Lawsuit: Pending Dearev (Represented by Lex Titanum) v. YeetGlazer [2025] DCR 61

[dodrio3]

Case Filing

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


Dearev (Represented by Lex Titanum)
Plaintiff

v.

YeetGlazer
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:

WRITTEN STATEMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF

On August 3rd, 2025, in case [2025] FCR 76, the Defendant released a statement that senselessly accused the Plaintiff of corruption. In this statement, the Defendant claimed that “The Plaintiff posits that premature eviction also amounts to Corruption as defined by Redmont’s criminal code. A government official commits corruption, under Criminal Code Act Part II, Section 1(a), by “us[ing] a government position to gain an unfair advantage for oneself or another, inconsistent with official duty.” Here, the DCT employee (Dearev) leveraged his official authority to evict the Plaintiff’s land earlier than permitted, which conferred an unfair advantage.”(P-001)

This statement constitutes Libel, defined as “A method of defamation expressed by documents, signs, published media, or any communication embodied in physical form that is injurious to a person's reputation, exposes a person to public hatred, contempt or ridicule, or injures a person in his/her business, profession or organization.” The accusation was based solely on a singular screenshot of Dearev asking to purchase the plot. In reality, Dearev’s only involvement was assigning the plots to the government, and he had no part in reporting the plot or initiating its auction.

Additionally, the Defendant committed Slander, defined as “A false statement, usually made through either discord or in-game messages, which defames another person’s reputation, business, profession, or organization.” In this case, the Defendant repeatedly referred to the Plaintiff as a “Thug” causing further reputational harm. (P-002)

The need to present evidence where the Plaintiff stated “I leave my approval to consider the GER a paramilitary extremist group instead of a party” demonstrates that this is a public political attack on the Plaintiff using false information. This conduct constitutes an intentional and malicious attempt to damage the Plaintiff’s reputation and standing. (P-003)

I. PARTIES
1. Dearev - Plaintiff
2. YeetGlazer - Defendant
3. Lawnsloper - DCT Employee/Witness

II. FACTS
1. On 3rd of August 2025 YeetGlazer Filed [2025] FCR 76
2. Within [2025] FCR 76 YeetGlazer’s Attorney Stated “The Plaintiff posits that premature eviction also amounts to Corruption as defined by Redmont’s criminal code. A government official commits corruption, under Criminal Code Act Part II, Section 1(a), by “us[ing] a government position to gain an unfair advantage for oneself or another, inconsistent with official duty.” Here, the DCT employee (Dearev) leveraged his official authority to evict the Plaintiff’s land earlier than permitted, which conferred an unfair advantage.”
3. From the 3rd of August to the 8th of August YeetGlazer Continuously referred to Dearev as a “Thug”

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. In the No More Defamation Act it states that “(1) Damages caused by defamation, if proven in a civil court of law, shall be paid out as determined by the presiding Judicial Officer.

(a) In addition, the courts may require the tortfeasor of defamation to issue an apology, which may be made public and/or to the parties with which the defamatory communication was made.”

And “(a) Defamation is a false statement and/or communication that injures a third party's reputation. The tort of defamation includes both libel and slander.”

2. The Defendant Suffered emotional damages due to the stress from the statements as he had just been appointed Acting Attorney General.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
1. $10,000 In Punitive Damages for the Libel Statements Against Dearev
2. $10,000 In Punitive Damages for the Slanderous Statements Against Dearev
3. $15,000 In Emotional Damages for the Loss of Enjoyment in Redmont
4. $15,000 In Consequential Damages for the Humiliation of the Plaintiff
5. 30% of the case’s value in legal fees paid to Lex Titanum.
(Attach evidence and a list of witnesses at the bottom if applicable)

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 12 day of August 2025

P-001

P-002

P-003

 

[dodrio3]

Proof of Representation

 

[AmityBlamity]

Writ of Summons

@YeetGlazer is required to appear before the District Court of Redmont in the case of Dearev (Represented by Lex Titanum) v. YeetGlazer.

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.

 

[YeetGlazer]

Present.

 

[AmityBlamity]

You have 48 hours to provide your Answer to Complaint.

 

[Franciscus]

Your Honor,

Motion

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

Your Honor:

The first Claim for Relief alleges Defamation under Section 5(1) et seq. of the No More Defamation Act. The definition of the tort defamation given in Section 4(1)(a) of the act as:

(a) a false statement and/or communication that injures a third party's reputation.

The law provides two ways in which Defamation can arise - Libel and Slander. But both maintain the same basic requirements:

1. A statement or communication must be false
2. That statement or communication must actually damage the reputation of a third party.

Three numbered factual allegations are made in the Facts section of the Complaint. The first allegation is that the Defendant filed a particular case. The second allegation is merely that the Attorney for YeetGlazer made a particular statement in that case. The third allegation is that the Defendant referred to the Plaintiff as a "thug" on repeated occasion.

Under Rule 5.5 (Lack of Claim), "A Motion to Dismiss may be filed for failure to state a claim for relief, or against an claim for relief that has insufficient evidence to support the civil or criminal charge." As follows from the below, the Plaintiff believes that each claim and (consequently) this case should be dismissed for Lack of Claim.

1. The Complaint's Facts do not Allege that any Statement was False​

In order for the First Claim for Relief (Defamation) to be a plausible claim, the Plaintiff would need to (among other things) actually show that a particular statement or communication was false as a matter of fact. The Complaint's facts do not do that: the facts plainly do not allege any falsity. Absent a fact alleging falsity of a claim, the claim cannot stand even if all of the Plaintiff's facts were accepted as true.

As the first Claim is not concluded even if all the Plaintiff's facts were accepted as true and all evidence present accepted, the first Claim should be dismissed.

2. Emotional Damages are Not a Valid Claim for Relief​

The Second Claim for Relief states that "emotional damages" occurred. The Congress intentionally removed Emotional Damages as a plausible Claim for Relief in passing the Legal Damages Balance Act, which removed Emotional Damages (i.e. when "person suffers psychological harm due to an entity's negligent or intentional actions") from the Legal Damages Act.

As Emotional Damages are no longer recognized in Redmont, the second Claim should be dismissed.

---

On Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPP) and Prejudice​

A Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation occurs when a Plaintiff seeks the result that defendant abandon a criticism succumbs to fear, intimidation, mounting legal costs, or simple exhaustion and abandons the criticism.

The Defense proffers that this case facially contains no valid claims for relief, and for that reason lacks a serious purpose. If your honor believes that this lawsuit serves no serious purpose and may constitute a SLAPP, the Defense would ask that Your Honor’s order of dismissal be with prejudice so as to dissuade such behavior going forward and also that legal fees in the amount of 30% of the value of the case be awarded to the Defense in line with the Legal Damages Act.

Spoiler: Evidence of Consent to Represent

 

[Franciscus]

Your Honor,

The Defense respectfully requests an extension on the filing of the answer to complaint until 24 hours after the above motion is ruled on.

 

[AmityBlamity]

Your Honor,

The Defense respectfully requests an extension on the filing of the answer to complaint until 24 hours after the above motion is ruled on.

Granted. I will be giving the plaintiff the opportunity to respond to the motion in the next 24 hours.

 

[dodrio3]

Granted. I will be giving the plaintiff the opportunity to respond to the motion in the next 24 hours.

The plaitiff request that they be allowed to present additional evidence to aid the response.

 

[dodrio3]

Your Honor,

Motion

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

Your Honor:

The first Claim for Relief alleges Defamation under Section 5(1) et seq. of the No More Defamation Act. The definition of the tort defamation given in Section 4(1)(a) of the act as:



The law provides two ways in which Defamation can arise - Libel and Slander. But both maintain the same basic requirements:

1. A statement or communication must be false
2. That statement or communication must actually damage the reputation of a third party.

Three numbered factual allegations are made in the Facts section of the Complaint. The first allegation is that the Defendant filed a particular case. The second allegation is merely that the Attorney for YeetGlazer made a particular statement in that case. The third allegation is that the Defendant referred to the Plaintiff as a "thug" on repeated occasion.

Under Rule 5.5 (Lack of Claim), "A Motion to Dismiss may be filed for failure to state a claim for relief, or against an claim for relief that has insufficient evidence to support the civil or criminal charge." As follows from the below, the Plaintiff believes that each claim and (consequently) this case should be dismissed for Lack of Claim.

1. The Complaint's Facts do not Allege that any Statement was False​

In order for the First Claim for Relief (Defamation) to be a plausible claim, the Plaintiff would need to (among other things) actually show that a particular statement or communication was false as a matter of fact. The Complaint's facts do not do that: the facts plainly do not allege any falsity. Absent a fact alleging falsity of a claim, the claim cannot stand even if all of the Plaintiff's facts were accepted as true.

As the first Claim is not concluded even if all the Plaintiff's facts were accepted as true and all evidence present accepted, the first Claim should be dismissed.

2. Emotional Damages are Not a Valid Claim for Relief​

The Second Claim for Relief states that "emotional damages" occurred. The Congress intentionally removed Emotional Damages as a plausible Claim for Relief in passing the Legal Damages Balance Act, which removed Emotional Damages (i.e. when "person suffers psychological harm due to an entity's negligent or intentional actions") from the Legal Damages Act.

As Emotional Damages are no longer recognized in Redmont, the second Claim should be dismissed.

---

On Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPP) and Prejudice​

A Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation occurs when a Plaintiff seeks the result that defendant abandon a criticism succumbs to fear, intimidation, mounting legal costs, or simple exhaustion and abandons the criticism.

The Defense proffers that this case facially contains no valid claims for relief, and for that reason lacks a serious purpose. If your honor believes that this lawsuit serves no serious purpose and may constitute a SLAPP, the Defense would ask that Your Honor’s order of dismissal be with prejudice so as to dissuade such behavior going forward and also that legal fees in the amount of 30% of the value of the case be awarded to the Defense in line with the Legal Damages Act.

Spoiler: Evidence of Consent to Represent

View attachment 60475

Response

Your Honour,


The Defence has suggested that the Plaintiff must prove the absence of corruption by producing every Discord message he has ever sent, every voice chat he has ever joined, or even game replay recordings. Such an expectation is wholly unreasonable and disproportionate. The burden should not fall on the Plaintiff to disprove vague accusations unsupported by evidence; rather, it is for the Defence to substantiate their claims.


Furthermore, the Defence has labelled the Plaintiff a “thug,” a term defined as “a violent, aggressive person, especially one who is a criminal.” The Plaintiff has not engaged in any violent conduct for over two months and does not deserve to be subjected to such defamatory branding.


While the Defence has raised arguments, they do not amount to grounds for dismissal. The Plaintiff has demonstrated that there is reasonable doubt as to whether harm has occurred. It is the duty of this Court to adjudicate on that question, rather than dismiss the matter on the basis of a single motion.


Finally, the Defence is mistaken in asserting that the Plaintiff’s claim for damages is invalid. The reference to “emotional damages” in the Complaint was a mislabelling. The Plaintiff’s actual claim is for Consequential Damages, specifically Loss of Enjoyment in Redmont under Section 7(1)(a)(III) of the Legal Damages Act. This clarification does not alter the substance of the claim, which remains valid and properly before the Court.

 

[dodrio3]

The plaitiff request that they be allowed to present additional evidence to aid the response.

If requested the plaintiff will provide this evidence. we just didn't want to miss the deadline

 

[AmityBlamity]

The plaitiff request that they be allowed to present additional evidence to aid the response.

You may do so. My apologies for the delay. I'll rule on the motion after the evidence is posted.

 

[dodrio3]

P-004 =