th day of February 2026

 

[dearev]

Answer to Complaint

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

Boykisse
Plaintiff

v.

Musclebound
Defendant

I. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT
1. AFFIRM that the Defendant, Musclebound, made repeated statements in public chat alleging that I was receiving government payments (UBI), was bribed, and was “paid off,” DENY that they were presented as factual claims.
2. AFFIRM that these statements were made in the presence of multiple other players in chat, including Superwoops and MrNeighbor, and were repeated despite my clear denials.
3. AFFIRM the Defendant continued to assert that I was receiving more money than other players and suggested I was corrupt or untrustworthy, NOTING that they were made in a jovial and light-hearted atmosphere, which the Plaintiff took apart in, and that no reasonable person would construe them as fact. (D-001 to D-004)
4. AFFIRM that these statements were false, and the Defendant had no evidence to support them.
5. DENY that as a result, other players questioned my integrity and trustworthiness within the server community.

II. DEFENCES
1. The Defendant's statements were made in a conversation that was jovial and light-hearted in nature, and that no reasonable person could mistake the statements made therein as facts. The Plaintiff himself engaged in this conversation and made jokes and statements that cannot be taken seriously. (D-001 to D-004)
2. The case Anthony_org v. Culls [2025] DCR 67 confirms the precedent set by the case Vernicia v. RylandW [2025] FCR 5, which defines the standards for defamation (and thus slander) as such:

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

All three criteria must be fulfilled in order for it to be considered defamation. The Plaintiff fails to prove that the statement has caused any reputational harm.
3. It can be seen that the other participants of the conversation (mainly EATB and Superwoops) played along with the joke set by the Defendant and thus it can be deduced that there was no reasonable reputational damage done.

Spoiler: D-001

View attachment 74508

Spoiler: D-002

View attachment 74509

Spoiler: D-003

View attachment 74510

Spoiler: D-004

View attachment 74511

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 15th day of February 2026

Thank you. Discovery shall now begin lasting 5 days
Discovery ends feb. 20th 2026 @ 16:58 EST

 

[ToadKing]

Brief

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
AMICUS BRIEF

Your Honour, I respectfully submit this brief to assist the Court in considering a threshold legal issue that affects the viability of the Plaintiff's claims as currently pleaded. This brief does not advocate for either party but seeks to provide the Court with an analysis of the applicable law governing defamation claims in the Commonwealth as of the filing date of this action.

​

I. THE NO MORE DEFAMATION ACT HAS BEEN REPEALED​

The Plaintiff's Complaint cites the "Defamation Act" and seeks relief under what appears to be the No More Defamation Act for claims of slander. However, the No More Defamation Act was fully repealed by the Redmont Civil Code Amendments Act, which was enacted on 7 February 2026 - eight days before this action was filed.

Section 3(1) of the Redmont Civil Code Amendments Act explicitly provides:

3. Repealed Laws

(1) Act of Congress - No More Defamation Act

While this repeal has not yet been administratively effectuated by the congressional clerks, its legal effect occurred immediately upon enactment. A plaintiff cannot maintain a cause of action under a statute that no longer exists.

​

II. THE CIVIL CODE ACT NOW GOVERNS DEFAMATION CLAIMS​

The Redmont Civil Code Act (RCCA), enacted before this case was filed, establishes the current legal framework for defamation claims in the Commonwealth. Part V of that Act provides three distinct civil violations relating to defamation:

1. Defamation - a general defamation tort requiring:
   • A false statement or communication that injures a third party's reputation;
   • Publication to at least one person other than the plaintiff; and
   • Presentation as fact rather than opinion.
2. Libel - defamation expressed through documents, signs, published media, or physical communication.
3. Slander - defamation made verbally, through Discord messages, or in-game messages.

Each violation is classified as "Intentional". Under Part II, Section 7(2) of the RCCA, an "Intentional Violation" is defined as:

(2) Intentional Violation means a violation where the violator acts with the purpose of causing harm or with substantial certainty that harm will result from their conduct.

Consequently, Section 9(2) requires that:

(2) Intentional Violations require the plaintiff to prove that the defendant acted with the purpose of causing harm or with substantial certainty that harm would result from their conduct.

This represents a material departure from the repealed No More Defamation Act, which did not impose such a specific intent requirement.

​

III. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRIOR PRECEDENT​

The Court may note that the prior precedent cited in previous defamation cases - including the three-part test established in Anthony_org v. Culls [2025] DCR 67 - was developed under the now-repealed No More Defamation Act.

While these cases may retain persuasive value regarding evidentiary standards and the assessment of reputational harm, the Court should consider whether their legal frameworks remain fully applicable given the substantive changes in the statutory language. Notably:

• The Act establishes specific statutory defences not previously codified, including:

This violation shall not occur where:
(d) The statement is substantially true; or
(e) The statement is a genuinely held opinion based on disclosed facts;
(f) The statement was made in the course of legitimate political communication;
(g) The plaintiff consented to the publication.

• The three-part test in [2025] DCR 67 (publication, falsity, reputational harm) may require reconsideration in light of the RCCA's specific elements and the intent requirement discussed above.

​

IV. CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE PRESENT CASE​

Without advocating for either party, the Court may wish to consider the following:

1. The Plaintiff has pleaded claims under a repealed statute. The Court may consider whether the Plaintiff should be afforded an opportunity to amend their Complaint to assert claims under the applicable RCCA, or whether the claims should be dismissed for failure to state a claim under current law.
2. Should the Plaintiff amend to proceed under the RCCA, the Court may consider whether the "Intentional" classification of the slander violation requires the Plaintiff to prove the Defendant's intent to harm or substantial certainty that harm would result, pursuant to Part II, Section 7(2) of the RCCA.

​

V. CONCLUSION​

The No More Defamation Act no longer provides a valid legal basis for the claims asserted in this Complaint. The RCCA, enacted eight days before this action was filed, now governs all civil defamation violations in the Commonwealth. The Court should address this threshold issue before proceeding to the merits of the Plaintiff's claims.

Thank you for your consideration.

 

[dearev]

Brief

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
AMICUS BRIEF

Your Honour, I respectfully submit this brief to assist the Court in considering a threshold legal issue that affects the viability of the Plaintiff's claims as currently pleaded. This brief does not advocate for either party but seeks to provide the Court with an analysis of the applicable law governing defamation claims in the Commonwealth as of the filing date of this action.

​

I. THE NO MORE DEFAMATION ACT HAS BEEN REPEALED​

The Plaintiff's Complaint cites the "Defamation Act" and seeks relief under what appears to be the No More Defamation Act for claims of slander. However, the No More Defamation Act was fully repealed by the Redmont Civil Code Amendments Act, which was enacted on 7 February 2026 - eight days before this action was filed.

Section 3(1) of the Redmont Civil Code Amendments Act explicitly provides:

While this repeal has not yet been administratively effectuated by the congressional clerks, its legal effect occurred immediately upon enactment. A plaintiff cannot maintain a cause of action under a statute that no longer exists.

​

II. THE CIVIL CODE ACT NOW GOVERNS DEFAMATION CLAIMS​

The Redmont Civil Code Act (RCCA), enacted before this case was filed, establishes the current legal framework for defamation claims in the Commonwealth. Part V of that Act provides three distinct civil violations relating to defamation:

1. Defamation - a general defamation tort requiring:
   • A false statement or communication that injures a third party's reputation;
   • Publication to at least one person other than the plaintiff; and
   • Presentation as fact rather than opinion.
2. Libel - defamation expressed through documents, signs, published media, or physical communication.
3. Slander - defamation made verbally, through Discord messages, or in-game messages.

Each violation is classified as "Intentional". Under Part II, Section 7(2) of the RCCA, an "Intentional Violation" is defined as:

Consequently, Section 9(2) requires that:

This represents a material departure from the repealed No More Defamation Act, which did not impose such a specific intent requirement.

​

III. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRIOR PRECEDENT​

The Court may note that the prior precedent cited in previous defamation cases - including the three-part test established in Anthony_org v. Culls [2025] DCR 67 - was developed under the now-repealed No More Defamation Act.

While these cases may retain persuasive value regarding evidentiary standards and the assessment of reputational harm, the Court should consider whether their legal frameworks remain fully applicable given the substantive changes in the statutory language. Notably:

• The Act establishes specific statutory defences not previously codified, including:

• The three-part test in [2025] DCR 67 (publication, falsity, reputational harm) may require reconsideration in light of the RCCA's specific elements and the intent requirement discussed above.

​

IV. CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE PRESENT CASE​

Without advocating for either party, the Court may wish to consider the following:

1. The Plaintiff has pleaded claims under a repealed statute. The Court may consider whether the Plaintiff should be afforded an opportunity to amend their Complaint to assert claims under the applicable RCCA, or whether the claims should be dismissed for failure to state a claim under current law.
2. Should the Plaintiff amend to proceed under the RCCA, the Court may consider whether the "Intentional" classification of the slander violation requires the Plaintiff to prove the Defendant's intent to harm or substantial certainty that harm would result, pursuant to Part II, Section 7(2) of the RCCA.

​

V. CONCLUSION​

The No More Defamation Act no longer provides a valid legal basis for the claims asserted in this Complaint. The RCCA, enacted eight days before this action was filed, now governs all civil defamation violations in the Commonwealth. The Court should address this threshold issue before proceeding to the merits of the Plaintiff's claims.

Thank you for your consideration.

Thank you.

 

[Johnes]

The Defendant is open to closing discovery early.

 

[Boykisser]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

MOTION TO AMEND

Your Honour,

Pursuant to Rule 3.3 (Amendment to Complaint), the Plaintiff respectfully requests leave to amend the original Complaint.

The Plaintiff seeks to amend the Complaint to:
1. Update the legal basis of the defamation claim to reflect the current law under the Redmont Civil Code Act, which now governs defamation, libel, and slander as applicable to this action.
2. Revise the allegations and Claims for Relief to conform with the statutory elements of the Redmont Civil Code Act, including any requirements relating to the presentation of the statement as fact and any intent or recklessness standards that the statute may impose.

 

[dearev]

Motion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT

MOTION TO AMEND

Your Honour,

Pursuant to Rule 3.3 (Amendment to Complaint), the Plaintiff respectfully requests leave to amend the original Complaint.

The Plaintiff seeks to amend the Complaint to:
1. Update the legal basis of the defamation claim to reflect the current law under the Redmont Civil Code Act, which now governs defamation, libel, and slander as applicable to this action.
2. Revise the allegations and Claims for Relief to conform with the statutory elements of the Redmont Civil Code Act, including any requirements relating to the presentation of the statement as fact and any intent or recklessness standards that the statute may impose.

Granted. Please inform the court after the ammendments have been made.

 

[Boykisser]

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Boykisse v. Musclebound [2026] DCR 19

Plaintiff’s Notice of Amended Complaint

Your Honour and all parties,

Pursuant to Rule 3.3 (Amendment to Complaint), I have updated the Complaint to reflect the applicable legal framework under the Redmont Civil Code Act in effect at the time this action was filed, including appropriate statutory definitions and claims for slander.

The Amended Complaint has now been posted in full above. All references to the repealed Defamation Act have been replaced with the statutory basis under the Redmont Civil Code Act, and the Claims for Relief have been revised to align with the current law.

 

[dearev]

The Defendant is open to closing discovery early.

does the plaintiff concur?

 

[Boykisser]

The Plaintiff concurs with the Defendant’s proposal to close discovery early.

 

[dearev]

The Plaintiff concurs with the Defendant’s proposal to close discovery early.

discovery is hereby closed. Plaintiff shall have 72 hours to present an opening statement.

 

[Boykisser]

Opening Statement

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

Your Honour, members of the court,


We are here today because the Defendant, Musclebound, publicly made repeated false statements about me in the DemocracyCraft server that have damaged my reputation. On 15 February 2026, the Defendant told other players that I was receiving government payments, was bribed, and was “paid off” claims that are categorically false. These statements were made in a public chat, witnessed by multiple players including Superwoops and MrNeighbor.

Despite my clear denials and my offer to demonstrate that I receive no such as payments the Defendant persisted in presenting these false claims as fact. The impact was immediate. One player even responded with the extreme statement: “Hang him right now” (P‑004), demonstrating how the allegations encouraged hostility and damaged my standing in the community.

Under the Redmont Civil Code Act, slander occurs when:
1. A false statement is made.
2. It is published to at least one other person.
3. It is presented as fact, not opinion; and
4. The speaker acts with intent or substantial certainty that harm would result.

All of these elements are clearly met in this case:
1. The Defendant’s statements were false.
2. They were made publicly in chat.
3. They were presented as assertions of fact, not jokes or opinions; and
4. The Defendant continued making these claims after my denials, demonstrating reckless disregard for the truth and the likely harm to my reputation.

These statements meet the definition of defamation under the Redmont Civil Code Act because they were false assertions of fact communicated publicly that injured my reputation.

Your Honour, the statements were presented as factual allegations rather than joking or opinion. They were assertive accusations had the effect of causing others to doubt my integrity. Under the applicable law, such conduct constitutes defamation when: when false statements are made publicly and harm a person’s reputation, the speaker is liable.

Your Honour, the Defendant’s statements were false assertions presented as fact in a public setting. They caused hostility toward me and undermined my integrity within the community. Under the Redmont Civil Code Act, such conduct constitutes defamation, and I respectfully request that the Court provide appropriate relief.

 

[dearev]

Opening Statement

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

Your Honour, members of the court,


We are here today because the Defendant, Musclebound, publicly made repeated false statements about me in the DemocracyCraft server that have damaged my reputation. On 15 February 2026, the Defendant told other players that I was receiving government payments, was bribed, and was “paid off” claims that are categorically false. These statements were made in a public chat, witnessed by multiple players including Superwoops and MrNeighbor.

Despite my clear denials and my offer to demonstrate that I receive no such as payments the Defendant persisted in presenting these false claims as fact. The impact was immediate. One player even responded with the extreme statement: “Hang him right now” (P‑004), demonstrating how the allegations encouraged hostility and damaged my standing in the community.

Under the Redmont Civil Code Act, slander occurs when:
1. A false statement is made.
2. It is published to at least one other person.
3. It is presented as fact, not opinion; and
4. The speaker acts with intent or substantial certainty that harm would result.

All of these elements are clearly met in this case:
1. The Defendant’s statements were false.
2. They were made publicly in chat.
3. They were presented as assertions of fact, not jokes or opinions; and
4. The Defendant continued making these claims after my denials, demonstrating reckless disregard for the truth and the likely harm to my reputation.

These statements meet the definition of defamation under the Redmont Civil Code Act because they were false assertions of fact communicated publicly that injured my reputation.

Your Honour, the statements were presented as factual allegations rather than joking or opinion. They were assertive accusations had the effect of causing others to doubt my integrity. Under the applicable law, such conduct constitutes defamation when: when false statements are made publicly and harm a person’s reputation, the speaker is liable.

Your Honour, the Defendant’s statements were false assertions presented as fact in a public setting. They caused hostility toward me and undermined my integrity within the community. Under the Redmont Civil Code Act, such conduct constitutes defamation, and I respectfully request that the Court provide appropriate relief.

Thank you. Defendant may now present theirs within 72 hours.

 

[Johnes]

Opening Statement

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
OPENING STATEMENT

Your Honor,
The opposing counsel is trying to paint a picture, that the Defendant has damaged their reputation through very clear jokes and an innocent jab at the Plaintiff. In the abovementioned conversation, which the Plaintiff links as evidence P-001 through P-004 it can be seen that the Defendant took innocent jabs at the Plaintiff and no person could interpret as factual or in any way true. The Plaintiff himself made the very same jabs at others (D-003) at EATB, stating: "THIS IS OUTRAGOUS" and "EATB IS BEING LOBBYED". This very clearly implies the tone of the conversation was light-hearted and no participant in it could trust the statements made therein.

I. Slander
Part V of the Redmont Civil Code Act defines Slander as the following:

A person commits a violation if the person:
(a) commits defamation as defined in Section 1 of this Part; and
(b) the defamatory statement is made verbally, through Discord messages, or in-game messages; and
(c) the statement defames another person’s reputation, business, profession, or organisation.
This violation shall not occur where:
(d) The defences set out in Section 1 of this Part shall apply

Plaintiff fails to prove that the Defendant has defamed their reputation by any degree nor has the Defendant injured them due to the messages being posted.
Furthermore, Part II of the RCCA states that:

1. Common Law Principles
(1) This Code shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the principles of natural justice and common law unless expressly excluded. Judicial reasoning and precedent may inform interpretation and application of this Code where the law is silent or ambiguous.

And:

3. Codification of Civil Law
(b) Existing common law torts already established shall remain actionable unless expressly abolished by this Code.
(c) Where this Code addresses the same subject matter as a common law tort, the provisions of this Code shall take precedence to the extent of any inconsistency.

ToadKing's amicus brief sheds light on the issue of precedent and the abolition thereof by the RCCA on the issue of defamation and the standard of proof. The Act does not abolish precedent expressly and the aforementioned excerpts state so.

To sum up, the Plaintiff has failed to show that the Defendant's conduct has caused any defamation or harm; nor has he proved that the conduct itself was presented as factual.

II. Factuality
The RCCA requires for defamation (and by extension slander) the following prerequisites:

A person commits a violation if the person:
(a) makes a false statement and/or communication that injures a third party’s reputation;
(b) the statement is made to at least one person other than the plaintiff; and
(c) the statement is presented as fact rather than opinion.

The Defendant clearly engaged in a conversation, where factuality was not expected, nor was present, and all messages in the conversation could not have been taken seriously by any party present. This clearly invalidates the defamation claim, due to the statement not being presented as fact, and thus no reputational damage could've been done.

The aforementioned points clearly demonstrate that slander could not have occured, as the requirement for defamation to occur of the RCCA requires or the statement to be presented as fact. This did not occur, since the conversation where the statements were made, wasn't considered serious and the statements made therein by various parties were not considered factual by anyone.
Furthermore, the Plaintiff fails to present any evidence of reputational harm done due to the messages made by the Defendant. This fails the standard of proof required by precedent, mainly in the case Anthony_org v. Culls [2025] DCR 67, supported by Vernicia v. RylandW [2025] FCR 5, which set out the requirement to proof defamation the existence of reputational damage.

We respectfully request that based on the arguments and precedent stated above that the Court rules in favor of the Defendant.

 

[dearev]

thank you. no witnesses seem to have been listed, due to that fact we shall proceed to closing statements. Plaintiff please provide yours within 72 hours.

 

[Boykisser]

Closing Statement

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT

Your Honor,
Today, the evidence has shown that the Defendant, Musclebound, made repeated false statements about me in public chat that injured my reputation, satisfying the statutory definition of defamation under Part V of the Redmont Civil Code Act. The Act states:

A person commits a violation if the person:

(a) makes a false statement and/or communication that injures a third party’s reputation;
(b) the statement is made to at least one person other than the plaintiff; and
(c) the statement is presented as fact rather than opinion.
Violation Type: Intentional.

Here, the Defendant’s statements accusing me of receiving government payments, being bribed, and being “paid off” were not true, were made publicly to multiple community members (including Superwoops and MrNeighbor), and were asserted as factual claims rather than mere opinion.

Importantly, the evidence shows reputational harm occurred. For example, one player responded with: “Hang him right now” (P‑004), demonstrating that the Defendant’s statements caused hostility, loss of trust, and negative perception of me within the community. This aligns with how past DemocracyCraft courts have treated reputational injury courts require evidence that the plaintiff’s reputation was harmed by the defendant’s conduct as seen in Anthony_org v. Culls [2025] DCR 67 and Vernicia v. RylandW [2025] FCR 5, where harm to reputation was central to the court’s analysis.

While casual conversation and humor may be present in community chat, serious allegations of bribery and corruption are not easily dismissed as jokes especially when community members react as though the statements are factual accusations. The Defendant continued presenting these false claims even after they were directly denied, which supports the conclusion that their conduct was intentional under the statute.Under the Redmont Civil Code Act’s plain language, when one person intentionally makes false statements that injure another’s reputation, the law authorizes this Court to order a public retraction and other appropriate relief.

Your Honor, I respectfully request that the Court find the Defendant liable for intentional defamation and slander under Part V of the Redmont Civil Code Act, and grant appropriate relief, including a public retraction and any other measures deemed appropriate to remedy the injury to my reputation.

Thank you

 

[dearev]

Closing Statement

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT

Your Honor,
Today, the evidence has shown that the Defendant, Musclebound, made repeated false statements about me in public chat that injured my reputation, satisfying the statutory definition of defamation under Part V of the Redmont Civil Code Act. The Act states:

A person commits a violation if the person:


Here, the Defendant’s statements accusing me of receiving government payments, being bribed, and being “paid off” were not true, were made publicly to multiple community members (including Superwoops and MrNeighbor), and were asserted as factual claims rather than mere opinion.

Importantly, the evidence shows reputational harm occurred. For example, one player responded with: “Hang him right now” (P‑004), demonstrating that the Defendant’s statements caused hostility, loss of trust, and negative perception of me within the community. This aligns with how past DemocracyCraft courts have treated reputational injury courts require evidence that the plaintiff’s reputation was harmed by the defendant’s conduct as seen in Anthony_org v. Culls [2025] DCR 67 and Vernicia v. RylandW [2025] FCR 5, where harm to reputation was central to the court’s analysis.

While casual conversation and humor may be present in community chat, serious allegations of bribery and corruption are not easily dismissed as jokes especially when community members react as though the statements are factual accusations. The Defendant continued presenting these false claims even after they were directly denied, which supports the conclusion that their conduct was intentional under the statute.Under the Redmont Civil Code Act’s plain language, when one person intentionally makes false statements that injure another’s reputation, the law authorizes this Court to order a public retraction and other appropriate relief.

Your Honor, I respectfully request that the Court find the Defendant liable for intentional defamation and slander under Part V of the Redmont Civil Code Act, and grant appropriate relief, including a public retraction and any other measures deemed appropriate to remedy the injury to my reputation.

Thank you

thank you, the defense shall have up to 72 hours to present theirs.

 

[Johnes]

Closing Statement

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT

Your Honor,
The evidence, precedent and laws clearly show, that the Defendant committed no wrongdoing and simply took apart in conversation. The Plaintiff claims that the actions done by the Defendant directly caused harm and were defamatory. We have shown that the Defendant's actions do not fulfill the standard of proof given by the RCCA, nor the standard of proof given by Vernicia v. RylandW [2025] FCR 5.

I. Reputational Harm
The Plaintiff claims that he suffered reputational harm from the messages sent by the Defendant. His evidence for the alleged injury is that the others reacted negatively. The Plaintiff himself (D-001, D-003, D-004) has engaged in "joking around" and "jabbing at others' expense" and it is hypocritical of him to think that a response in the same conversation and in the same atmosphere would be defamatory or considered factual by others.

As I have shown in my opening statement, the prerequisites of defamation (thus slander) require for the offending material to be "presented as fact rathen than opinion" and to "(c) the statement defames another person’s reputation, business, profession, or organisation." Both of these prerequisites could not be fulfilled, as the nature of the conversation they took place in by nature did not contain the expectation of seriousness needed to consider any of the messages sent by the Defendant to be statements of fact.

II. Unseriousness of the Conversation
The conversation could not be deemed by anyone as serious. The Plaintiff himself said the following:

EATB: Leave me alone and stop sending money trying to frame me for some stupid joke

Plaintiff:
THIS IS OUTRAGOUS
EATB IS BEING LOBBYED

This is him engaging in the aforementioned light-hearted and joking atmosphere and thus all participants of the conversation knew to not hold any statements made therein as factual.

The reactions of the other participants of the conversation, which the Plaintiff paints as if they reacted to factual statements can be explained as such.

Defendant:
He's one of those paid protestors!

Superwoops:
He is getting bribes from the government

This clearly shows Superwoops, a fellow participant in the conversation, to be playing along and thus it can be deduced that he found the messages sent by the Defendant to not be factual.
The message mentioned by the Plaintiff:

Superwoops:
Jesus
OUTRAGEOUS
Hang him right now

Shows again a joking response to the messages sent by the Defendant and cannot be used to ascertain any reputational damage done.

In summary, the alledged reactions from the other participants in the conversation clearly show them playing along with the joke and not taking any of the statements made seriously. This clearly shows that no reputational damage was done and that the statements made were not taken as fact by the other participants, meaning it does not fulfill the standard of proof for slander.

We respectfully ask the Court to rule in favor of the Defendant based on the arguments and evidence submitted and to award legal fees to the winning side.

 

[dearev]

Closing Statement

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CLOSING STATEMENT

Your Honor,
The evidence, precedent and laws clearly show, that the Defendant committed no wrongdoing and simply took apart in conversation. The Plaintiff claims that the actions done by the Defendant directly caused harm and were defamatory. We have shown that the Defendant's actions do not fulfill the standard of proof given by the RCCA, nor the standard of proof given by Vernicia v. RylandW [2025] FCR 5.

I. Reputational Harm
The Plaintiff claims that he suffered reputational harm from the messages sent by the Defendant. His evidence for the alleged injury is that the others reacted negatively. The Plaintiff himself (D-001, D-003, D-004) has engaged in "joking around" and "jabbing at others' expense" and it is hypocritical of him to think that a response in the same conversation and in the same atmosphere would be defamatory or considered factual by others.

As I have shown in my opening statement, the prerequisites of defamation (thus slander) require for the offending material to be "presented as fact rathen than opinion" and to "(c) the statement defames another person’s reputation, business, profession, or organisation." Both of these prerequisites could not be fulfilled, as the nature of the conversation they took place in by nature did not contain the expectation of seriousness needed to consider any of the messages sent by the Defendant to be statements of fact.

II. Unseriousness of the Conversation
The conversation could not be deemed by anyone as serious. The Plaintiff himself said the following:

This is him engaging in the aforementioned light-hearted and joking atmosphere and thus all participants of the conversation knew to not hold any statements made therein as factual.

The reactions of the other participants of the conversation, which the Plaintiff paints as if they reacted to factual statements can be explained as such.

This clearly shows Superwoops, a fellow participant in the conversation, to be playing along and thus it can be deduced that he found the messages sent by the Defendant to not be factual.
The message mentioned by the Plaintiff:

Shows again a joking response to the messages sent by the Defendant and cannot be used to ascertain any reputational damage done.

In summary, the alledged reactions from the other participants in the conversation clearly show them playing along with the joke and not taking any of the statements made seriously. This clearly shows that no reputational damage was done and that the statements made were not taken as fact by the other participants, meaning it does not fulfill the standard of proof for slander.

We respectfully ask the Court to rule in favor of the Defendant based on the arguments and evidence submitted and to award legal fees to the winning side.

Thank you. Case is in recess pending a verdict

 

[Boykisser]

Objection

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


This evidence is not relevant to the issue at hand because it does not pertain to the facts of the case.


We are not in the discovery phase at this time. It is prejudicial for the defendant to make additional submissions outside those permitted under Rule 4.6, which states: “At any point during discovery, either party is allowed to make a material submission of discovery and enter it into the case.” (emphasis added).


By including quotations and additional materials within the defendant closing statement, the defendant has attempted to introduce material that was not submitted during the discovery phase.


I am in the process of formulating an Answer to the Complaint and a Motion to Dismiss. Therefore, I respectfully request that the Court strike this submission and bar further submissions by the Plaintiff until discovery begins.

 

[Johnes]

Objection

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


This evidence is not relevant to the issue at hand because it does not pertain to the facts of the case.


We are not in the discovery phase at this time. It is prejudicial for the defendant to make additional submissions outside those permitted under Rule 4.6, which states: “At any point during discovery, either party is allowed to make a material submission of discovery and enter it into the case.” (emphasis added).


By including quotations and additional materials within the defendant closing statement, the defendant has attempted to introduce material that was not submitted during the discovery phase.


I am in the process of formulating an Answer to the Complaint and a Motion to Dismiss. Therefore, I respectfully request that the Court strike this submission and bar further submissions by the Plaintiff until discovery begins.

Response

I would like to ask opposing counsel, which is the offending material? The quotations made by me are made from the available material submitted to the Court by the Plaintiff and Defense.

 

[dearev]

Objection

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


This evidence is not relevant to the issue at hand because it does not pertain to the facts of the case.


We are not in the discovery phase at this time. It is prejudicial for the defendant to make additional submissions outside those permitted under Rule 4.6, which states: “At any point during discovery, either party is allowed to make a material submission of discovery and enter it into the case.” (emphasis added).


By including quotations and additional materials within the defendant closing statement, the defendant has attempted to introduce material that was not submitted during the discovery phase.


I am in the process of formulating an Answer to the Complaint and a Motion to Dismiss. Therefore, I respectfully request that the Court strike this submission and bar further submissions by the Plaintiff until discovery begins.

Overruled. The court is confused by this submission
it is not clear what the plaintiff is asking for it to be striken and the plaintiff phrases that

I am in the process of formulating an Answer to the Complaint and a Motion to Dismiss. Therefore, I respectfully request that the Court strike this submission and bar further submissions by the Plaintiff until discovery begins.

discovery has already ended for the record.

Case is in recess pending a verdict.

 

[dearev]

Verdict

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Boykisse v. Musclebound [2026] DCR 19

VERDICT

I. Plaintiff’s Position
The plaintiff accuses the defendant of defamation for making false statements in public

II. Defendant’s Position
The statements made by the defendant were a clear joke

III. The court’s opinion
we shall first see the new legislation, the RCCA.

the RCCA says that for someone to commit defamation:

A person commits a violation if the person:
(a) makes a false statement and/or communication that injures a third party’s reputation;
(b) the statement is made to at least one person other than the plaintiff; and
(c) the statement is presented as fact rather than opinion.

and further as mentioned in the filled amicus brief defamation may not occur when the following happen

This violation shall not occur where:
(d) The statement is substantially true; or
(e) The statement is a genuinely held opinion based on disclosed facts;
(f) The statement was made in the course of legitimate political communication;
(g) The plaintiff consented to the publication.

Now with that in mind we consider that [2025] DCR 67 uses the statute now repealed as its main basis for its judgement and the previous 3 part test created in [2025] FCR 5, accordingly the court shall use this 6 part test for the purposes of this case;

1. The statement has to be published (communicated to at least one other person other than the plaintiff).
2. The statement has to be false.
3. The statement has to cause reputational harm.
4. The statement has to be presented as fact (not opinion or as a joke).
5. The defendant has to have acted intentionally (with purpose to cause harm or substantial certainty harm would result).
6. The statement does not fall under the exceptions made by the RCCA.

parts 1,2 and 3 remain from the original 3 part test made in [2025] FCR 5 and later subjected to multiple legal tests, one of which being [2025] DCR 67, this test still being upheld under the RCCA whereas part 1 in which the statement must be published is set in section b of the defamation definition in the RCCA, part 2 where it must be false comes from section a of the defamation definition of the RCCA and part 3 in which it must cause reputational harm derives from section a of the RCCA defamation definition;

whereas the new parts of the test
part 4 comes from the RCCA definition of defamation explicitly section c, part 5 comes from the fact that under the RCCA, defamation is an intentional type violation, where intentional type violation is defined as:

(2) Intentional Violations require the plaintiff to prove that the defendant acted with the purpose of causing harm or with substantial certainty that harm would result from their conduct.

and finally part 6 comes from the RCCA’s exemptions from defamation where it says

This violation shall not occur where:
(d) The statement is substantially true; or
(e) The statement is a genuinely held opinion based on disclosed facts;
(f) The statement was made in the course of legitimate political communication;
(g) The plaintiff consented to the publication.

Now with that we shall apply this new 6 part test to the case at hand.

1. The statement has to be published (communicated to at least one other person other than the plaintiff).
This passes this test, the alleged statement was published.

2. The statement has to be false.
This passes this test, the statement was false, however it was made in a joking manner.

3. The statement has to cause reputational harm.
This does not pass the test, the plaintiff has not proved reputational harm.

4. The statement has to be presented as fact (not opinion or as a joke).
This does not pass the test, the statement was made as a joke as proven per evidence presented.

5. The defendant has to have acted intentionally (with purpose to cause harm or substantial certainty harm would result).
No evidence of bad intention has been provided, therefore it does not pass the test.

6. The statement does not fall under the exceptions made by the RCCA.
The exceptions of the RCCA do not apply to this case

Because multiple essential elements have not been established, the claim for defamation fails.

IV. Decision
The court finds in favour of the Defendant.


SO ORDERED,